CRUZ V ATTY. CABRERA AC NO.

5737 OCTOBER 25, 2004

FACTS: The complainant files an administrative charge against the respondent

for misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
complainant, a fourth year law student, appears in court in his own behalf as he
instituted a case against his neighbor who is represented by the respondent as
counsel. During a hearing, the respondent uttered remarks that the complainant
finds arrogant and misconduct in the performance of his duties as a lawyer. The
complaint was referred to the IBP commissioner who recommended suspension
of respondent in the practice of law for 3 months which was annulled by a
resolution of the IBP Board recommending dismissal of the case for lack of merit.

ISSUE: WON the manner of respondent may constitute misconduct.

RULING: The court ruled that although the outburst of the respondent is uncalled
for, it is not to such a magnitude as to warrant his suspension in the practice of
his profession. The court thereby dismissed the case due to lack of merit.

IN RE: LANUEVO 66 SCRA 254 AUGUST 29, 1975

FACTS: This is an administrative proceeding against Victorio Lanueva who was

the Bar Confidant during the 1971 Bar Examination emanating from the
revelation of one Oscar Landicho, a bar examinee of the same bar exam, in his
confidential letter that the result of the bar exam of one of the bar examinee
later identified as Ramon Galang was raised before the result was released to
make him pass the bar. Acting upon said letter, the court called the 5 bar
examiners and the Bar Confident Lanuevo to submit their sworn statements on
the matter. It appears that each of the 5 bar examiners were approached by
Lanuevo with the examination booklet asking them to re-evaluate the grades of
the bar examiner explaining that it is a practice policy in bar exams that he will
review the grades obtained in all subjects by an examinee and when he finds a
candidate to have extraordinary high grades in other subjects and low grade in
one subject he can bring it to the examiner for reconsideration to help the
candidate pass. In good faith of trust and confidence to the authority of
Lanuevo, the examiners re-evaluated the exam of the candidate and
reconsider the grade they give for each subject matter. Further investigation
also revealed that Ramon Galang was charged with crime of slight physical
injuries in the Mla. MTC but did not revealed the information in his application to
take the bar examination.

ISSUE: WON Lanuevo has the authority to ask bar examiners to re-evaluate and
re-correct the examination result of a bar candidate.

RULING: The court ruled that it is evident that Lanuevo has deceptively staged a
plot to convince each examiner individually to re-evaluate the grades of
Galang in order to help him pass the bar without prior authorization of the Court.
His duty as a Bar Confident is limited only as a custodian of the examination
notebooks after they are corrected by the examiners where he is tasked to tally
the general average of the bar candidate. All requests for re-evaluation of
grades from the bar exam shall be made by the candidate themselves. With the
facts fully established that Lanuevo initiated the re-evaluation of the exam
answers of Galang without the authority of the Court, he has breached the trust
and confidence given to him by the court and was disbarred with his name
stricken out from the rolls of attorneys. Galang was likewise disbarred for
fraudulently concealing the criminal charges against him in his application for
the bar exam while under oath constituting perjury. The court believed that the
5 bar examiners acted in good faith and thereby absolved from the case but
reminded to perform their duties with due care.

LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO Y. AREVALO, JR. B.M. NO. 1370 MAY 9, 2005

FACTS: Petitioners files a motion for exemption for paying his IBP dues from 1977-
2005 in the amount of P12,035.00. He contends that after admission to the Bar he
worked at the Phil. Civil Service then migrated to the US until his retirement. His
contention to be exempt is that his employment with the CSC prohibits him to
practice his law profession and he did not practice the same while in the US. The
compulsion that he pays his IBP annual membership is oppressive since he has
an inactive status as a lawyer. His removal from the profession because of non-
payment of the same constitutes to the deprivation of his property rights bereft
of due process of the law.

ISSUE: WON inactive practice of the law profession is an exemption to payment

for IBP annual membership.
RULING: The court held that the imposition of the membership fee is a matter of
regulatory measure by the State, which is a necessary consequence for being a
member of the Philippine Bar. The compulsory requirement to pay the fees
subsists for as long as one remains to be a member regardless whether one is a
practicing lawyer or not. Thus, his petition for exemption from paying his IBP
membership fee dues is denied.

IN RE: ARGOSINO B.M. NO. 712 JULY 13, 1995

FACTS: This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking of a successful
bar applicant. Argosino was previously involved with hazing that caused the
death of Raul Camaligan but was sentenced with homicide through reckless
imprudence after he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced with 2 years
imprisonment where he applied for a probation thereafter which was granted
by the court with a 2 yr 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
note that he spent only 10 months of the probation period before it was
terminated.

ISSUE: WON Argosino may take oath of office.

RULING: The court upheld the principle of maintaining the good morals of all Bar
members, keeping in mind that such is of greater importance so far as the
general public and the proper administration of justice are concerned, than the
possession of legal learning. Hence he was asked by the court to produce
evidence that would certify that he has reformed and have become a
responsible member of the community through sworn statements of individuals
who have a good reputation for truth and who have actually known Mr.
Argosino for a significant period of time to certify he is morally fit to the 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.

TAN VS SABANDAL B.M. NO. 44 FEBRUARY 24, 1992

FACTS: Petitioner files a motion for reconsideration after the court allows
respondent to finally take oath and practice the law profession after
considering his plea for forgiveness and showing willingness to reform along with
testimonials attesting to his good moral character among which is a testimonial
by the IBP Zamboanga. Petitioners contend that such testimonial was only
signed by its President, a counsel for the in-laws of Sabandal, without the
authorization of the IBP Board members. The court allowed the IBP to manifest
testimony to certify as to the good moral character of the respondent and
asked for a comment from the RTC Judge in Zamboanga. Members of the IBP
manifested that they see no impediments as to the moral character of
Sabandal while the RTC Judge informed the court of the civil case against the
respondent concerning the mortgaged land which he secured for a free patent
which turned out to be a swampland and not susceptible for acquisition for a
free patent. The civil case however was settled amicably and the respondent
was not charged of any crime. Subsequently, Tan already forgave the
respondent and withdrew her opposition for the taking of oath of office of the
respondent while the other 2 petitioners leave upon the court to decide.

ISSUE: WON Sabandal should be allowed to take oath of office

RULING: The court ruled that in the development of the case, they find Sabandal
to have concealed the civil case brought against him in the course of his series
of petitions to be allowed to take oath together with the testimonies attesting to
his good moral character without any mention of the pending case against him.
The court finds this as manipulative and gross dishonesty on the part of the
respondent. Although there were testimonials on his good moral characters
those were made without any knowledge of the case against him. The
commission of his offense itself is devoid of honesty. With the practice of law a
matter of privilege and not as a right, they find respondent unfit to be a member
of the law profession therefore it recalled the court resolution of allowing the
respondent to take oath.

IN RE: ATTY. MARCIAL EDILLION A.M. 192 AUGUST 3, 1978

FACTS: The IBP adopted a resolution on Admin case against Atty. Edillion on
matter involving his membership due delinquency, recommending striking his
name from the rolls of attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues.
Atty. Edillion contends that the Rules of Court 139-A and the IBP by-laws are
unconstitutional and thereby questioning the power of the court to compel him
to become an IBP member as well as the provision of the Rules of Court
requiring payment for membership fee of the IBP.

ISSUE: WON the court may compel Atty. Edillion to pay his membership fee to
the IBP.

RULING: Yes. The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which every lawyer
must be a member of as distinguished from bar associations in which
membership is merely optional and voluntary. All lawyers are subject to comply
with the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar including payment a
reasonable annual fees as one of the requirements. The Rules of Court only
compels him to pay his annual dues and it is not in violation of his constitutional
freedom to associate. Furthermore, the Court has jurisdiction over matters of
admission, suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of lawyers and their
regulation as part of its inherent judicial functions and responsibilities thus the
court may compel all members of the Integrated Bar to pay their annual dues.

IN RE: AMPARO 65 SCRA 120 (1974)

FACTS: Amparo is a bar examinee who was caught by the head watcher
reading a piece of paper during the bar examination in Criminal Law. He refuses
to surrender the paper until the head watcher threatened to report him to the
authorities. The paper contains the list of duration of penalties and formula
computing them, which Amparo justifies as just a piece of paper that fell out of
his pocket as he tried to get his handkerchief. A report was filed and an
investigation ensued.

ISSUE: WON Amparo is guilty for his actions.

RULING: Yes. He violated Rule 133, section 10 prohibiting examinees from

bringing papers, books, or notes into the examination room. Amparo committed
an overt act indicative of an attempt to cheat by reading notes. The report of
the bar showed that he did not passed the bar thus the court ordered he will not
be allowed to re-take the bar the following year.
 SANTOS JR. V LLAMAS A.C. NO. 4749

FACTS: This is a complaint against respondent for misrepresentation and non-

payment of IBP membership dues. For years, the respondent does not indicate
proper PTR no. in his practice of the law profession. Now of old age, he
contends that he is engaged in the limited practice of his profession and as a
senior citizen, he is exempt from paying taxes and membership dues with the
IBP.

ISSUE: WON the respondent is exempt from paying his membership dues owing
to limited practice of law and for being a senior citizen.

RULING: No. He is not exempt since Rule 139-A requires all IBP members to pay
the annual fee and failure thereof for 6 months merits suspension of the
membership and for 1 year becomes a ground for removal of the member’s
name from the Rolls of Attorney regardless one is a practicing lawyer or not. His
non-renewal of his PTR is a misrepresentation to the public and the courts that
he has paid his dues violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

AGUIRRE V RANA B.M. NO. 1036 JUNE 10, 2000

FACTS: Respondent is a successful bar passer who was allowed only to take oath
but not to sign the roll of attorneys pending the resolution of the complaint of
the petitioner who charges respondent with unauthorized practice of law, grave
misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation. Apparently, the
respondent appeared as counsel to an election candidate before the
Municipal Board of Election Canvassers (“MBEC”) of Masbate before he took his
oath and signed the rolls of attorneys. In his comment, respondent alleges he
only provide specific assistance and advice not as a lawyer but as a person
who knows the law. He contends that he did not sign the pleadings as a lawyer.
The Office of the Bar Confidant was tasked to investigate and its findings
disclosed that according to the minutes of the meeting of the MBEC, the
respondent actively participated in the proceeding and signed in the pleading
as counsel for the candidate.

ISSUE: WON the respondent is fit for admission to the bar.

RULING: The court held that respondent did engaged in unauthorized practice
of law. It held that all the activities he participated during that time involves the
practice of law despite the fact that he is not yet a member of the Bar. The right
to practice law is not a right but a privilege extended to those morally upright
and with the proper knowledge and skills. It involves strict regulation, one of
which is on the moral character of its members. 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 this Court and his signature in the Roll of
Attorneys. Because the court finds respondent not morally fit to be admitted in
the Bar, notwithstanding the fact that he already took his oath, he was denied
admission to the bar.

RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR, VICENTE CHING

FACTS: Vicente Ching is born from a Filipino mother and a father of Chinese
national on April 11, 1964. He took the bar exam subject upon submission of
proof of his Phil. Citizenship. He passed the bar at the age of 35 years old. There
was a question regarding his citizenship therefore he was not allowed to take
oath. The Solicitor General was asked to give comment on the case at bar.

ISSUE: WON Ching can be admitted to take oath in consideration of the status
of his citizenship.

RULING: The court ruled that Ching, being the "legitimate child of a Chinese
father and a Filipino mother born under the 1935 Constitution was a Chinese
citizen and continued to be so, unless upon reaching the age of majority he
elected Philippine citizenship" 1 in strict compliance with the provisions of
Commonwealth Act No. 625 entitled "An Act Providing for the Manner in which
the Option to Elect Philippine Citizenship shall be Declared by a Person Whose
Mother is a Filipino Citizen." He should elect his Phil. Citizenship within a
reasonable period of time upon reaching the age of majority which is 21 years
old at that time. With almost 14 years that elapsed upon reaching his age of
majority, Ching failed to exercise such right of citizenship election beyond a
reasonable period of time therefore he cannot be admitted in the Phil. Rolls of
atty. for being a Chinese citizen.