Benjamin Dacanay, Bar Matter 1678

Facts:
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar and practiced the law until he migrated to Canada
and subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada’s free medical aid program.
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 he returned to the Philippines and now intends to resume his law practice.

Issue:
Whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave
up his Philippine citizenship

Ruling: No because he re-acquired his Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225.

A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country and later re-acquires his Philippine
citizenship under RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003), remains to be
a member of the Philippine Bar. However, the right to resume the practice of law is not automatic.
RA 9225 provides that a person who intends to practice his profession in the Philippines must
apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice. In other words,
he must first secure a) update and full payment of membership dues, b) payment of professional
tax c) completion of 36 hours of MCLE.
Lee vs Tambago, 544 SCRA 393, February 12, 2008
digested by Ms. Charo L. Bayani

Facts: Complainant, Manuel L. Lee, charged respondent, Atty. Regino B. Tambago,

with violation of Notarial Law and the Ethics of the legal profession for notarizing a will that
is alleged to be spurious in nature in containing forged signatures of his father, the
decedent, Vicente Lee Sr. and two other witnesses, which were also questioned for the
unnotated Residence Certificates that are known to be a copy of their respective voter's
affidavit. Respondent, on the other hand, claimed that all allegations are falsely given.
However, he did not deny the contention of non-filing a copy to the Archives Division of
NCAA. In resolution, the court referred the case to the IBP.

Issue: Did Atty. Regino B. Tambago committed a violation in Notarial Law and the
Ethics of Legal Profession for notarizing a spurious last will and testament?

Held: Yes. As per Supreme Court, Atty. Regino B. Tambago is guilty of professional
misconduct as he violated the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Canon 1 and
Rule 1.01nof the Code of Professional Responsibility, Article 806 of the Civil Code and
provision of the Notarial Law. The will was attested by only 2 witnesses and therefore it is
considered void.it is considered void.A notarial will is required by law to be subscribed at
the end thereof by the testator himself. In addition, it should be attested and subscribed by
3 or more credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.The Civil
Code likewise requires that a will must be acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the witnesses. Thus, Atty. Tambago is suspended from the practice of law for
one year , his Notarial commission revoked and he is perpetually disqualified from
reappointments as a Notary Public.
Guevara vs Eala

Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint

for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar
Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose
Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli Eala for
grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated
violation of the lawyers oath.
In pursuing
obsessively his illicit love for Guevarra's wife,
he mocked the institution of marriage,
betrayed his own family, broke up Guevarra’s
marriage, commits adultery with his wife, and
degrades the legal profession.
Guevarra was the fiancee of Irene Moje with
whom Eala had a relationship while married
to Marianne Tantoco with whom the latter
had three children. Moje abandoned the
conjugal house and following one incident,
Moje went to the conjugal house and hauled
off all her personal belongings, pieces of
furniture, and her share of the household
appliances. Guevarra now contends that Eala
and Moje were flaunting their adulterous
relationship as they attended social functions
together.
Eala, on the other hand, claims that their
relationship was low profile and known only
to the immediate members of their respective
families as he was still known to be married
to Tantoco. He specifically denies the
allegations regarding his adulterous
relationship. Eala and Moje then had a child whose
birth certificate the former is indicated as the
father then proving their illicit relationship
aside from Eala’s own admission.
After investigation, IBP-CBD Investigating
Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan found
the charge against respondent sufficiently
p r o v e n . T h e C ommi s s i o n e r t h u s
recommended that Eala be disbarred for
violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility — immoral
conduct — and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the
same Code — conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law. The IBP Board
of Governors, however, moved to dismiss the
case and annulled and set aside the
recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner hence this petition.
As Eala insists that disbarment does not lie
because his relationship with Irene was not,
under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court, it not being under scandalous
circumstances, the Court held that said rule
which provides the grounds for disbarment or
suspension uses the phrase grossly immoral
conduct, not under scandalous circumstances.

The case at bar involves a relationship

between a married lawyer and a married
woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial
whether the affair was carried out discreetly.
As a lawyer, Eala should be aware that a man
and a woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife are presumed, unless
proven otherwise, to have entered into a
lawful contract of marriage. In carrying on an
extra-marital affair with Moje prior to the
judicial declaration that her marriage with
complainant was null and void, and despite
respondent himself being married, he showed
disrespect for an institution held sacred by the
law. And he betrayed his unfitness to be a
lawyer.