Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lawyer's Oath by Justice Sabio
Lawyer's Oath by Justice Sabio
For practical purposes, the lawyers not only 1. Canon 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the
represent the law; they are the law. With their constitution, obey the laws of the
ubiquitous presence in the social milieu, lawyers land and promote respect for law and
have to be responsible. The problems they create legal processes
in lawyering become public difficulties. To keep
lawyers responsible underlies the worth of the Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in
ethics of lawyering. Indeed, legal ethics is simply unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
the aesthetic term for professional responsibility. conduct.
Undoubtedly, faithful compliance and observance
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or
of the canons of the Code of Professional
abet activities aimed at defiance of the
Responsibility is the main object of the MCLE. And
law or at lessening confidence in the legal
to ensure success thereof, the Supreme Court, in
system
its various pronouncements in administrative
cases filed against lawyers, has emphasized the Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not, for any
lawyer's basic duties and responsibilities. In a corrupt motive or interest, encourage any
more recent ruling, the Supreme Court suit or proceeding or delay any man’s
recapitulated the significance and importance of cause
the oath in this wise:
2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE A.M.
This oath to which all lawyers have subscribed in NO. 02-8-13-SC
solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the
pursuit of justice is not a mere ceremony or RULE I – IMPLEMENTATION
formality for practicing law to be forgotten
afterwards; nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, Section 1. Title. – These Rules shall be known
but a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and as the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
keep inviolable at all times. By swearing the
lawyer's oath, they become guardians of truth Section 2. Purposes. – These Rules shall be
and the rule of law, as well as instruments in the applied and construed to advance the following
fair and impartial dispensation of justice. purposes:
Indeed, if the legal profession is to achieve its
basic ideal to render public service and serve the (a) to promote, serve, and protect public
ends of justice, there is a need to unceasingly interest;
and constantly inculcate professional standards (b) to simplify, clarify, and modernize the
among lawyers. As the Supreme Court in Cordon rules governing notaries public; and
vs. Balicanta (supra), said: If the practice of law is (c) to foster ethical conduct among
to remain an honorable profession and attain its notaries public
basic ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not
only master its tenets and principles, but should Section 3. Interpretation. – Unless the context
also in their lives accord continuing fidelity to of these Rules otherwise indicates, words in the
them. singular include the plural, and words in the
plural include the singular.
SANTUYO V HIDALGO
CORONA; January 17, 2005
NATURE
Administrative case in SC for Serious Misconduct
and Dishonesty
FACTS
- Petitioners
Benjamin Santuyo and Editha Santuyo accused
respondent Atty. Edwin Hidalgo of serious
misconduct and dishonest for breach of his
lawyer‘s oath and notarial law
- In Dec 1991, couple purchased parcel of land
covered by deed of sale
- It was allegedly notarized by Hidalgo and
entered in his notarial register
- Six years later, couple had dispute with Danilo
German over ownership of said land; German
presented an affidavit executed by Hidalgo
denying authenticity of his signature on deed of
sale
Reasoning
Petitioners' Claim Responsibility attached to a notary public is
sensitive, and respondent should have been more
- Hidalgo overlooked the fact that deed of sale discreet and cautious.
contained ALL the legal formalities of a duly
notarized document (including impression of his Disposition
notarial dry seal) Atty. Hidalgo is suspended from his commission
- Santuyos could not have forged the signature, as notary public for two (2) years for negligence
not being learned in technicalities surrounding in the performance of duties as notary public.
notarial act
- They had no access to his notarial seal and SICAT V ARIOLA, JR.
notarial register, and they could not have made PER CURIAM; April 15, 2005
any imprint of his seal or signature. NATURE
Administrative case in the Supreme Court.
Violation of the Code of Professional
Respondents' Comments Responsibility
- He denied having notarized any deed of sale for
disputed property. FACTS
- He once worked as junior lawyer at Carpio - In an affidavit-complaint, complainat Arturo
General and Jacob Law Office; and admitted that Sicat, a Board Member of the Sangguniang
he notarized several documents in that office. Panlalawigan of Rizal, charged respondent Atty.
Gregorio Ariola, the Municipal Administrator of
- As a matter of procedure, senior lawyers
Cainta, Rizal withviolation of the Code of
scrutinized documents, and only with their Professional Responsibility by committing fraud,
approval could notarization be done. deceit and falsehood in his dealings, particularly
- In some occasions, secretaries (by themselves) the notarization of a
would affix dry seal of junior associates on Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly
documents relating to cases handled by the law executed by one Juanito C. Benitez According to
firm. complainant, respondent made it appear that
Benitez executed the said document on January
- He normally required parties to exhibit
4, 2001 when in fact
community tax certificates and to personally the latter had already died on October 25, 2000.
acknowledge documents before him as notary - He alleged that prior to notarization, the
public. Municipality of Cainta had entered into a contract
- He knew Editha, but only met Benjamin in Nov with J.C. Benitez Architect and Technical
1997 (Meeting was arranged by Editha so as to Management, represented by Benitez, for the
personally acknowledge another document) construction of low-cost
houses (project worth=11M). For the services of
- His alleged signature on deed of sale was forged
the consultants, the Municipality of Cainta issued
(strokes of a lady) a check dated January 10, 2001 in the amount of
- At time it was supposedly notarized, he was on 3.7M, payable to J.C. Benitez Architects and
vacation. Technical Management and/or Cesar Goco. The
check was received and cashed by the the latter
ISSUES by virtue of the SPA notarized by Ariola.
Respondents' Comments
1. WON the signature of respondent on the deed
- Respondent explained that as early as May 12,
of sale was forged 2000, Benitez had already signed the SPA. He
2. WON respondent is guilty of negligence claimed that due to inadvertence, it was only on
January 4, 2001 that he was able to notarize it.
HELD Nevertheless, the SPA notarized by him on
1. Yes. January 4, 2001 was not at all necessary because
Benitez had signed a similar SPA in favor of Goco
sometime before his death, on May 12, 2000.
Ratio
Therefore, the SPA was cancelled the same day
The alleged forged signature was different from he notarized it.
Hidalgo‘s signatures in other documents - Moreover, the suit should be dismissed for
submitted during the investigation. forum shopping since similar charges had been
filed with the Civil Service Commission and the
Reasoning Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon which
Santuyos did not state that they personally complaints were dismissed because the assailed
act referred to violation of the IRR of the
appeared before respondent. They were also not
Commission on Audit.
sure if he signed the document; only that his - The Court, in its resolution dated March 12,
signature appeared on it. They had no personal 2003, referred the complaint to the Integrated
knowledge as to who actually affixed the Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and
signature. recommendation. The IBP recommended that
respondent's notarial commission be revoked and
that he be suspended from the practice of law for
2. Yes.
one year.
Ratio ISSUES
He was negligent for having wholly entrusted the
preparation and other mechanics of the WON acts of respondent amounted to a violation
document for notarization to the office of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
secretaries, including safekeeping of dry seal and
HELD
making entries in notarial register.
- A lawyer may be disbarred for grossly immoral
Ratio conduct, which has been defined as the conduct
The act was a serious breach of the sacred which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which
obligation imposed by the Code of Professional shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the
Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, good and respectable members of the
which prohibits engaging in unlawful, dishonest, community. Lawyers, as keepers of the public
immoral or deceitful conduct. faith, are burdened with a higher degree of social
responsibility and thus must handle their affairs
Reasoning with great caution. Atty. Bonifacio was imprudent
The undisputed facts show that Benitez died on in managing her personal affairs. However, the
October 25, 2000. The notarial acknowledgment fact remains that her relationship with Mr. Ui,
of respondent declared that Benitez appeared clothed as it was with what she believed was a
before him and acknowledged that the valid marriage cannot be considered immoral.
instrument was his clear and voluntary Immorality connotes conduct that shows
act.Clearly respondent lied and intentionally indifference to the moral normsof society.
perpetuated an untruthful statement. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary
- Neither will respondent's defense that the SPA in action, the same must be ―grossly immoral, that
question was superfluous and unnecessary, and is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute
prejudiced no one, exonerates him of a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
accountability. His assertion of falsehood in a reprehensible to a high degree.
public document contravened one of the most A member of the bar and an officer of the court is
cherished tenets of the legal profession and not only required to refrain from adulterous
potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of relationships but must also behave himself so as
every notarial act. to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the
belief that he is flouting those moral standards.
Disposition Atty. Bonifacio‘s act of immediately distancing
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Gregorio E. Ariola, herself from Mr. Ui upon discovering his true civil
Jr., is found guilty of gross misconduct and is status belies just that alleged moral indifference
hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law. Let and proves that she fad no intention of flaunting
copies of this Resolution be furnished the Office the law and the high moral standard of the legal
of the Bar Confidant and entered in the records of profession. On the matter of the falsified
respondent, and brought to the immediate certificate of marriage, it is contrary to human
attention of the Ombudsman. experience and highly improbable that she did
not know the year of her marriage or that she
UI V BONIFACIO failed to check that the information in the
DE LEON; June 8, 2000 document which she attached to her Answer were
NATURE correct. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the
Administrative matter in the Supreme Court. integrity of the bar, free from misdeeds and acts
Disbarment. of malpractice.
-
FACTS FIGUEROA V BARRANCO, JR.
Mrs. Ui filed an administrative complaint for ROMERO; July 31, 1997
disbarment against Atty. Bonifacio on the ground
of immorality, for allegedly carrying on an illicit FACTS
relationship with her husband Mr. Ui. In the - In 1971, Patricia Figueroa petitioned that Simeon
proceeding before the IBP Barranco, Jr. be denied admission to the legal
Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Bonifacio profession. Barranco passed the 1970 bar exams
attached a photocopy of a marriage certificate on the fourth attempt.
that said that she and Mr. Ui got married in 1985, - Figueroa avers that she and Barranco had been
but according to the certificate of marriage sweethearts, that a child was born to them out of
obtained from the Hawaii State Department of wedlock and that respondent did not fulfill his
Health, they were married in 1987. She claims repeated promises to marry her.
that she entered the relationship with Mr. Ui in - Figueroa and Barranco were townmates in
good faith and that herconduct cannot be Janiuay, Iloilo and were steadies since 1953.
considered as willful, flagrant, or shameless, nor Figueroa first acceded to sexual congress in 1960.
can it suggest moral indifference.
She fell in love with Mr. Ui whom she believed to A son, Rafael Barranco, was born on Dec 11,
be single, and, that upon her discovery of his true 1964. Barranco promised to marry Figueroa after
civil status, she parted ways with him. he passes the bar exams. Their relationship
continued, with more than 20 or 30 promises of
ISSUE marriage. Barranco gave only P10 for the child on
WON Atty. Bonifacio conducted herself in an Rafael‘s birthdays. In 1971, Figueroa learned
immoral manner for which she deserves to be Barranco married another woman.
barred from the practice of law - From 1972 to 1988, several motions to dismiss
and comments were filed.
HELD - On Sept 29, 1988, the Court resolved to dismiss
- No. The practice of law is a privilege. A bar the complaint for failure of complainant to
candidate does not have the right to enjoy the prosecute the case for an unreasonable period of
practice of the legal profession simply by passing time and to allow Simeon Barranco, Jr. to take the
the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be lawyer‘s oath.
revoked, subject to the mandate of due process, - Nov 17, 1988, the Court, in response to
once a lawyer violates his oath and the dictates Figueroa‘s opposition, resolved to cancel
of legal ethics. One of the conditions prior to the Barranco‘s scheduled oath-taking.
admission to the bar is that an applicant must - June 1, 1993, the Court referred the case to the
possess good moral character. More importantly, IBP. On May 17,
possession of good character must be continuous 1997, IBP recommended the dismissal of the case
as a requirement to the enjoyment of the and that respondent be allowed to take the
privilege of law practice. Otherwise, the loss lawyer‘s oath
thereof is a ground for the revocation of such
privilege. ISSUE
WON the facts constitute gross immorality favor. Respondent avers that as a result of his
warranting the permanent exclusion of Barranco moving for the execution of judgment in his
from the legal profession favorand the eviction of the family of
complainant, the latter filed the present
HELD administrative case
No. To justify suspension or disbarment, the act
complained of must not only be immoral, but - September 11, 1997 – Robert Visbal of the
grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that Provincial Prosecution Office of Tacloban City
is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal submitted a letter to the First Division Clerk of
act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be Court alleging that respondent Martinez also
reprehensible to a high degree. It is a willful, stood charged in another
flagrant, or shameless acts which shows a moral estafa case before the RTC of Tacloban City, as
indifference to theopinion of respectable well as a civil case involving the victims of the
members of the community. Dona Paz tragedy in 1987 for which the RTC of
-Barranco‘s engaging in premarital sexual Basey, Samar rendered a decision against him,
relations with Figueroa and promises to marry his appeal thereto having been dismissed by the
suggest a doubtful moral character on his part CA.
but itdoes not constitute grossly immoral - June 16, 1999 – the Court referred the present
conduct. case to the IBP for investigation, report, and
- Barranco and Figueroa were sweethearts whose recommendation
sexual relations wereevidently consensual. - The report of IBP stated:
- Respondent, at the time of this decision, is
already 62. 1. Respondent filed a motion for the dismissal of
the case on the ground that the complainant died
Disposition and that dismissal is warranted because the case
Petition is dismissed. Simeon Barranco, Jr. is filed by him does not survive due to his demise as
allowed to take his oath as a lawyer upon a matter of fact, it is extinguished upon his death.
payment of proper fees. The IBP disagrees, pursuant to Section 1 Rule
139-B of the Revised Rules of Court, the SC or the
BARRIOS V MARTINEZ IBP may initiate the proceedings when they
PER CURIAM; November 12, 2004 perceive acts of lawyers which deserve sanctions
or when their attention is called by any one and a
FACTS probable cause exists that an act has been
- Atty. Martinez was convicted of a violation of BP perpetrated by a lawyer which requires
22 disciplinary sanctions.
- Complainant submitted Resolution dated March
13, 1996, and the 2. Propensity to disregard orders of the SC, as
Entry of judgment dated March 20, 1996 in an shown by respondent, is an utter lack of good
action for disbarmentagainst Martinez moral character
- July 3, 1996– the Court required respondent to
comment on saidpetition within 10 days from 3. Respondent‘s conviction of a crime of moral
notice turpitude clearly shows his unfitness to protect
- February 17, 1997 – second resolution was the administration of justice and therefore
issued requiring respondent to show cause why justifies the imposition of sanctions against him
no disciplinary action should be imposed on him
for failure to comply with the earlier Resolution 4. It is recommended that respondent be
and to submit disbarred and his name stricken out from the Roll
Comment of Attorneys immediately
- July 7, 1997 – the Court imposed a fine of P1000 - September 27, 2003 – the IBP Board of
for respondent‘sfailure to comply with previous Governors passed a Resolution adopting and
resolution within 10 days approving the report and recommendation of its
- April 27, 1998 –the Court fined the respondent Investigating Commissioner
an additional P2000 and required him to comply - December 3, 2003 – Atty. Martinez filed a Motion
with the resolution under pain of imprisonment for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation
and arrest for a period of 5 days or until his - January 14, 2004– the Court required the
compliance complainant to file a comment within 10 days
- February 3, 1999 – the Court declared - February 16, 2004 – complainant‘s daughter
respondent Martinez guilty of sent a Manifestation and
Contempt under Rule 71, Sec 3(b) of the 1997 Motion alleging they have not been furnished with
Rules on Civil Procedure and ordered his a copy of respondent‘s Motion
imprisonment until he complied with the
aforesaid resolution ISSUE
- April 5, 1999 – NBI reported that respondent was WON the crime respondent was convicted of is
arrested in Tacloban City on March 26, 1999 but one involving moral turpitude
was subsequently released after having shown
proof of compliance with the resolutions of HELD
February 17, 1997 and April 27, 1998 by remitting
the amount of P2000 and submitting his overdue Yes. Moral turpitude includes everything, which is
Comment: done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or
good morals. It involves an act of baseness,
1. He failed to respond to the Resolution dated vileness, or depravity in the private duties, which
February 17, 1997 as he was at that time a man owes his fellow men, or to society in
undergoing medical treatment at Camp general, contrary to the accepted and customary
Ruperto Kangleon in Palo, Leyte rule of right and duty between man and woman,
or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty,
2. Complainant passed away sometime in June or good morals.
1997 - The argument of respondent that to disbar him
now is tantamount to a deprivation of property
3. Said administrative complaint is an offshoot of without due process of law is also untenable.
a civil case which was decided in respondent‘s
The practice of law is a privilege. The purpose of judiciary in various capacities in his favor. If at all,
a proceeding for disbarment is to protect the the respondent was held to a higher standard for
administration of justice by requiring that those it, for a judge should be the embodiment of
who exercise this important function shall be competence, integrity, and independence, and
competent, honorable and reliable; men in whom his conduct should be above reproach.
courts and clients may repose confidence. - The Court based the determination of the
penalty from previously decided cases, holding
- Disciplinary proceedings involve no private that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for
interest and afford no redress for private conviction by final judgment for a crime of moral
grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted turpitude.
solely for the public welfare, and for the purpose
of preserving courts of justice from the official Disposition
ministrations of persons unfit to practice them. Respondent was disbarred and his name stricken
from the Roll of Attorneys.
-The court is also disinclined to take respondent‘s
old age and the fact that he served in the