In re: Atty.

Marcial Edillon
A.C. No. 1928. August 3, 1978

DOCTRINE
To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is not violative of his
constitutional freedom to associate.

FACTS:
Respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Philippines. He, stubbornly,
refused to pay his membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines alleging that the provision
containing the obligation to pay membership dues constitutes an invasion of his constitutional right in a
sense that he is being compelled, as a precondition to maintaining his status as a lawyer in good
standing, to be a member of the IBP and he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and property
granted to him by the Constitution.

ISSUE: WON the provisions enclosing the membership dues are constitutional.

HELD
Yes. Moreover, it is quite apparent that the fee is indeed imposed as a regulatory measure, designed to
raise funds for carrying out the objectives and purposes of integration. And, if the power to impose the
fee as a regulatory measure is recognized, then a penalty designed to enforce its payment, which
penalty may be avoided altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary.

Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr., Requesting Exemption from Payment of IBP Dues
B.M. No. 1370. May 9, 2005

DOCTRINE
A membership fee in the Bar association is an exaction for regulation.

Facts:
Atty. Arevalo wrote a letter to the SC requesting for exemption from payment of 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 Civil
Service Commission then migrated to the US until his retirement.

Issue
Is petitioner entitled to exemption from payment of his dues.

Held:
1. No. If the judiciary has inherent power to regulate the Bar, it follows that as an incident to regulation,
it may impose a membership fee for that purpose. It would not be possible to put on an integrated Bar
program without means to defray the expenses. The doctrine of implied powers necessarily carries with
it the power to impose such exaction.

The payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the IBP, of which no one is exempt.
This means that the compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as ones membership in
the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of practice, the member is engaged in.
GARCIA vs. BALA
AC NO 5039, November 25,2005

DOCTRINE
Lawyers may be disciplined -- whether in their professional or in their private capacity -- for any conduct
that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor.

Facts:
Spouses Eduardo and Teresita Garcia filed a Letter-Complaint against Atty. Rolando S. Bala alleging that
he failed to render a legal service contracted. Moreover, he refused to return the P9,200 legal fees they
had paid him for the purpose. Finally, he hurled invectives at them when they asked him for a copy of
the petition that he claimed to have filed.

Issue
Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 7. YES.

Ruling:
For using unsavory words against complainants, he should also be sanctioned. Lawyers may be
disciplined -- whether in their professional or in their private capacity -- for any conduct that is wanting
in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor.

He ignored the directive for him to file his comment, just as he had disregarded the IBP hearing
commissioner’s orders for the conduct of hearings, submission of documentary evidence and position
paper. Never did he acknowledge or offer any excuse for his noncompliance.He has no wish to preserve
the dignity and honor expected of lawyers and the legal profession. His demeanor is clearly demeaning.

IN RE: Ramon GALANG

AC NO 1163, August 29,1975

DOCTRINE
It is well-settled in a long string of cases that concealment of an atty in his application to take the Bar of
the fact that he had been charged with, or indicted for,an alleged crime is a ground for revocation of his
license to practice law.

FACTS:
Ramon Galang has a pending criminal case of slight physical injuries in the City Court of Manila. He took
the Bar Exams 7 times and was allowed to take the lawyer’s oath in 1972. BUT, he was allowed to do so
only because he fraudulently concealed and withheld from the Court his pending criminal case in
1962,63,64,66,67,69 and 71. And in 1966,67,69 and 71… he committed perjury when he declared under
oath that he had no pending criminal case in court

ISSUE: WoN Galang should be disbarred?

HELD:
YES. It is well-settled in a long string of cases that concealment of an atty in his application to take the
Bar of the fact that he had been charged with, or indicted for,an alleged crime is a ground for revocation
of his license to practice law.
Galang’s persistent denial of his involvement in any criminal case and his failure to clear his name for 13
years indicate his lack of the requisite attributes of honesty, probity and good demeanor. He is therefore
unworthy to be a lawyer.

Diao V Martinez
AC No 244, March 29,1963

DOCTRINE
Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law; taking the
prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential.

FACTS:
DIAO was admitted to the Bar. 2 years later, Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his
application for the Bar examination, that he had the requisite academic qualifications. Solicitor General
investigated and recommended that Diao's name be erased from the roll of attorneys

ISSUE:
WON DIAO should still continue admission to the Bar, for passing the Bar despite not completing pre-law
requirements

HELD:
NO. Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law; taking the
prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential.

The Explanation of error or confusion is not acceptable. Had his application disclosed his having
obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it would also have disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby
showing that he began his law studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his
Associate in Arts degree.

TOLOSA vs. CARGO

A.M. No. 2385 | March 8, 1989

DOCTRINE
As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen
to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the
community.

Facts:
Complainant Jose Tolosa filed with the Court an Affidavit- Complaint seeking the disbarment of
respondent District Citizens’ Attorney Alfredo Cargo for immorality. Complainant claimed that
respondent had been seeing his (complainant’s) wife Priscilla M. Tolosa in his house and elsewhere.
Complainant further alleged that his wife left his conjugal home and went to live with respondent.

Respondent acknowledged that complainant’s wife had been seeing him but that she had done so in the
course of seeking advice from respondent , much as complainant’s mother-in-law had also frequently
sought the advice of respondent and of his wife and mother as to what to do about the” continuous
quarrels between affiant and his wife and the beatings and physical injuries that the latter sustained
from the former.
Issue: WON the respondent should be suspended

Held: NO.
Ratio:
The record does not contain sufficient evidence to show that respondent had indeed been cohabiting
with complainant’s wife or was otherwise guilty of acts of immorality. For this very reason, we do not
believe that the penalty of suspension from the practice of law may be properly imposed upon
respondent.

At the same time, the Court agrees that respondent should be reprimanded for failure to comply with
the rigorous standards of conduct appropriately required from the members of the Bar and officers of
the court. As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must
also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral
standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only
required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of mistresses but must also so behave
himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral
standards.

LIM SE V. ARGEL
GR L-42800, April 7,1976

DOCTRINE
An unjustified and disrespectful characterization carried with obvious derogatory implications or
innuendos clearly constitutes direct contempt or contempt in facie curiae.

Facts:
In a case, a writ of possession was issued by the Branch Clerk of Court, in which the City Sheriff was
ordered to take possession of the premises occupied by Lim, to eject them and anybody claiming under
them and to deliver the possession to Ocampo and San Pedro.

Petitioners are claiming that the writ was enforced in a most cruel and oppressive manner and that the
Court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of jurisdiction in rendering a summary judgment in
the ejectment case . After a bond was given by petitioners, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
was issued, directing the Sheriff to place petitioners in possession of the premises from which they had
been ousted. Atty. Adaza, a lawyer who never appeared in the lower court and acted independently of
both San Pedro’s and Ocampo’s lawyers, filed a motion to lift the injunction.

Issue: W/N Atty. Adaza should be cited for contempt.

Held:
Yes. Atty. Adaza’s characterization of the mandatory injunction as “unjust and a miscarriage of justice”
and as devoid of factual and legal basis is unfounded and unwarranted. He treated a resolution of the
Court as if it were a pleading of the adversary which he could assail in unrestrained or abrasive
language. His unjustified and disrespectful characterization carries with it obvious derogatory
implications or innuendos which clearly constitute direct contempt or contempt in facie curiae.
Likong V Lim
A.C. No. 3149 August 17, 1994

DOCTRINE
Acts constituting malpractice and grave misconduct cannot be left unpunished for not only do they
erode confidence and trust in the legal profession, they likewise prevent justice from being attained.

Facts:
Cerina filed a complaint for disbarment, alleging that in all the motions because of a complaint of
injunction against her, she was prevented from seeking assistance, advice and signature of any of her
two lawyers as she was advised by Atty. Lim that it was not necessary for her to consult her lawyers
under the pretense that: (a) this could only jeopardize the settlement; (b) she would only be incurring
enormous expense if she consulted a new lawyer; (c) respondent was assisting her anyway; (d) she had
nothing to worry about the documents foisted upon her to sign; (e) complainant need not come to court
afterwards to save her time; and in any event respondent already took care of everything.

ISSUE: WON Atty. Lim is guilty of malpractice and grave misconduct under the Code of Professional
Responsibility

HELD: Yes, Atty. Lim violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics and Rule 1.01, Rule 8.02 and
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professioal Responsibility.

Atty. Lim prevented Cerina from informing her lawyers by giving her the reasons enumerated in the
complaint. There is no showing that Atty. Lim even tried to inform opposing counsel of the compromise
agreement. Neither is there any showing that Atty. Lim informed the trial court of the alleged
abandonment of Cerina by her counsel. Instead, even assuming that she was really abandoned by her
counsel, Atty. Lim saw an opportunity to take advantage of the situation, and the result was the
execution of the compromise agreement which is grossly and patently disadvantageous and prejudicial
to Cerina. Undoubtedly, Atty. Lim's conduct is unbecoming a member of the legal profession. Such acts
constituting malpractice and grave misconduct cannot be left unpunished for not only do they erode
confidence and trust in the legal profession, they likewise prevent justice from being attained.

Dallong-Galicinao v. Castro
A.C. No. 6396, 25 October 2005

DOCTRINE
Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that lawyers conduct themselves with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers.

Facts:
Atty. Castro, a private practitioner, went to the office of Atty. Dallong-Galicinao, the clerk of court of
Bambang (Nueva Vizcaya) RTC, to inquire whether the complete records of a civil case had already been
remanded to the court of origin. Atty. Castro was not the counsel of record of either party in the said
civil case. When denied such request, Atty. Castro hurled invectives at Atty. Dallong-Galicinao which
caused the same to file a complaint-affidavit against the former for unprofessional conduct. Due to Atty.
Castro’s public apology, Atty. Dallong-Galicinao expressed her desire not to appear on the next hearing.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Castro should be held administratively liable.

Decision:
Yes. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility demands that lawyers conduct themselves with
courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty bound to uphold the dignity
of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly and candidly towards each other and otherwise
conduct themselves without reproach at all times.

Not being the counsel of record and there being no authorization from either the parties to represent
them, Atty. Castro has no right to impose his will on the clerk of court.