Monday, December 3, 2018
In re Luis B. TAGORDA
March 23, 1929
FACTS
In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a provincial board member of Isabela. He admits that during his campaign, he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano which, in translation means that he is a lawyer and a notary public; and that as a notary public he can do notarial acts such as execution of deeds of sale, can renew lost documents, and etc.; that as a lawyer, he can help clients collect debts; that he offers free consultation; and that he is willing to serve the poor. The respondent further admits that he is the author of a letter addressed to a lieutenant of barrio in his home municipality advising the latter that even though he was elected as a provincial board member, he can still practice law; that he wants the lieutenant to tell the same to his people; that he is willing to receive works regarding preparations of sales contracts and affidavits etc.; that he is willing to receive land registration cases for a charge of three pesos.
ISSUE Whether or not Tagorda is guilty of malpractice.
HELD
Yes. Tagorda admitted doing the foregoing acts. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well- merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must be the outcome of character and conduct. Solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters of any kind, whether allied real estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or wills or offering retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be influenced by the lawyer. Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interests involved, the importance of the lawyer’s position, and all other like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high calling, and are intolerable.
It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do so.
Tagorda’s liability is however mitigated by the fact that he is a young inexperienced lawyer and that he was unaware of the impropriety of his acts. So instead of being disbarred, he was suspended from the practice of law for a month.
DECISION
Respondent Luis B. Tagorda be and is hereby suspended from the practice as an attorney-at-law for the period of one month from April 1, 1929.
Sunday, December 2, 2018
TELESFORO A. DIAO, vs. SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ
A.C. No. 244. March 29, 1963
FACTS
After successfully passing the corresponding examinations held in 1953, Telesforo A. Diao was admitted to the Bar. About two years later, Severino Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his application for such Bar examination, that he had the requisite academic qualifications. He prayed that Diao’s name be erased from the roll of attorneys, because contrary to the allegations in his petition for examination, he (Diao) had not completed, before taking up law subjects, the required pre-legal education prescribed by the Department of Private Education, specially, in the following particulars:
(a) Diao did not complete his high school training; and
(b) Diao never attended Quisumbing College, and never obtained his A.A. diploma therefrom — which contradicts the credentials he had submitted in support of his application for examination, and of his allegation therein of successful completion of the “required pre-legal education”.
Answering this official report and complaint, Telesforo A. Diao, practically admits the first charge: but he claims that although he had left high school in his third year, he entered the service of the U.S. Army, passed the General Classification Test given therein, which (according to him) is equivalent to a high school diploma, and upon his return to civilian life, the educational authorities considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high school.
ISSUE
Whether or not Telesforo A. Diao should be disbarred from practice of law
HELD
Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations; but due to his false representations, he was allowed to take it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar. Such admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be and is hereby revoked.
The fact that he hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. 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.
DECISION
The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the roll of attorneys, the name of Telesforo A. Diao. And the latter is required to return his lawyer’s diploma within thirty days.
After successfully passing the corresponding examinations held in 1953, Telesforo A. Diao was admitted to the Bar. About two years later, Severino Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his application for such Bar examination, that he had the requisite academic qualifications. He prayed that Diao’s name be erased from the roll of attorneys, because contrary to the allegations in his petition for examination, he (Diao) had not completed, before taking up law subjects, the required pre-legal education prescribed by the Department of Private Education, specially, in the following particulars:
(a) Diao did not complete his high school training; and
(b) Diao never attended Quisumbing College, and never obtained his A.A. diploma therefrom — which contradicts the credentials he had submitted in support of his application for examination, and of his allegation therein of successful completion of the “required pre-legal education”.
Answering this official report and complaint, Telesforo A. Diao, practically admits the first charge: but he claims that although he had left high school in his third year, he entered the service of the U.S. Army, passed the General Classification Test given therein, which (according to him) is equivalent to a high school diploma, and upon his return to civilian life, the educational authorities considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high school.
ISSUE
Whether or not Telesforo A. Diao should be disbarred from practice of law
HELD
Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations; but due to his false representations, he was allowed to take it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar. Such admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be and is hereby revoked.
The fact that he hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. 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.
DECISION
The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the roll of attorneys, the name of Telesforo A. Diao. And the latter is required to return his lawyer’s diploma within thirty days.
IN RE: FLORENCIO MALLARE
Adm. Case No. 533. September 12, 1974
FACTS
Florencio Mallare was admitted to the Philippine Bar however the court ordered an investigation regarding his citizenship and for the purpose of determining whether his name should be stricken from the roll of persons authorized to practice law in the Philippines. After the investigation, a decision was rendered by the Court, holding that by preponderance of evidence, it appeared that respondent Mallare’s father, Esteban Mallare, was a Chinese up to his death; and his mother admittedly being a Chinese, respondent is likewise a Chinese national. Consequently, respondent Florencio Mallare was declared excluded from the practice of law; his admission to the bar was revoked, and he was ordered to return to this Court, the lawyer’s diploma previously issued to him.
Respondent moved for reconsideration of the decision, which was denied by the Court. On February 4, 1969, respondent petitioned the Court for the reopening of the case and for new trial on the ground, inter alia, of newly discovered evidence, the introduction of which could alter the decision previously promulgated. The evidence proposed to be presented consisted of :
(1) an entry in the registry of baptism of the Immaculate Concepcion Church at Macalelon, Quezon, purporting to show that Estaben Mallare (respondent’s father) is the natural son of Ana Mallare, a Filipina; and
(2) testimonies of certain persons who had a known Esteban Mallare and his mother during their lifetime.
ISSUE
WON the respondent is Filipino citizen.
HELD
The Court finds sufficient grounds to warrant a definite setting aside of its decision and a definitive declaration that respondent Florencio Mallare is a Filipino citizen and therefore with qualification and right to continue the practice of law in the Philippines. With the additional evidence submitted by respondent pursuant to the authority granted by this Court, the aforementioned void in the proof of respondent’s citizenship has been duly filled.
The witnesses, all natives of Macalelon, who had personal knowledge of the person, birth and residency of both Ana Mallare and her son Esteban, were one in their declaration that Ana Mallare is a Tagalog who had continuously resided in the place, and that Esteban, her son, was reputedly born out of wedlock. Such declarations constitute admissible evidence of the birth and illegitimacy of Esteban Mallare.
Esteban Mallare, natural child of Ana Mallare, a Filipina, is therefore himself a Filipino, and no other act would be necessary to confer on him all the rights and privileges attached to Philippine citizenship.
DECISION
Upon the foregoing considerations, and on the basis of the original and additional evidence herein adduced the decision of this Court dated April 29, 1968, is hereby definitely set aside, and the complaint in this case is DISMISSED, without pronouncement as to costs.
Florencio Mallare was admitted to the Philippine Bar however the court ordered an investigation regarding his citizenship and for the purpose of determining whether his name should be stricken from the roll of persons authorized to practice law in the Philippines. After the investigation, a decision was rendered by the Court, holding that by preponderance of evidence, it appeared that respondent Mallare’s father, Esteban Mallare, was a Chinese up to his death; and his mother admittedly being a Chinese, respondent is likewise a Chinese national. Consequently, respondent Florencio Mallare was declared excluded from the practice of law; his admission to the bar was revoked, and he was ordered to return to this Court, the lawyer’s diploma previously issued to him.
Respondent moved for reconsideration of the decision, which was denied by the Court. On February 4, 1969, respondent petitioned the Court for the reopening of the case and for new trial on the ground, inter alia, of newly discovered evidence, the introduction of which could alter the decision previously promulgated. The evidence proposed to be presented consisted of :
(1) an entry in the registry of baptism of the Immaculate Concepcion Church at Macalelon, Quezon, purporting to show that Estaben Mallare (respondent’s father) is the natural son of Ana Mallare, a Filipina; and
(2) testimonies of certain persons who had a known Esteban Mallare and his mother during their lifetime.
ISSUE
WON the respondent is Filipino citizen.
HELD
The Court finds sufficient grounds to warrant a definite setting aside of its decision and a definitive declaration that respondent Florencio Mallare is a Filipino citizen and therefore with qualification and right to continue the practice of law in the Philippines. With the additional evidence submitted by respondent pursuant to the authority granted by this Court, the aforementioned void in the proof of respondent’s citizenship has been duly filled.
The witnesses, all natives of Macalelon, who had personal knowledge of the person, birth and residency of both Ana Mallare and her son Esteban, were one in their declaration that Ana Mallare is a Tagalog who had continuously resided in the place, and that Esteban, her son, was reputedly born out of wedlock. Such declarations constitute admissible evidence of the birth and illegitimacy of Esteban Mallare.
Esteban Mallare, natural child of Ana Mallare, a Filipina, is therefore himself a Filipino, and no other act would be necessary to confer on him all the rights and privileges attached to Philippine citizenship.
DECISION
Upon the foregoing considerations, and on the basis of the original and additional evidence herein adduced the decision of this Court dated April 29, 1968, is hereby definitely set aside, and the complaint in this case is DISMISSED, without pronouncement as to costs.
IN RE: PETITION OF ARTURO EFREN GARCIA
August 15, 1961
FACTS
Arturo E. Garcia has applied for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines without submitting to the required bar examinations. In his verified petition, he avers:
1. that he is a Filipino citizen born in Bacolor City,Province of Negros Occidental, of Filipino parentage;
2.that he had taken and finished in Spain, the course of "Bachillerato Superior";
3. that he was approved, selected and qualified by the "Instituto de Cervantes" for admission to the Central University of Madrid where he studied and finished the law course graduating there as "Licenciado En Derecho";
4.that thereafter he was allowed to practice the law profession in Spain;
5. and that under the provision of the Treaty of Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish state, he is entitled to practice the law profession in the Philippines without submitting to the required bar examinations.
After due consideration, the Court resolved to deny the petition.
ISSUE
Whether treaty can modify regulations governing admission to the Philippine Bar.
HELD
The Court resolved to deny the petition. The provision of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish state cannot be invoked by the applicant. Said Treaty was intended to govern Filipino citizens desiring to practice the legal in Spain, and the citizens of Spain desiring to practice the legal profession in the Philippines. Applicant is a Filipino citizen desiring to practice the legal profession in the Philippines. He is therefore subject to the laws of his own country and is not entitled to the privileges extended to Spanish nationals desiring to practice in the Philippines. The privileges provided in the Treaty invoked by the applicant are made expressly subject to the laws and regulations of the contracting state in whose territory it is desired to exercise the legal profession.
The aforementioned Treaty, concluded between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish state could not have been intended to modify the laws and regulations governing admission to the practice of law in the Philippines, for reason that the Executive Department may not enroach upon the consitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines, and the power to repeal, alter or supplement such rules being reserved only to the Congress of the Philippines.
Arturo E. Garcia has applied for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines without submitting to the required bar examinations. In his verified petition, he avers:
1. that he is a Filipino citizen born in Bacolor City,Province of Negros Occidental, of Filipino parentage;
2.that he had taken and finished in Spain, the course of "Bachillerato Superior";
3. that he was approved, selected and qualified by the "Instituto de Cervantes" for admission to the Central University of Madrid where he studied and finished the law course graduating there as "Licenciado En Derecho";
4.that thereafter he was allowed to practice the law profession in Spain;
5. and that under the provision of the Treaty of Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish state, he is entitled to practice the law profession in the Philippines without submitting to the required bar examinations.
After due consideration, the Court resolved to deny the petition.
ISSUE
Whether treaty can modify regulations governing admission to the Philippine Bar.
HELD
The Court resolved to deny the petition. The provision of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish state cannot be invoked by the applicant. Said Treaty was intended to govern Filipino citizens desiring to practice the legal in Spain, and the citizens of Spain desiring to practice the legal profession in the Philippines. Applicant is a Filipino citizen desiring to practice the legal profession in the Philippines. He is therefore subject to the laws of his own country and is not entitled to the privileges extended to Spanish nationals desiring to practice in the Philippines. The privileges provided in the Treaty invoked by the applicant are made expressly subject to the laws and regulations of the contracting state in whose territory it is desired to exercise the legal profession.
The aforementioned Treaty, concluded between the Republic of the Philippines and the Spanish state could not have been intended to modify the laws and regulations governing admission to the practice of law in the Philippines, for reason that the Executive Department may not enroach upon the consitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines, and the power to repeal, alter or supplement such rules being reserved only to the Congress of the Philippines.
IN RE CUNANAN
94 PHIL. 534, MARCH 18, 1954
FACTS
Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. Under the Rules of Court governing admission to the bar, "in order that a candidate (for admission to the Bar) may be deemed to have passed his examinations successfully, he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per cent in any subject."(Rule 127, sec. 14, Rules of Court).
Believing themselves as fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered and passed by this court, and feeling conscious of having been discriminated against (See Explanatory Note to R. A. No. 972), unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of a few percentage lower than those admitted to the Bar agitated in Congress for, and secured in 1951 the passage of Senate Bill No. 12 which, among others, reduced the passing general average in bar examinations to 70 per cent effective since 1946.
The President requested the views of the court on the bill. Complying with that request, seven members of the court subscribed to and submitted written comments adverse thereto, and shortly thereafter the President vetoed it. Congress did not override the veto. Instead, it approved Senate Bill No. 371 which is an Act to fix the passing marks for bar examinations from nineteen hundred and forty-six up to and including nineteen Hundred and fifty-five, embodying substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill.
Republic Act 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the Bar those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparations. By and large, the law is contrary to public interest since it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who had inadequate preparation for the practice of law profession, as evidenced by their failure in the exams.
After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while others whose motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not they had invoked Republic Act No. 972. Unfortunately, the court has found no reason to revise their grades. If they are to be admitted to the bar, it must be pursuant to Republic Act No. 972 which, if declared valid, should be applied equally to all concerned whether they have filed petitions or not.
ISSUE
Whether or Not RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid.
HELD
RA No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the Bar, those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparation.
In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. We have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the admission, suspension, disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial.
On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the judicial and legislative departments of the government.
It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities may say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license.
Reasons for Unconstitutionality: 1. There was a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court. 2. It is in effect a judgment revoking the resolution of the court, and only the S.C. may revise or alter them, in attempting to do so R.A. 972 violated the Constitution. 3. That congress has exceeded its power to repeal, alter, and supplement the rules on admission to the bar (since the rules made by congress must elevate the profession, and those rules promulgated are considered the bare minimum.) 4. It is a class legislation 5. Art. 2 of R.A. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to what the constitution enjoins, and being inseparable from the provisions of art. 1, the entire law is void.
Republic Act Number 972 is held to be unconstitutional.
Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. Under the Rules of Court governing admission to the bar, "in order that a candidate (for admission to the Bar) may be deemed to have passed his examinations successfully, he must have obtained a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per cent in any subject."(Rule 127, sec. 14, Rules of Court).
Believing themselves as fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered and passed by this court, and feeling conscious of having been discriminated against (See Explanatory Note to R. A. No. 972), unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of a few percentage lower than those admitted to the Bar agitated in Congress for, and secured in 1951 the passage of Senate Bill No. 12 which, among others, reduced the passing general average in bar examinations to 70 per cent effective since 1946.
The President requested the views of the court on the bill. Complying with that request, seven members of the court subscribed to and submitted written comments adverse thereto, and shortly thereafter the President vetoed it. Congress did not override the veto. Instead, it approved Senate Bill No. 371 which is an Act to fix the passing marks for bar examinations from nineteen hundred and forty-six up to and including nineteen Hundred and fifty-five, embodying substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill.
Republic Act 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the Bar those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparations. By and large, the law is contrary to public interest since it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who had inadequate preparation for the practice of law profession, as evidenced by their failure in the exams.
After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions, while others whose motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. To avoid injustice to individual petitioners, the court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not they had invoked Republic Act No. 972. Unfortunately, the court has found no reason to revise their grades. If they are to be admitted to the bar, it must be pursuant to Republic Act No. 972 which, if declared valid, should be applied equally to all concerned whether they have filed petitions or not.
ISSUE
Whether or Not RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid.
HELD
RA No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the Bar, those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparation.
In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. We have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the admission, suspension, disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial.
On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction between the functions of the judicial and legislative departments of the government.
It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities may say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license.
Reasons for Unconstitutionality: 1. There was a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court. 2. It is in effect a judgment revoking the resolution of the court, and only the S.C. may revise or alter them, in attempting to do so R.A. 972 violated the Constitution. 3. That congress has exceeded its power to repeal, alter, and supplement the rules on admission to the bar (since the rules made by congress must elevate the profession, and those rules promulgated are considered the bare minimum.) 4. It is a class legislation 5. Art. 2 of R.A. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to what the constitution enjoins, and being inseparable from the provisions of art. 1, the entire law is void.
Republic Act Number 972 is held to be unconstitutional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)