IN RE: ARGOSINO women and even fathered to them his children
clearly violates the CPR.
DANTES VS. DANTES
FACTS:
Emma the complainant married with
Crispin the respondent when he was still in his
fourth year in law school. To support their needs she
engaged in buy and sell business and also relied
from his mother’s dole- out. They also lived with her
(his mother). After the birth of their three (3)
children they had frequent quarrels because of his
extra- marital affairs.
Further, she alleged that he abandoned
them and failed to support them. And this drived
her to work abroad. To sustain her allegations she
presented both oral and documentary evidences,
like the birth certificates of his three (3) illegitimate
children.
On his version, they had mutual agreement
to separate for 18 years before after complainant
abandoned him on their Balintawak residence.
Further, he even gave financial support to
complainant.
Respondent avowed that complainant filed
this case in order to force him to remit seventy
percent (70%) of his monthly salary to her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent commits grossly
immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a
lawyer and must be disbarred.
RULING:
Based on the Code of Professional
Responsibility which provides:
“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.”
“Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor should he, whether in public or private life,
behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of
the legal profession.”
The Code of Professional Responsibility
forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Immoral
conduct has been defined as that conduct which is
so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show
indifference to the opinion of good and respectable
members of the community. To be the basis of
disciplinary action, the lawyer’s conduct must not
only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it
must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or
so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree or committed under such scandalous or
revolting circumstances as to shock the common
sense of decency.
The respondent on his acts of abandoning
his family and having illicit affairs to different
Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets
of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but
also throughout their legal career, in order to
maintain their good standing in this exclusive and
honored fraternity. They may be suspended from
the practice of law or disbarred for any misconduct,
even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as
it shows him to be wanting in moral character,
honesty, probity or good demeanor.
For the violations he commits, suspension is
only a minimal penalty and thus it is right to
disbarred.
NOTE:
It should be noted that the requirement of
good moral character has three ostensible purposes,
namely:
(i) to protect the public;
(ii) to protect the public image of lawyers; and
(iii) to protect prospective clients. A writer added a
fourth: to protect errant lawyers from themselves.
B.M. No. 1154
June 8, 2004
In the matter of disqualification of bar examinee
Haron S. Meling in the 2002 BAR Examinations
and for disciplinary actions as member of the
Philippine Shari’a BAR, Atty. Froilan R.
Melendrez, petitioner.
Issue: Whether Meling’s act of concealing his
criminal cases upon filing for a petition to take the
BAR would bar to his good moral character
Facts: This case was filed by the Petitioner, Aty.
Froilan R. Melendrez, against Haron S. Meling, to
disqualify the latter for taking the 2002 BAR
Examination and to impose appropriate
disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine
Shari’a BAR.
Melendrez alleged that Meling failed to
disclose in his petition to take the BAR that he has
three (3) pending criminal cases filed in the RTC of
Cotabato City. These cases were filed during one
instance wherein the defendant herein allegedly
uttered derogatory words against Atty. Melendrez
and his wife while around media practitioners.
Meling’s defense was that, in good faith, he
thought that the cases filed against him by the
herein petitioner were already closed and
terminated, for the reason that they have already
settled the issue as advised by a retired Judge.
Decision: Whether the cases filed against
Meling were closed or still pending, he still has to
disclose it in his petition to take the BAR, for the
court to ascertain his good moral character. His acts
of concealing the cases filed against him constitute
dishonesty. Good moral character includes at least
common honesty. Therefore, it was recommended
that if ever Meling passed the BAR, he will not be
allowed to take the oath and sign the roll of
attorneys. However, Meling failed to pass the 2002
BAR Examination thus, the case was dismissed for
being moot and academic.
IN RE: PETITION TO RE-ACQUIRE THE
PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE
PHILIPPINES OF MUNESES
Facts:
Petition was filed by Epifanio B. Muneses
with the Office of the Bar Confidant praying that he
be granted the privilege to practice law in the
Philippines. Petitioner alleged that he became a
member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in
1966 but lost such privilege when he acquired
citizenship in the United States. On 2006, he re-
acquired his Philippine Citizenship pursuant to
R.A. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Re-
Acquisition Act of 2003 that he intends to retire in
the Philippines and if granted, to resume the
practice of law.
Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner be allowed to
resume his practice of law?
Held:
Yes, the Court reiterates that Filipino
Citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar
and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for practice
of law. Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a
citizen of another country and later re-acquires his
Philippine Citizenship under R.A No. 9225, remains
to be a member of the Philippine Bar. However, as
stated in Dacanay, the right to resume practice of
law is a privilege burdened with conditions.
Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness,
maintenance of the highest degree of morality,
faithful observance of the legal profession,
compliance with MCLE and payment of IBP dues
are the conditions required for membership in good
standing in the bar and for enjoying the privilege to
practice law.
B.M. No. 1678 December 17, 2007
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE
OF LAW,
BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, petitioner.
I. FACTS
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in
March 1960. He practiced law until he migrated to
Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention.
He subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship
which was approved in May 2004.
On 2006, 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 before the Philippine
Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter,
he returned to the Philippines and now intends to
resume his law practice.
II. ISSUE
Whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay may
resume his practice of law after re-acquiring his
Philippine citizenship.
III. RULING
YES. The petition is hereby GRANTED, subject to
compliance with the conditions stated and
submission of proof of such compliance to the Bar
Confidant, after which he may retake his oath as a
member of the Philippine bar.
The Constitution provides that the practice of all
professions in the Philippines shall be limited to
Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by
law. Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for
admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates
membership in the Philippine bar and,
consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice
of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino
citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to
practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law
is a privilege denied to foreigners.
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by
reason of naturalization as a citizen of another
country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to
RA 9225. This is because "all Philippine citizens who
become citizens of another country shall be deemed
not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under
the conditions of [RA 9225]." Therefore, a Filipino
lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is
deemed never to have lost his Philippine
citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA
9225. Although he is also deemed never to have
terminated his membership in the Philippine bar, no
automatic right to resume law practice accrues.
before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship
pursuant to RA 9225 can resume his law practice, he
must first secure from this Court the authority to do
so, conditioned on:
(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual
membership dues in the IBP;
(b) the payment of professional tax;
(c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of
mandatory continuing legal education; this is
especially significant to refresh the
applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine
laws and update him of legal developments and
(d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not
only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as
a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also
renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines.
Compliance with these conditions will restore his
good standing as a member of the Philippine bar.
IN RE: EDILLON (AC 1928 12/19/1980)
FACTS: The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a
duly licensed practicing Attorney in the
Philippines. The IBP Board of Governors lawyers and their regulation as part of its inherent
recommended to the Court the removal of the judicial functions and responsibilities thus the
name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys court may compel all members of the Integrated
for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues Bar to pay their annual dues.
assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court 139-
A and the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article
III, of the IBP By- Laws pertaining to the
organization of IBP, payment of membership fee
and suspension for failure to pay the same.

Edillon contends that the stated provisions

constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights
in the sense that he is being compelled as a pre-
condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in
good standing, to be a member of the IBP and to
pay the corresponding dues, and that as a
consequence of this compelled financial support
of the said organization to which he is admitted
personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of
the rights to liberty and properly guaranteed to
him by the Constitution. Hence, the respondent
concludes the above provisions of the Court Rule
and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal
force and effect.

ISSUE: Whether or not the court may compel

Atty. Edillion to pay his membership fee to the
IBP.

HELD: 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. Bar integration does not compel the
lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to
attend or not the meeting of his Integrated Bar
Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its election as
he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is
subjected is the payment of annual dues. The
Supreme Court in order to further the State’s
legitimate interest in elevating the quality of
professional legal services, may require thet the
cost of the regulatory program – the lawyers.

Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the

police power of the State. The right to practice law
before the courts of this country should be and is
a matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And if
the power to impose the fee as a regulatory
measure is recognize then a penalty designed to
enforce its payment is not void as unreasonable as
arbitrary. Furthermore, the Court has
jurisdiction over matters of admission,
suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of
4