You are on page 1of 36

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Baguio city
FIRST DIVISION
A.C. No. 2519

August 29, 2000

TEODORO R RIVERA, ANTONIO D. AQUINO and FELIXBERTO D. AQUINO, complainants,


vs.
ATTY. SERGIO ANGELES, respondent.
RESOLUTION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
On March 25, 1983, complainants filed a Complaint for Disbarment against Atty. Sergio Angeles on the grounds of Deceit and
Malpractice. The Affidavit-Complaint1 reads as follows:
"1. The undersigned are plaintiffs in Civil Cases Nos. Q-12841 and Q-13128 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch
V at Quezon City;
2. Atty. Sergio Angeles is their counsel of record in the said cases and his office is located at Suite 335, URC Building,
2123 Espaa, Manila;
3. That after receiving favorable decision from the CFI on May 21, 1973 and sustained by the Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court an alias writ of execution was issued in said cases;
4. That in the first week of January 1983 we obtained from the CFI a sheriff's return, dated November 10, 1982, stating
that no leviable property can be found in the premises of the defendants;
5. That on or before January 13, 1983, we learned that Mr. Rodolfo M. Silva, one of the defendants in said cases had
already given Atty. Angeles a partial settlement of the judgment in the amount of P42,999.00 (as evidenced by xerox
copies of Partial Settlement of Judgment dated September 21, 1982 and Receipt of Payment dated September 22, 1982,
hereto attached as Annexes "A" and "B", respectively), without our knowledge.
6. That Atty. Sergio Angeles never informed the undersigned of the amount of P42,999.00 he received from Mr. Silva nor
remitted to them even a part of that amount;
7. That a demand letter was sent to Atty. Sergio Angeles which was received by him on February 17, 1983, but as of this
date the undersigned have not yet received any reply. (See Exhibit "C" and "D" attached)."
In his Comment filed on June 21, 1983, respondent denied the accusations and stated that he has the right to retain the said
amount of P42,999.00 and to apply the same to professional fees due him under the subsequent agreement first with complainant
Teodoro Rivera and later with Mrs. Dely Dimson Rivera as embodied in the Deed of Assignment (Annex "8") 2 or under the previous
agreement of P20% of P206,000.00.
Complainants, in their Reply,3 vehemently denied the assignment of their rights to respondent.
Thereafter, this case was referred to the Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation in our Resolution dated
November 21, 1983. The Office of the Solicitor General considered this case submitted for resolution on April 30, 1985 by declaring
respondent's right to present evidence as considered waived due to the latter's failure to appear on the scheduled hearings.
However, the records from said Office do not show any resolution.
In October 1998, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued an Order requiring the parties to manifest whether or not they are still
interested in prosecuting this case, or whether supervening events have transpired which render this case moot and academic or
otherwise. The copy of said Order sent to the complainants was received by their counsel on October 30, 1998 while the copy to the
respondent was returned unclaimed.

Investigating Commissioner Julio C. Elamparo submitted his report on April 29, 1999 finding respondent Atty. Sergio Angeles guilty
of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility specifically Rule 1.01, Canon 16 and Rule 16.01 thereof and recommends his
indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on June 19, 1999, issued a resolution, the decretal portion of which
reads:
"RESOLUTION NO. XIII-99-151
Adm. Case No. 2519
Teodoro R Rivera, et al. vs.
Atty. Sergio Angeles
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of
the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex "A";
and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, with an
amendment that Atty. Sergio Angeles is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR for his having been
found guilty of practicing deceit in dealing with his client."
The Court finds merit in the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Respondent's act of deceit and malpractice
indubitably demonstrated his failure to live up to his sworn duties as a lawyer. The Supreme Court repeatedly stressed the
importance of integrity and good moral character as part of a lawyer's equipment in the practice of his profession. 4 For it cannot be
denied that the respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust and
confidence.51wphi1
The Court is not oblivious of the right of a lawyer to be paid for the legal services he has extended to his client but such right should
not be exercised whimsically by appropriating to himself the money intended for his clients. There should never be an instance
where the victor in litigation loses everything he won to the fees of his own lawyer.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Sergio Angeles, is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR for having been found
guilty of practicing deceit in dealing with his client.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately and copies thereof furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and appended to respondent's personal record.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines


SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
A.C. No. 3910

June 28, 2001

JOSE S. DUCAT, JR., complainant,


vs.
ATTYS. ARSENIO C. VILLALON, JR. and CRISPULO DUCUSIN, respondents.
RESOLUTION
DE LEON, JR., J.:
On August 14, 2000, a Decision was rendered by this Court in the above-entitled case, finding respondent Atty. Arsenio C. Villalon,
Jr. guilty of gross misconduct. The dispositive portion of the Court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. ARSENIO C. VILLALON, JR. is hereby found guilty of gross misconduct, and he is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of ONE (1) YEAR with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar
act will be dealt with more severely. Respondent Villalon is further directed to deliver to the registered owner, complainant
Jose Ducat Jr., the latter's TCT No. M-3023 covering the subject property within a period of sixty (60) days from receipt of
this Decision, at his sole expense; and that failure on his part to do so will result in his disbarment.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to Atty. Villalon's personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies
thereof be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
From the afore-quoted Decision respondent Atty. Arsenio C. Villalon, Jr. seeks this reconsideration.
The finding of guilt for gross misconduct was based on the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines upon whom the case was referred for investigation. We again quote the said findings for emphasis:
Complainant and his witness, Jose Ducat, Sr., testified in a straightforward, spontaneous and candid manner. The
sincerity and demeanor they displayed while testifying before the Commission inspire belief as to the truth of what they
are saying. More importantly, respondent failed to impute any ill motive on the part of the complainant and his witness
which can impel them to institute the instant complaint and testify falsely against him. To be sure, the testimony of the
complainant and his witness deserves the Commission's full faith and credence.
Respondent's evidence, on the other hand, leaves much to be desired. His defense (that he considered himself the owner
of the subject property which was allegedly given to him by Jose Ducat, Sr.) rings hollow in the face of a welter of
contravening and incontrovertible facts.
FIRST, the registered owner of the subject property is complainant Jose Ducat, Jr. Accordingly, respondent (being a
lawyer) knew or ought to know that Jose Ducat, Sr. could not possibly give to him the said property unless the former is
duly authorized by the complainant through a Special Power of Attorney. No such authorization has been given. Moreover,
Jose Ducat, Sr. has vigorously denied having given the subject property to the respondent. This denial is not too difficult to
believe considering the fact that he (Jose Ducat, Sr.) is not the owner of said property.
SECOND, being a lawyer, respondent knew or ought to know that conveyance of a real property, whether gratuitously or
for a consideration, must be in writing. Accordingly, it is unbelievable that he would consider himself the owner of the
subject property on the basis of the verbal or oral "giving" of the property by Jose Ducat, Sr. no matter how many times
the latter may have said that.
THIRD, the Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land (Exh. "1" for the respondent and Exh. "A-2" for the complainant) allegedly
executed by Jose Ducat, Sr. in favor of respondent Atty. Arsenio Villalon and/or Andres Canares, Jr. covering the subject

parcel of land which respondent prepared allegedly upon instruction of Jose Ducat, Sr. is of dubious character. As earlier
adverted to, Jose Ducat, Sr. is not the owner of said property. Moreover, said Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land is a falsified
document as admitted by the respondent himself when he said that the signature over the typewritten name Maria
Cabrido (wife of Jose Ducat, Sr.) was affixed by Jose Ducat, Sr. Being a lawyer, respondent knew or ought to know that
the act of Jose Ducat, Sr. in affixing his wife's signature is tantamount to a forgery. Accordingly, he should have treated the
said Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land has (sic) a mere scrap of worthless paper instead of relying on the same to
substantiate his claim that the subject property was given to him by Jose Ducat, Sr. Again, of note is the fact that Jose
Ducat, Sr. has vigorously denied having executed said document which denial is not too difficult to believe in the light of
the circumstances already mentioned.
FOURTH, the Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property (Exh. "2" for the respondent and Exh. "A-3" for the complainant)
allegedly executed by Jose Ducat, Jr. in favor of Andres Canares, Jr. over the subject property (which respondent claims
he prepared upon instruction of Jose Ducat, Sr.) is likewise of questionable character. Complainant Jose Ducat, Jr. has
vigorously denied having executed said document. He claims that he has never sold said property to Andres Canares, Jr.
whom he does not know; that he has never appeared before Atty. Crispulo Ducusin to subscribe to the document; and that
he has never received the amount of P450,000.00 representing the consideration of said transaction. More importantly,
the infirmity of the said Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property was supplied by the respondent no less when he admitted
that there was no payment of P450,000.00 and that the same was placed in the document only to make it appear that the
conveyance was for a consideration. Accordingly, and being a lawyer, respondent knew or ought to know the irregularity of
his act and that he should have treated the document as another scrap of worthless paper instead of utilizing the same to
substantiate his defense.1
We remain convinced that respondent was remiss in his duty to abide by his sworn oath as a member of the bar to "do no falsehood
nor consent to its commission"2 and further violated the mandate of his profession to "uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession."3
In the instant case, after a review of the records, we note that this is the first and only administrative complaint against respondent
Atty. Villalon in his long career as a member of the bar. At one time, he was even the President of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP)-Manila 1 Chapter, and as such he introduced various programs to uphold the confidence of the public in the
integrity of the legal profession and to uplift the welfare of his brethren. Furthermore, it appears that as of July 8, 1997, respondent
Atty. Villalon already returned to the complainant himself the owner's duplicate of the subject TCT No. M-3023 and the complainant
acknowledged receipt4 thereof, thus there is a need to delete the directive to deliver the said TCT from the Court's Decision. Hence,
we agree to reduce the penalty imposed on respondent Atty. Villalon.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, and MODIFIES the Decision dated August 14, 2000 in
that respondent Atty. Arsenio C. Villalon, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS only
with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. The directive in the Decision to deliver
TCT No. M-3023 to complainant Jose Ducat, Jr. is DELETED, the delivery thereof having been accomplished as of July 8, 1997.
Let a copy of this Resolution be entered in the personal record of respondent as an attorney and as a member of the Integrated Bar,
and furnished the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the
country.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines


SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.M. No. 491 October 6, 1989
IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRY INTO THE 1989 ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES.

PER CURIAM:
In the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (hereafter "IBP") held on June 3, 1989 at the Philippine
International Convention Center (or PICC), the following were elected by the House of Delegates (composed of 120 chapter
presidents or their alternates) and proclaimed as officers:

NAME

POSITION

Atty. Violeta Drilon

President

Atty. Bella Tiro

Executive Vice-President

Atty. Salvador Lao

Chairman, House of Delegates

Atty. Renato F. Ronquillo

Secretary, House of Delegates

Atty. Teodoro Quicoy

Treasurer, House of Delegates

Atty. Oscar Badelles

Sergeant at Arms, House of Delegates

Atty. Justiniano Cortes

Governor & Vice-President for Northern Luzon

Atty. Ciriaco Atienza

Governor & Vice-President for Central Luzon

Atty. Mario Jalandoni

Governor & Vice-President for Metro Manila

Atty. Jose Aguilar Grapilon

Governor & Vice-President for Southern Luzon

Atty. Teodoro Almine

Governor & Vice-President for Bicolandia

Atty. Porfirio Siyangco

Governor & Vice-President for Eastern Visayas

Atty. Ricardo Teruel

Governor & Vice-President for Western Visayas

Atty. Gladys Tiongco

Governor & Vice-President for Eastern Mindanao

Atty. Simeon Datumanong

Governor & Vice-President for Western Mindanao

The newly-elected officers were set to take the their oath of office on July 4,1989, before the Supreme Court en banc.
However,disturbed by the widespread reports received by some members of the Court from lawyers who had witnessed or
participated in the proceedings and the adverse comments published in the columns of some newspapers about the intensive
electioneering and overspending by the candidates, led by the main protagonists for the office of president of the association,
namely, Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and Violeta C. Drilon, the alleged use of government planes, and the officious
intervention of certain public officials to influence the voting, all of which were done in violation of the IBP By-Laws which prohibit
such activities. The Supreme Court en banc, exercising its power of supervision over the Integrated Bar, resolved to suspend the
oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect and to inquire into the veracity of the reports.
It should be stated at the outset that the election process itself (i.e. the voting and the canvassing of votes on June 3, 1989) which
was conducted by the "IBP Comelec," headed by Justice Reynato Puno of the Court of Appeals, was unanimously adjudged by the
participants and observers to be above board. For Justice Puno took it upon himself to device safeguards to prevent tampering with,
and marking of, the ballots.
What the Court viewed with considerable concern was the reported electioneering and extravagance that characterized the
campaign conducted by the three candidates for president of the IBP.
I. MEDIA ACCOUNT OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN.
Emil Jurado, in his column "IBP Group Questions Drilon Election" (Manila Standard, Sunday, June 17, 1989), Luis Mauricio, in two
successive columns: "The Invertebrated Bar" (Malaya, June 10, 1989) and "The Disintegrating Bar" (Malaya, June 20, 1989), and
Teodoro Locsin Jr. in an article, entitled "Pam-Pam" (The Philippines Free Press, July 8,1989), and the editorial, entitled 'Wrong
Forum" of the Daily Globe (June 8, 1989), were unanimously critical of the "vote-buying and pressure tactics" allegedly employed in
the campaign by the three principal candidates: Attys. Violeta C. Drilon, Nereo Paculdo and Ramon Nisce who reportedly "poured
heart, soul, money and influence to win over the 120 IBP delegates."

Mr. Jurado mentioned the resentment of Atty. Drilon's rivals who felt at a disadvantage because Atty. Drilon allegedly used PNB
helicopters to visit far-flung IBP chapters on the pretext of distributing Bigay Puso donations, and she had the added advantage of
having regional directors and labor arbiters of the Department of Labor and Employment (who had been granted leaves of absence
by her husband, the Labor Secretary) campaigning for her. Jurado's informants alleged that there was rampant vote-buying by some
members of the U.P. Sigma Rho Fraternity (Secretary Drilon's fraternity), as well as by some lawyers of ACCRA (Angara,
Concepcion, Cruz, Regala and Abello Law Office) where Mrs. Drilon is employed, and that government positions were promised to
others by the office of the Labor Secretary.
Mr. Mauricio in his column wrote about the same matters and, in addition, mentioned "talk of personnel of the Department of Labor,
especially conciliators and employers, notably Chinese Filipinos, giving aid and comfort to her (Atty. Drilon's) candidacy," the billeting
of out-of-town delegates in plush hotels where they were reportedly "wined and dined continuously, womened and subjected to
endless haggling over the price of their votes x x x" which allegedly "ranged from Pl5,000 to P20,000, and, on the day of the
election, some twelve to twenty votes which were believed crucial, appreciated to P50,000."
In his second column, Mr. Mauricio mentioned "how a top official of the judiciary allegedly involved himself in IBP politics on election
day by closeting himself with campaigners as they plotted their election strategy in a room of the PICC (the Philippine International
Convention Center where the convention/election were held) during a recess x x x."
Mr. Locsin in his column and editorial substantially re-echoed Mauricio's reports with some embellishments.
II. THE COURT'S DECISION TO INVESTIGATE.
Responding to the critical reports, the Court, in its en banc resolution dated June 15, 1989, directed the outgoing and incoming
members of the IBP Board of Governors, the principal officers and Chairman of the House of Delegates to appear before it on
Tuesday, June 20, 1989, at 2:00 o'clock p.m., and there to inform the Court on the veracity of the aforementioned reports and to
recommend, for the consideration of the Court, appropriate approaches to the problem of confirming and strengthening adherence
to the fundamental principles of the IBP.
In that resolution the Court "call[ed] to mind that a basic postulate of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), heavily stressed at
the time of its organization and commencement of existence, is that the IBP shall be non-political in character and that there shall be
no lobbying nor campaigning in the choice of members of the Board of Governors and of the House of Delegates, and of the IBP
officers, national, or regional, or chapter. The fundamental assumption was that officers, delegates and governors would be chosen
on the basis of professional merit and willingness and ability to serve."
The resolution went on to say that the "Court is deeply disturbed to note that in connection with the election of members of the
Board of Governors and of the House of Delegates, there is a widespread belief, based on reports carried by media and transmitted
as well by word of mouth, that there was extensive and intensive campaigning by candidates for IBP positions as well as
expenditure of considerable sums of money by candidates, including vote-buying, direct or indirect."
The venerable retired Supreme Court Justice and IBP President Emeritus, Jose B.L. Reyes, attended the dialogue, upon invitation
of the Court, to give counsel and advice. The meeting between the Court en banc on the one hand, and the outgoing and in coming
IBP officers on the other, was an informal one. Thereafter, the Court resolved to conduct a formal inquiry to determine whether the
prohibited acts and activities enumerated in the IBP By-Laws were committed before and during the 1989 elections of IBP's national
officers.
The Court en banc formed a committee and designated Senior Associate Justice Andres R. Narvasa, as Chairman, and Associate
Justices Teodoro R. Padilla, Emilio A. Gancayco, Abraham F. Sarmiento, and Carolina C. Grio-Aquino, as members, to conduct the
inquiry. The Clerk of Court, Atty. Daniel Martinez, acted as the committee's Recording Secretary.
A total of forty-nine (49) witnesses appeared and testified in response to subpoenas issued by the Court to shed light on the conduct
of the elections. The managers of three five-star hotels the Philippine Plaza, the Hyatt, and the Holiday Inn where the three
protagonists (Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo) allegedly set up their respective headquarters and where they billeted their supporters
were summoned. The officer of the Philippine National Bank and the Air Transport Office were called to enlighten the Court on the
charge that an IBP presidential candidate and the members of her slate used PNB planes to ferry them to distant places in their
campaign to win the votes of delegates. The Philippine Airlines officials were called to testify on the charge that some candidates
gave free air fares to delegates to the convention. Officials of the Labor Department were also called to enable the Court to
ascertain the truth of the reports that labor officials openly campaigned or worked for the election of Atty. Drilon.
The newspaper columnists, Messrs. Luis Mauricio, Jesus Bigornia and Emil Jurado were subpoenaed to determine the nature of
their sources of information relative to the IBP elections. Their stories were based, they said, on letters, phone calls and personal
interviews with persons who claimed to have knowledge of the facts, but whom they, invoking the Press Freedom Law, refused to
identify.

The Committee has since submitted its Report after receiving, and analyzing and assessing evidence given by such persons as
were perceived to have direct and personal knowledge of the relevant facts; and the Court, after deliberating thereon, has Resolved
to accept and adopt the same.
III. PROHIBITED ACTS AND PRACTICES UNDER IBP BY-LAWS.
Article I, Section 4 of the IBP By-Laws emphasizes the "strictly non-political" character of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, thus:
"SEC. 4. Non-political Bar. The Integrated Bar is strictly non-political, and every activity tending to impair this
basic feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No lawyer holding an elective, judicial,
quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall
be eligible for election or appointment to any position in the Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof. A Delegate,
Governor, officer or employee of the Integrated Bar, or an officer or employee of any Chapter thereof shall be
considered ipso facto resigned from his position as of the moment he files his certificate of candidacy for any
elective public office or accepts appointment to any judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the
Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof. "'
Section 14 of the same By-Laws enumerates the prohibited acts relative to IBP elections:
SEC. 14. Prohibited acts and practices relative to elections. The following acts and practices relative to
election are prohibited, whether committed by a candidate for any elective office in the Integrated Bar or by any
other member, directly or indirectly, in any form or manner, by himself or through another person:
(a) Distribution, except on election day, of election campaign material;
(b) Distribution, on election day, of election campaign material other than a statement of the biodata of a
candidate on not more than one page of a legal-size sheet of paper; or causing distribution of such statement to
be done by persons other than those authorized by the officer presiding at the elections;
(c) Campaigning for or against any candidate, while holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial or prosecutory
office in the Government or any political subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof;
(d) Formation of tickets, single slates, or combinations of candidates, as well as the advertisement thereof;
(e) For the purpose of inducing or influencing a member to withhold his vote, or to vote for or against a
candidate, (1) payment of the dues or other indebtedness of any member; (2) giving of food, drink,
entertainment, transportation or any article of value, or any similar consideration to any person; or (3) making a
promise or causing an expenditure to be made, offered or promised to any person."
Section 12(d) of the By-Laws prescribes sanctions for violations of the above rules:
(d) Any violation of the rules governing elections or commission of any of the prohibited acts and practices
defined in Section 14 prohibited Acts and Practices relative to elections) of the by-laws of the Integrated Bar
shall be a ground for the disqualification of a candidate or his removal from office if elected, without prejudice to
the imposition of sanctions upon any erring member pursuant to the By-laws of the Integrated Bar.
At the formal investigation which was conducted by the investigating committee, the following violations were established:
(1) Prohibited campaigning and solicitation of votes by the candidates for president, executive vice-president, the officers of
candidate the House of Delegates and Board of Governors.
The three candidates for IBP President Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo began travelling around the country to solicit the votes of
delegates as early as April 1989. Upon the invitation of IBP President, Leon Garcia, Jr. (t.s.n., July 13,1989, p. 4), they attended the
Bench and Bar dialogues held in Cotabato in April 1989 (t.s.n., June 29, 1989, p. 123), in Tagaytay City, Pampanga, and in Baguio
City (during the conference of chapter presidents of Northern Luzon (t.s.n., July 3,1989, p. 113; t.s.n., July 10, p. 41; t.s.n., July 13,
p. 47) where they announced their candidacies and met the chapter presidents.
Atty. Nisce admitted that he went around the country seeking the help of IBP chapter officers, soliciting their votes, and securing
their written endorsements. He personally hand-carried nomination forms and requested the chapter presidents and delegates to fill
up and sign the forms to formalize their commitment to his nomination for IBP President. He started campaigning and distributing
the nomination forms in March 1989 after the chapter elections which determined the membership of the House of Delegates

composed of the 120 chapter presidents (t.s.n., June 29, 1989, pp. 82-86). He obtained forty (40) commitments. He submitted
photocopies of his nomination forms which read:
"Nomination Form

I Join in Nominating
RAMON M. NISCE
as
National President of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines

______________ _______________
Chapter Signature"
Among those who signed the nomination forms were: Onofre P. Tejada, Candido P. Balbin, Jr., Conizado V. Posadas, Quirico L.
Quirico Ernesto S. Salun-at, Gloria C. Agunos, Oscar B. Bernardo, Feliciano F. Wycoco, Amor L. Ibarra, Jose M. Atienza, Jose N.
Contreras, Romeo T. Mendoza, Leo C. Medialdea, Jr., Paulino G. Clarin, Julius Z. Neil, Roem J. Arbolado Democrito M. Perez,
Abelardo Fermin, Diosdado B. Villarin, Jr., Daniel C. Macaraeg, Confesor R. Sansano Dionisio E. Bala, Jr., Emesto A. Amores,
Romeo V. Pefianco, Augurio C. Pamintuan, Atlee T. Viray, Ceferino C. Cabanas, Jose S. Buban, Diosdado Z. Reloj, Jr., Cesar C.
Viola, Oscar C. Fernandez, Ricardo B. Teruel Rodrigo R. Flores, Sixto Marella, Jr., Arsenio C. Villalon, Renato F. Ronquillo, Antonio
G. Nalapo Romualdo A. Din Jr., Jose P. Icaonapo Jr., and Manuel S. Person.
Atty. Nisce admitted that he reserved rooms at the Hyatt Hotel based on the commitments he had obtained (t.s.n., June 29, 1989,
pp. 82-85). Unfortunately, despite those formal commitments, he obtained only 14 votes in the election (t.s.n., June 29, 1 989, p.
86). The reason, he said, is that. some of those who had committed their votes to him were "manipulated, intimidated, pressured, or
remunerated" (t.s.n., June 29,1989, pp. 8695; Exhibit "M-4-Nisce," t.s.n., July 4, 1989, pp. 100-1 04).
(2) Use of PNB plane in the campaign.
The records of the Philippine National Bank (Exhibit C-1-Crudo and Exhibit C-2-Crudo) show that Secretary Fulgencio S. Factoran,
Jr. of the Department of Environment & Natural Resources (DENR) borrowed a plane from the Philippine National Bank for his Bicol
CORD (Cabinet Officers for Regional Development) Assistant, Undersecretary Antonio Tria. The plane manifest (Exh. C-2-Crudo)
listed Atty. Violeta Drilon, Arturo Tusi (Tiu), Assistant Secretary for Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Tony Tria, Atty.
Gladys Tiongco, and Amy Wong. Except for Tony Tria, the rest of the passengers were IBP candidates.
Atty. Drilon admitted that she "hitched" a ride on a PNB plane. She said that she was informed by Atty. Tiu about the availability of a
PNB plane (t.s.n., July 3,1989, pp. 116-118).
Atty. Tiu, who ran for the position of IBP executive vice-president in the Drilon ticket, testified that sometime in May 1989 he failed to
obtain booking from the Philippine Airlines for the projected trip of his group to Bicol. He went to the DENR allegedly to follow up
some papers for a client. While at the DENR, he learned that Assistant Secretary Tria was going on an official business in Bicol for
Secretary Fulgencio Factoran and that he would be taking a PNB plane. As Assistant Secretary Tria is his fraternity brother, he
asked if he, together with the Drilon group, could hitch a ride on the plane to Bicol. His request was granted. Their purpose in going
to Bicol was to assess their chances in the IBP elections. The Drilon company talked with the IBP chapter presidents in Daet, Naga,
and Legaspi, and asked for their support (t.s.n., July 10, 1989, pp. 549).
Assistant Secretary Antonio S. Tria confirmed the use of a PNB plane by Atty. Drilon and her group. He recalled that on May
23,1989, DENR Secretary Factoran instructed him to go to Bicol to monitor certain regional development projects there and to
survey the effect of the typhoon that hit the region in the middle of May. On the same day, Atty. Tiu, a fraternity brother (meaning that
Tiu belongs to the Sigma Rho fraternity) went to the DENR office and requested the Secretary (Factoran) if he (Tiu) could be
allowed to hitch a ride on the plane. Assistant Secretary Tria, together with the Drilon group which included Attorneys Drilon,

Grapilon, Amy Wong, Gladys Tiongco, and Tiu, took off at the Domestic Airport bound for Naga, Daet and Legaspi. In Legaspi the
Drilon group had lunch with Atty. Vicente Real, Jr., an IBP chapter president (t.s.n., July 10, 1989, pp. 54-69).
(3) Formation of tickets and single slates.
The three candidates, Paculdo, Nisce and Drilon, admitted having formed their own slates for the election of IBP national officers on
June 3, 1989.
Atty. Paculdo's slate consisted of himself for President; Bella D. Tiro, for Executive Vice-President; and for Governors: Justiniano
P. Cortez (Northern Luzon), Oscar C. Fernandez (Central Luzon), Mario C.V. Jalandoni (Greater Manila), Petronilo A. de la Cruz
(Southern Luzon), Teodorico C. Almine, Jr. (Bicolandia), Ricardo B. Teruel (Western Visayas), Porfirio P. Siyangco (Eastern
Visayas), Jesus S. Anonat (Western Mindanao), Guerrero A. Adaza, Jr. (Eastern Mindanao) (Exhibit M-Nisce).
The Drilon ticket consisted of. Violeta C. Drilon for President, Arturo Tiu for Executive Vice President, Salvador Lao for Chairman of
the House of Delegates, and, for Governors: Basil Rupisan (Northern 'Luzon), Acong Atienza (Central Luzon), Amy Wong (Metro
Manila), Jose Grapilon (Southern Tagalog), Teodoro Almine (Bicolandia), Baldomero Estenzo (Eastern Visayas), Joelito Barrera
(Western Visayas), Gladys Tiongco (Eastern Mindanao), Simeon Datumanong (Western Mindanao) (Exhibit M-1-Nisce).
Atty. Ramon N. Nisce's line-up listed himself and Confessor B. Sansano Benjamin B. Bernardino, Antonio L. Nalapo Renato F.
Ronquillo, Gloria C. Agunos, Mario Valderrama, Candido P. Balbin Jr., Oscar C. Fernandez, Cesar G. Viola, Leo C. Medialdea, Jr.,
Vicente P. Tordilla, Jr., Jose S. Buban, Joel A. Llosa, Jesus T. Albacite and Oscar V. Badelles.
(4) Giving free transportation to out-of-town delegates and alternates.
Atty. Nisce admitted having bought plane tickets for some delegates to the convention. He mentioned Oscar Badelles to whom he
gave four round-trip tickets (worth about P10,000) from Iligan City to Manila and back. Badelles was a voting delegate. Nisce,
however, failed to get a written commitment from him because Atty. Medialdea assured him (Nisce) "sigurado na 'yan, h'wag mo
nang papirmahin." Badelles won as sergeant-at-arms, not in Nisce's ticket, but in that of Drilon.
Badelles admitted that Nisce sent him three airplane tickets, but he Badelles said that he did not use them, because if he did, he
would be committed to Nisce, and he Badelles did not want to be committed (t.s.n., July 4,1989, pp. 77-79, 95-96).
Nisce also sent a plane ticket to Atty. Atilano, who was his candidate, and another ticket to Mrs. Linda Lim of Zamboanga. Records
of the Philippine Airlines showed that Atty. Nisce paid for the plane tickets of Vicente Real, Jr. (Exh. D-1-Calica), Romeo Fortes (Exh.
D-1-Calica), Cesar Batica (Exh. D-2-Calica), Jose Buban of Leyte (Exh. D-2-Calica), Delsanto Resuello (Exh. D-3- Calica), and
Ceferino Cabanas (Exh. D-3-Calica).
In spite of his efforts and expense, only one of Nisce's candidates won: Renato Ronquillo of Manila 4, as Secretary of the House of
Delegates (t.s.n. July 3, p. 161).
(5) Giving free hotel accommodations, food, drinks, entertainment to delegates.
(a) ATTY. NEREO PACULDO
Atty. Paculdo alleged that he booked 24 regular rooms and three suites at the Holiday Inn, which served as his headquarters. The
24 rooms were to be occupied by his staff (mostly ladies) and the IBP delegates. The three suites were to be occupied by himself,
the officers of the Capitol Bar Association, and Atty. Mario Jalandoni. He paid P150,000 for the hotel bills of his delegates at the
Holiday Inn, where a room cost P990 per day with breakfast.
Those listed as guests of Atty. Paculdo at the Holiday Inn were: Emesto C. Perez, Tolomeo Ligutan Judge Alfonso Combong,
Ricardo Caliwag, Antonio Bisnar, Benedicto Balajadia, Jesus Castro, Restituto Villanueva, Serapio Cribe Juanita Subia, Teodorico J.
Almine, Rudy Gumban, Roem Arbolado, Ricardo Teruel, Shirley Moises, Ramon Roco, Alberto Trinidad, Teodoro Quicoy Manito
Lucero, Fred Cledera Vicente Tordilla, Julian Ocampo, Francisco Felizmenio Marvel Clavecilla, Amador Capiral, Eufronio Maristela,
Porfirio Siyangco, William Llanes, Jr., Marciano Neri, Guerrero Adaza, Diosdado Peralta, Luis C. Formilleza, Jr., Democrito Perez,
Bruno Flores, Dennis Rendon, Judge Ceferino Chan, Mario Jalandoni, Kenneth Siruelo Bella Tiro, Antonio Santos, Tiburcio Edano
James Tan, Cesilo A. Adaza, Francisco Roxas, Angelita Gacutan, Jesse Pimentel, Judge Jaime Hamoy, Jesus Anonat, Carlos Egay,
Judge Carlito Eisma, Judge Jesus Carbon, Joven Zach, and Benjamin Padon.
Noel de Guzman, Holiday Inn's credit manager, testified that Atty. Paculdo booked 52 (not 24) rooms, including the presidential
suite, which was used as the Secretariat. The group bookings were made by Atty. Gloria Paculdo, the wife of Nereo Paculdo (t.s.n.
June 28, 1989, pp. 63-68). The total sum of P227,114.89 was paid to Holiday Inn for the use of the rooms.

(b) ATTY. VIOLETA C. DRILON


The delegates and supporters of Atty. Drilon were billeted at the Philippine Plaza Hotel where her campaign manager, Atty. Renato
Callanta, booked 40 rooms, 5 of which were suites. According to Ms. Villanueva, Philippine Plaza banquet and conventions
manager, the contract that Atty. Callanta signed with the Philippine Plaza was made in the name of the "IBP c/o Atty. Callanta."
Mrs. Lourdes Juco, a sales manager of the Philippine Plaza, recalled that it was Mr. Mariano Benedicto who first came to book
rooms for the IBP delegates. She suggested that he obtain a group (or discounted) rate. He gave her the name of Atty. Callanta who
would make the arrangements with her. Mr. Benedicto turned out to be the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE).
The total sum of P316,411.53 was paid by Atty. Callanta for the rooms, food, and beverages consumed by the Drilon group, with an
unpaid balance of P302,197.30. Per Attorney Daniel Martinez's last telephone conversation with Ms. Villanueva, Atty. Callanta still
has an outstanding account of P232,782.65 at Philippine Plaza.
Atty. Callanta admitted that he signed the contract for 40 rooms at the Philippine Plaza. He made a downpayment of P123,000. His
"working sheet' showed that the following persons contributed for that down payment:

(a) Nilo Pena (Quasha Law Office)

P 25,000

(b) Antonio Carpio

20,000

(c) Toto Ferrer (Carpio Law Office)

10,000

(d) Jay Castro

10,000

(e) Danny Deen

20,000

(f) Angangco Tan (Angara Law Office)

10,000

(g) Alfonso Reyno

20,000

(h) Cosme Rossel

15,300

(t.s.n. July 4, 1 989, pp. 3-4)


Atty. Callanta explained that the above listed persons have been contributing money every time the IBP embarks on a project. This
time, they contributed so that their partners or associates could attend the legal aid seminar and the IBP convention too.
Atty. Drilon alleged that she did not know that Atty. Callanta had billeted her delegates at the Philippine Plaza. She allegedly did not
also know in whose name the room she occupied was registered. But she did ask for a room where she could rest during the

convention. She admitted, however, that she paid for her hotel room and meals to Atty. Callanta, through Atty. Loanzon (t.s.n. July
3,1989).
The following were listed as having occupied the rooms reserved by Atty. Callanta at the Philippine Plaza: Violeta Drilon, Victoria A.
Verciles, Victoria C. Loanzon, Leopoldo A. Consulto Ador Lao, Victoria Borra, Aimee Wong, Callanta, Pena, Tiu, Gallardo, Acong
Atienza, D. Bernardo, Amores, Silao Caingat, Manuel Yuson, Simeon Datumanong, Manuel Pecson, Sixto Marella, Joselito Barrera,
Radon Macalalag, Oscar Badelles, Antonio Acyatan, Ildefonso C. Puerto, Nestor Atienza, Gil Batula Array Corot, Dimakuta Corot
Romeo Fortes Irving Petilla, Teodoro Palma, Gil Palma, Danilo Deen, Delsanto, Resuello, Araneta, Vicente Real, Sylvio Casuncad
Espina, Guerrero, Julius Neri, Linda Lim, Ben Lim, C. Batica, Luis Formilleza, Felix Macalag Mariano Benedicto, Atilano, Araneta,
Renato Callanta.
Atty. Nilo Pena admitted that the Quasha Law Office of which he is a senior partner, gave P25,000 to Callanta for rooms at the
Philippine Plaza so that some members of his law firm could campaign for the Drilon group (t.s.n. July 5,1989, pp. 7678) during the
legal aid seminar and the IBP convention. Most of the members of his law firm are fraternity brothers of Secretary Drilon (meaning,
members of the Sigma Rho Fraternity). He admitted being sympathetic to the candidacy of Atty. Drilon and the members of her
slate, two of whom Jose Grapilon and Simeon Datumanong are Sigma Rhoans. They consider Atty. Drilon as a "sigma rho sister,"
her husband being a sigma rhoan.
Atty. Antonio Carpio, also a Sigma Rhoan, reserved a room for the members of his own firm who attended the legal aid seminar and
the convention. He made the reservation through Atty. Callanta to whom he paid P20,000 (t.s.n. July 6,1989, pp. 30-34).
Atty. Carpio assisted Atty. Drilon in her campaign during the convention, by soliciting the votes of delegates he knew, like Atty.
Albacite his former teacher (but the latter was already committed to Nisce), and Atty. Romy Fortes, a classmate of his in the U.P.
College of Law (t. t.s.n. July 6, 1989, pp. 22, 29, 39).
(c) ATTY. RAMON NISCE.
Atty. Nisce, through his brother-in-law, Ricardo Paras, entered into a contract with the Hyatt Hotel for a total of 29 rooms plus one (1)
seventh-floor room. He made a downpayment of P20,000 (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, p. 58) on April 20, 1989, and P37,632.45 on May
10, or a total of P57,632.45.
Ms. Cecile Flores, Ms. Milagros Ocampo, and Mr. Ramon Jacinto, the sales department manager, credit manager, and reservation
manager, respectively of the Hyatt, testified that Atty. Nisce's bill amounted to P216,127.74 (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, pp. 57-58; Exhibits
E-Flores, F-Jacinto G-Ocampo).
As earlier mentioned, Atty. Nisce admitted that he reserved rooms for those who committed themselves to his candidacy.
The hotel guests of Atty. Nisce were: Gloria Agunos Dennis Habanel B. Batula, John E. Asuncion, Reynaldo Cortes, Lourdes
Santos, Elmer Datuin, Romualdo Din, Antonio Nalapo, Israel Damasco, Candido Balbin, Serrano Balot, Ibarra, Joel Llosa, Eltanal,
Ruperto, Asuncion, Q. Pilotin Reymundo P. Guzman, Zoilo Aguinaldo, Clarin, R. Ronquillo, Dominador Carillo, Filomeno Balinas,
Ernesto Sabulan, Yusop Pangadapun, A. Viray, Icampo, Abelardo Fermin, C. Quiaoit, Augurio Pamintuan, Daniel Macaraeg, Onofre
Tejada.
(6) Campaigning by labor officials for Atty. Violeta Drilon
In violation of the prohibition against "campaigning for or against a candidate while holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or
prosecutory office in the Government' (Sec. 14[c], Art. I, IBP By-Laws), Mariano E. Benedicto II, Assistant Secretary, Department of
Labor and Employment, testified that he took a leave of absence from his office to attend the IBP convention. He stayed at the
Philippine Plaza with the Drilon group admittedly to give "some moral assistance" to Atty. Violeta Drilon. He did so because he is a
member of the Sigma Rho Fraternity. When asked about the significance of Sigma Rho, Secretary Benedicto explained: "More than
the husband of Mrs. Drilon being my boss, the significance there is that the husband is my brother in the Sigma Rho."
He cheered up Mrs., Drilon when her spirits were low. He talked to her immediate circle which included Art Tiu, Tony Carpio, Nilo
Pena, Amy Wong, Atty. Grapilon, Victor Lazatin, and Boy Reyno. They assessed the progress of the campaign, and measured the
strengths and weaknesses of the other groups The group had sessions as early as the later part of May.
Room 114, the suite listed in the name of Assistant Secretary Benedicto toted up a bill of P23,110 during the 2-day IBP
convention/election. A total of 113 phone calls (amounting to Pl,356) were recorded as emanating from his room.
Opposite Room 114, was Room 112, also a suite, listed in the names of Mrs. Drilon, Gladys Tiongco (candidate for Governor,
Eastern Mindanao) and Amy Wong (candidate for Governor, Metro Manila). These two rooms served as the "action center' or "war
room" where campaign strategies were discussed before and during the convention. It was in these rooms where the supporters of
the Drilon group, like Attys. Carpio, Callanta, Benedicto, the Quasha and the ACCRA lawyers met to plot their moves.

(7) Paying the dues or other indebtedness of any number (Sec. 14[e], IBP BY-Laws).
Atty. Teresita C. Sison, IBP Treasurer, testified that she has heard of candidates paying the IBP dues of lawyers who promised to
vote for or support them, but she has no way of ascertaining whether it was a candidate who paid the delinquent dues of another,
because the receipts are issued in the name of the member for whom payment is made (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, pp. 24-28).
She has noticed, though, that there is an upsurge of payments in March, April, May during any election year. This year, the
collections increased by P100,000 over that of last year (a non-election year from Pl,413,425 to Pl,524,875 (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, p.
25).
(8) Distribution of materials other than bio-data of not more than one page of legal size sheet of paper (Sec. 14[a], IBP By-Laws).
On the convention floor on the day of the election, Atty. Paculdo caused to be distributed his bio-data and copies of a leaflet entitled
"My Quest," as wen as, the lists of his slate. Attys. Drilon and Nisce similarly distributed their tickets and bio-data.
The campaign materials of Atty. Paculdo cost from P15,000 to P20,000. They were printed by his own printing shop.
(9) Causing distribution of such statement to be done by persons other than those authorized by the officer presiding at the election
(Sec. 14[b], IBP By-Laws).
Atty. Paculdo employed uniformed girls to distribute his campaign materials on the convention floor. Atty. Carpio noted that there
were more campaign materials distributed at the convention site this year than in previous years. The election was more heated and
expensive (t.s.n. July 6,1989, p. 39).
Atty. Benjamin Bernardino, the incumbent President of the IBP Rizal Chapter, and a candidate for chairman of the House of
Delegates on Nisce's ticket, testified that campaign materials were distributed during the convention by girls and by lawyers. He saw
members of the ACCRA law firm campaigning for Atty. Drilon (t.s.n. July 3,1989, pp. 142-145).
(10) Inducing or influencing a member to withhold his vote, or to vote for or against a candidate (Sec. 14[e], IBP BY-Laws).
Atty. Bernardino disclosed that his cousin, Atty. Romeo Capulong, urged him to withdraw his candidacy for chairman of the House of
Delegates and to run as vice-chairman in Violy Drilon's slate, but he declined (t.s.n. July 3,1989, pp. 137, 149).
Atty. Gloria Agunos personnel director of the Hyatt Terraces Hotel in Baguio and president of the Baguio-Benguet IBP Chapter,
recalled that in the third week of May 1989, after the Tripartite meet of the Department of Labor & Employment at the Green Valley
Country Club in Baguio City, she met Atty. Drilon, together with two labor officers of Region 1, Attys. Filomeno Balbin and Atty.
Mansala Atty. Drilon solicited her (Atty. Agunos') vote and invited her to stay at the Philippine Plaza where a room would be available
for her. Atty. Paculdo also tried to enlist her support during the chapter presidents' meeting to choose their nominee for governor for
the Northern Luzon region (t.s.n. July 13,1989, pp. 43-54).
Atty. Nisce testified that a Manila Chapter 4 delegate, Marcial Magsino, who had earlier committed his vote to Nisce changed his
mind when he was offered a judgeship (This statement, however, is admittedly hearsay). When Nisce confronted Magsino about the
alleged offer, the latter denied that there was such an offer. Nisce's informant was Antonio G. Nalapo an IBP candidate who also
withdrew.
Another Nisce candidate, Cesar Viola, withdrew from the race and refused to be nominated (t.s.n. June 29, 1989, p. 104). Vicente P.
Tordilla who was Nisce's candidate for Governor became Paculdo's candidate instead (t.s.n. June 29, 1989, p. 104).
Nisce recalled that during the Bench and Bar Dialogue in Cotabato City, Court Administrator Tiro went around saying, "I am not
campaigning, but my wife is a candidate." Nisce said that the presidents of several IBP chapters informed him that labor officials
were campaigning for Mrs. Drilon (t.s.n. June 29,1989, pp. 109-110). He mentioned Ciony de la Cerna, who allegedly campaigned in
La Union (t.s.n. June 29,1989,p.111)
Atty. Joel A. Llosa, Nisce's supporter and candidate for governor of the Western Visayas, expressed his disappointment over the IBP
elections because some delegates flip-flopped from one camp to another. He testified that when he arrived at the Manila Domestic
Airport he was met by an assistant regional director of the DOLE who offered to bring him to the Philippine Plaza, but he declined
the offer. During the legal aid seminar, Atty. Drilon invited him to transfer to the Philippine Plaza where a room had been reserved for
him. He declined the invitation (t.s.n. July 4,1989, pp. 102-106).
Atty. Llosa said that while he was still in Dumaguete City, he already knew that the three candidates had their headquarters in
separate hotels: Paculdo, at the Holiday Inn; Drilon, at the Philippine Plaza; and Nisce, at the Hyatt. He knew about this because a
week before the elections, representatives of Atty. Drilon went to Dumaguete City to campaign. He mentioned Atty. Rodil Montebon

of the ACCRA Law Office, accompanied by Atty. Julve the Assistant Regional Director of the Department of Labor in Dumaguete
City. These two, he said, offered to give him two PAL tickets and accommodations at the Philippine Plaza (t.s.n. July 4,1989, pp.
101-104). But he declined the offer because he was already committed to Atty. Nisce.
Atty. Llosa also revealed that before he left for Manila on May 31, 1989, a businessman, Henry Dy, approached him to convince him
to vote for Atty. Paculdo. But Llosa told Dy that he was already committed to Nisce.
He did not receive any plane tickets from Atty. Nisce because he and his two companions (Atty. Eltanal and Atty. Ruperto) had
earlier bought their own tickets for Manila (t.s.n. July 4, 1989, p. 101).
SUMMARY OF CAMPAIGN EXPENSES INCURRED
BY THE CANDIDATES
Atty. Paculdo admitted having spent some P250,000 during his three weeks of campaigning. Of this amount, the Capitol Bar
Association (of which he was the chapter president) contributed about P150,000. The Capitol Bar Association is a voluntary bar
association composed of Quezon City lawyers.
He spent about P100,000 to defray the expenses of his trips to the provinces (Bicol provinces, Pampanga, Abra, Mountain Province
and Bulacan) (t.s.n. June 29,1989, pp. 9-14).
Atty. Nisce's hotel bills at the Hyatt amounted to P216,127.74. This does not include the expenses for his campaign which began
several months before the June 3rd election, and his purchases of airplane tickets for some delegates.
The records of the Philippine Plaza Hotel, headquarters of Atty. Drilon's camp, showed that her campaign rang up over P600,000 in
hotel bills. Atty. Callanta paid P316,411.53 for the rooms, food, and beverage consumed by Atty. Drilon's supporters, but still left an
unpaid bill of P302,197.30 at convention's end.
FINDINGS.
From all the foregoing, it is evident that the manner in which the principal candidates for the national positions in the Integrated Bar
conducted their campaign preparatory to the elections on June 3, 1989, violated Section 14 of the IBP By-Laws and made a travesty
of the idea of a "strictly non-political" Integrated Bar enshrined in Section 4 of the By-Laws.
The setting up of campaign headquarters by the three principal candidates (Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo) in five-star hotels: The
Philippine Plaza, the Holiday Inn and The Hyatt the better for them to corral and entertain the delegates billeted therein; the island
hopping to solicit the votes of the chapter presidents who comprise the 120-member House of Delegates that elects the national
officers and regional governors; the formation of tickets, slates, or line-ups of candidates for the other elective positions aligned with,
or supporting, either Drilon, Paculdo or Nisce; the procurement of written commitments and the distribution of nomination forms to
be filled up by the delegates; the reservation of rooms for delegates in three big hotels, at the expense of the presidential
candidates; the use of a PNB plane by Drilon and some members of her ticket to enable them to "assess their chances" among the
chapter presidents in the Bicol provinces; the printing and distribution of tickets and bio-data of the candidates which in the case of
Paculdo admittedly cost him some P15,000 to P20,000; the employment of uniformed girls (by Paculdo) and lawyers (by Drilon) to
distribute their campaign materials on the convention floor on the day of the election; the giving of assistance by the Undersecretary
of Labor to Mrs. Drilon and her group; the use of labor arbiters to meet delegates at the airport and escort them to the Philippine
Plaza Hotel; the giving of pre-paid plane tickets and hotel accommodations to delegates (and some families who accompanied
them) in exchange for their support; the pirating of some candidates by inducing them to "hop" or "flipflop" from one ticket to another
for some rumored consideration; all these practices made a political circus of the proceedings and tainted the whole election
process.
The candidates and many of the participants in that election not only violated the By-Laws of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal
profession which imposes on all lawyers, as a corollary of their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws, the duty
to "promote respect for law and legal processes" and to abstain from 'activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system" (Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility). Respect for law is gravely eroded when
lawyers themselves, who are supposed to be millions of the law, engage in unlawful practices and cavalierly brush aside the very
rules that the IBP formulated for their observance.
The unseemly ardor with which the candidates pursued the presidency of the association detracted from the dignity of the legal
profession. The spectacle of lawyers bribing or being bribed to vote one way or another, certainly did not uphold the honor of the
profession nor elevate it in the public's esteem.
The Court notes with grave concern what appear to be the evasions, denials and outright prevarications that tainted the statements
of the witnesses, including tome of the candidates, during the initial hearing conducted by it before its fact-finding committee was

created. The subsequent investigation conducted by this Committee has revealed that those parties had been less than candid with
the Court and seem to have conspired among themselves to deceive it or at least withhold vital information from it to conceal the
irregularities committed during the campaign.
CONCLUSIONS.
It has been mentioned with no little insistence that the provision in the 1987 Constitution (See. 8, Art. VIII) providing for a Judicial
and Bar Council composed of seven (7) members among whom is "a representative of the Integrated Bar," tasked to participate in
the selection of nominees for appointment to vacant positions in the judiciary, may be the reason why the position of IBP president
has attracted so much interest among the lawyers. The much coveted "power" erroneously perceived to be inherent in that office
might have caused the corruption of the IBP elections. To impress upon the participants in that electoral exercise the seriousness of
the misconduct which attended it and the stern disapproval with which it is viewed by this Court, and to restore the non-political
character of the IBP and reduce, if not entirely eliminate, expensive electioneering for the top positions in the organization which, as
the recently concluded elections revealed, spawned unethical practices which seriously diminished the stature of the IBP as an
association of the practitioners of a noble and honored profession, the Court hereby ORDERS:
1. The IBP elections held on June3,1989 should be as they are hereby annulled.
2. The provisions of the IBP By-Laws for the direct election by the House of Delegates (approved by this Court in its resolution of
July 9, 1985 in Bar Matter No. 287) of the following national officers:
(a) the officers of the House of Delegates;
(b) the IBP president; and
(c) the executive vice-president,
be repealed, this Court being empowered to amend, modify or repeal the By-Laws of the IBP under Section 77, Art. XI of said ByLaws.
3. The former system of having the IBP President and Executive Vice-President elected by the Board of Governors (composed of
the governors of the nine [91 IBP regions) from among themselves (as provided in Sec. 47, Art. VII, Original IBP By-Laws) should be
restored. The right of automatic succession by the Executive Vice-President to the presidency upon the expiration of their two-year
term (which was abolished by this Court's resolution dated July 9,1985 in Bar Matter No. 287) should be as it is hereby restored.
4. At the end of the President's two-year term, the Executive Vice-President shall automatically succeed to the office of president.
The incoming board of governors shall then elect an Executive Vice-President from among themselves. The position of Executive
Vice-President shall be rotated among the nine (9) IBP regions. One who has served as president may not run for election as
Executive Vice-President in a succeeding election until after the rotation of the presidency among the nine (9) regions shall have
been completed; whereupon, the rotation shall begin anew.
5. Section 47 of Article VII is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 47. National Officers. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall have a President and Executive
Vice-President to be chosen by the Board of Governors from among nine (9) regional governors, as much as
practicable, on a rotation basis. The governors shall be ex oficio Vice-President for their respective regions.
There shall also be a Secretary and Treasurer of the Board of Governors to be appointed by the President with
the consent of the Board.
6. Section 33(b), Art. V, IBP By-Laws, is hereby amended as follows:
(b) The President and Executive Vice President of the IBP shall be the Chairman and Vice-Chairman,
respectively, of the House of Delegates. The Secretary, Treasurer, and Sergeant-at-Arms shall be appointed by
the President with the consent of the House of Delegates.'
7. Section 33(g) of Article V providing for the positions of Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary-Treasurer and Sergeant-at- Arms of
the House of Delegates is hereby repealed
8. Section 37, Article VI is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 37. Composition of the Board. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall be governed by a Board of
Governors consisting of nine (9) Governors from the nine (9) regions as delineated in Section 3 of the
Integration Rule, on the representation basis of one (1) Governor for each region to be elected by the members
of the House of Delegates from that region only. The position of Governor should be rotated among the different
Chapters in the region.
9. Section 39, Article V is hereby amended as follows:
Section 39. Nomination and election of the Governors at least one (1) month before the national convention the
delegates from each region shall elect the governor for their region, the choice of which shall as much as
possible be rotated among the chapters in the region.
10. Section33(a), Article V hereby is amended by addingthe following provision as part of the first paragraph:
No convention of the House of Delegates nor of the general membership shall be held prior to any election in an
election year.
11. Section 39, (a), (b), (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7) of Article VI should be as they are hereby deleted.
All other provisions of the By-Laws including its amendment by the Resolution en banc of this Court of July 9, 1985 (Bar Matter No.
287) that are inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or modified.
12. Special elections for the Board of Governors shall be held in the nine (9) IBP regions within three (3) months, after the
promulgation of the Court's resolution in this case. Within thirty (30) days thereafter, the Board of Governors shall meet at the IBP
Central Office in Manila to elect from among themselves the IBP national president and executive vice-president. In these special
elections, the candidates in the election of the national officers held on June 3,1989, particularly identified in Sub-Head 3 of this
Resolution entitled "Formation of Tickets and Single Slates," as well as those identified in this Resolution as connected with any of
the irregularities attendant upon that election, are ineligible and may not present themselves as candidate for any position.
13. Pending such special elections, a caretaker board shall be appointed by the Court to administer the affairs of the IBP. The Court
makes clear that the dispositions here made are without prejudice to its adoption in due time of such further and other measures as
are warranted in the premises.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines


SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC

April 11, 2013

IN THE MATTER OF THE BREWING CONTROVERSIES IN THE ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRA TED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES.
x-----------------------x
A.C. No. 8292
ATTYS. MARCIAL M. MAGSINO, MANUEL M. MARAMBA and NASSER MARAHOMSALIC, Complainants,
vs.
ATTYS. ROGELIO A. VINLUAN, ABELARDO C. ESTRADA, BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR., EVERGISTO S. ESCALON, and
REYMUND JORGE A. MERCADO, Respondents.
RESOLUTION
MENDOZA, J.:
The Court, exercising its power of supervision over the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), resolves this matter of the election of
the Executive Vice-President (EVP) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for the 2011-2013 term.
This administrative matter was triggered by the Petition for Intervention filed by petitioner-intervenor IBP-Southern Luzon Region
(IBP-Southern Luzon), seeking a declaration that the post of EVP-IBP for the 2011-2013 term be held open to all regions and that it
is qualified to field a candidate for the said position.
This matter comes at the heels of the controversies resolved by the Court in its December 4, 2012 Resolution regarding the
application of the rotation rule in determining which chapter of the IBP-Western Visayas region (IBP-Western Visayas) was qualified
to field a candidate for the position of governor. In the said resolution, the Court clarified that the rotation rule was one by exclusion.
Similar to this recently resolved controversy, the present dilemma calls for the application of the rotation system at the national level.
The Factual Antecedents
To understand the nature of the controversy and the issues presented for resolution, an examination of the structure of the IBP and
its history is in order.
In 1973, the Philippine Bar was integrated1 to elevate the standards of the legal profession, to improve the administration of justice
and to enable it to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.2 Governing the IBP was the IBP Board of Governors (IBPBOG), consisting of the governors from each of the nine (9) geographic regions of the archipelago,3 namely: Northern Luzon,
Central Luzon, Southern Luzon, Greater Manila, Bicolandia, Eastern Visayas, Western Visayas, Eastern Mindanao, and Western
Mindanao.4 The governors of the IBP-BOG are, in turn, elected by the House of Delegates which consists of members duly
apportioned among the chapters of each region.5

At the helm of the IBP is the IBP National President (IBP-President),6 who is automatically succeeded by the EVP. When the
Philippine Bar was first integrated, both the IBP-President and the EVP were elected by the IBP-BOG from among themselves or
from other members of the Integrated Bar,7 with the right of automatic succession by the EVP to the presidency for the next
succeeding full term. The presidency rotated among all the nine regions in such order as the IBP-BOG had prescribed. 8 Both the
IBP-President and the EVP held a term of one (1) year, with the presidency rotating from year to year among the regions. 9
On November 1, 1974, the IBP By-Laws took effect, providing that the IBP-President and the EVP be chosen by the Board of
Governors from among nine (9) regional governors, as much as practicable, on a rotation basis.10 It was also provided that the IBPPresident and the EVP hold office for a term of two (2) years from July 1 following their election until June 30 of their second year in
office and until their successors shall have been duly chosen and qualified.11
Later, several amendments in the IBP By-Laws were introduced, among which were the provisions relating to the election of its
national officers. In Bar Matter No. 287, dated July 9, 1985, the Court approved the recommendation allowing the IBP-President, the
EVP and the officers of the House of Delegates to be directly elected by the House of Delegates.12
Unfortunately, history recalls that this mode of electing the IBP national officers was marred with unethical politicking, electioneering
and other distasteful practices. Thus, on October 6, 1989, the Court in Bar Matter No. 491, dated October 6, 1989, ordered: 1] the
annulment of the just concluded national elections; 2] the abolition of the system of election of national officers by direct action of the
House of Delegates; 3] the restoration of the former system of having the IBP-President and the EVP elected by the IBP-BOG from
among themselves, with right of succession by the EVP to the presidency and subject to the rule that "the position of Executive Vice
President of the IBP shall be rotated among the nine (9) IBP regions;"13 4] the holding of special elections for the election of the first
set of IBP-President and EVP;14 and 5] the appointment of a caretaker board to administer the affairs of the IBP pending the holding
of special elections.15
In the same Bar Matter No. 491, the Court ordered the amendment of Section 47, Article VII of the IBP By-laws, to read:
SEC. 47. National Officers. - The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall have a President and Executive Vice President to be chosen
by the Board of Governors from among nine (9) regional governors, as much as practicable, on a rotation basis. The governors shall
be ex officio Vice President for their respective regions. There shall also be a Secretary and Treasurer of the Board of Governors to
be appointed by the President with the consent of the Board. (As amended pursuant to Bar Matter No. 491)
The Executive Vice President shall automatically become President for the next succeeding term. The Presidency shall rotate
among the nine Regions.16 [Emphasis supplied]
Following the rotation system just ordered, the following individuals representing the different regions of the IBP served as IBPPresident:
1.

Eugene Tan (Capiz)

Western Visayas

January 28, 1990-April 199117

2.

Numeriano Tanopo, Jr.


(Pangasinan)

Central Luzon

April 1991-June 30, 1991

3.

Mervin Encanto
(Quezon City)

Greater Manila

1993-1995

4.

Raoul R. Angangco
(Makati)

Southern Luzon

1995-1997

5.

Jose Aguila Grapilon


(Biliran)

Eastern Visayas

1997-1999

6.

Arthur Lim
(Zambasulta)

Western Mindanao

1999-2001

7.

Teofilo Pilando, Jr.


(Kalinga Apayao)

Northern Luzon

2001-2003

8.

Jose Anselmo Cadiz


(Camarines Sur)

Bicolandia

2003-2005

On January 27, 1999, in Velez v. de Vera,18 reasoning that the rotation system applied only to the EVP, the Court considered the
election of then EVP Leonard De Vera (De Vera), representing the Eastern Mindanao region, as one completing the first
rotational cycle and affirmed the election of Jose Vicente B. Salazar (Salazar) of the Bicolandia region as EVP. The Court
explained that the rotational cycle would have been completed with the succession of EVP De Vera, representing Eastern Mindanao
as IBP-President. For having misappropriated his clients funds and committing acts inimical to the IBP-BOG and the IBP in general,
De Vera was removed as governor of Eastern Mindanao and as EVP, and his removal was affirmed by the Court.

Thus, Salazar became IBP-President for the 2005-2007 term with Feliciano Bautista (Bautista) of Central Luzon as EVP. The term of
Salazar was the start of the second rotational cycle. Bautista eventually succeeded to the IBP presidency with Atty. Rogelio Vinluan
(Vinluan) as his EVP.
In 2009, however, the national and regional IBP elections were again tainted with numerous controversies, which were resolved by
the Court in its December 14, 2010 Resolution,19 in the following manner:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves that:
1. The elections of Attys. Manuel M. Maramba, Erwin M. Fortunato and Nasser A. Marohomsalic as Governors for the
Greater Manila Region, Western Visayas Region and Western Mindanao Region, respectively, for the term 2009-2011 are
UPHELD;
2. A special election to elect the IBP Executive Vice President for the 2009-2011 term is hereby ORDERED to be held
under the supervision of this Court within seven (7) days from receipt of this Resolution with Attys. Maramba, Fortunato
and Marohomsalic being allowed to represent and vote as duly-elected Governors of their respective regions;
3. Attys. Rogelio Vinluan, Abelardo Estrada, Bonifacio Barandon, Jr., Evergisto Escalon, and Raymund Mercado are all
found GUILTY of grave professional misconduct arising from their actuations in connection with the controversies in the
elections in the IBP last April 25, 2009 and May 9, 2009 and are hereby disqualified to run as national officers of the IBP in
any subsequent election. While their elections as Governors for the term 2007-2009 can no longer be annulled as this has
already expired, Atty. Vinluan is declared unfit to hold the position of IBP Executive Vice President for the 2007-2009 term
and, therefore, barred from succeeding as IBP President for the 2009-2011 term;
4. The proposed amendments to Sections 31, 33, par. (g), 39, 42, and 43, Article VI and Section 47, Article VII of the
IBP By-Laws as contained in the Report and Recommendation of the Special Committee, dated July 9, 2009, are hereby
approved and adopted; and
5. The designation of retired SC Justice Santiago Kapunan as Officer-in-Charge of the IBP shall continue, unless earlier
revoked by the Court, but not to extend beyond June 30, 2011.
SO ORDERED.
Attempts to seek reconsideration of the Courts resolution were denied by the Court in its Resolution, dated February 8, 2011. 20
Despite Bar Matter No. 491 and Velez,21 which recognized the operational fact that the rotation was from the position of President to
that of the EVP, Section 47 was not immediately amended to reflect the official position of the Court. It was only amended through
the December 14, 2010 Resolution.22 Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws now reads:
Sec. 47. National Officers. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall have a President, an Executive Vice President, and nine (9)
regional Governors. The Executive Vice President shall be elected on a strict rotation basis by the Board of Governors from among
themselves, by the vote of at least five (5) Governors. The Governors shall be ex officio Vice President for their respective regions.
There shall also be a Secretary and Treasurer of the Board of Governors.
The violation of the rotation rule in any election shall be penalized by annulment of the election and disqualification of the offender
from election or appointment to any office in the IBP.
In the special elections that were held thereafter, Roan I. Libarios (Libarios), representing IBP-Eastern Mindanao Region, was
elected EVP and he later on succeeded as president.
On April 27, 2011, the IBP-BOG, acting on the letter of then Gov. Erwin M. Fortunato (Fortunato) of IBP-Western Visayas requested
that the Court provide guidance on how it would proceed with the application of the rotational rule in the regional elections for
governor of IBP-Western Visayas.23
On December 4, 2012, the Court issued a resolution24 addressing the issues with respect to the election of governor for IBPWestern Visayas. In clarifying that the rotational rule was one by exclusion, the Court explained that in the election of governor of a
region, all chapters of the region should be given the opportunity to have their nominees elected as governor, to the exclusion of
those chapters that had already served in the rotational cycle. Once a rotational cycle would be completed, all chapters of a region,
except the chapter which won in the immediately preceding elections, could once again have the equal opportunity to vie for the
position of governor of their region. The chapter that won in the immediately preceding election, under the rotational cycle just
completed, could only vie for the position of governor after the election of the first governor in the new cycle.

The Current Controversy


Earlier, on July 27, 2012, IBP-Southern Luzon filed its Motion for Leave to Intervene and to Admit the Attached Petition In
Intervention25 and the subject Petition In Intervention,26 seeking a declaration that the post of EVP for the 2011-2013 term be held
open to all regions and that it be qualified to nominate a candidate for the position of EVP for the 2011-2013 term.
The Petition in Intervention was, in turn, opposed by Fortunato,27 who insisted that IBP-Western Visayas was the only region that
could vie for the position of EVP for the 2011-2013 term.
In the December 4, 2012 Resolution, the Court deferred its action on the intervention sought by the IBP-Southern Luzon and
required the IBP-BOG to submit its comment.28
In its Comment, dated January 2, 2013, the IBP-BOG prayed that the "IBP-Southern Luzon be allowed to nominate a candidate for
EVP for the 2011-2013 term, without prejudice to the right of other regions except IBP-Eastern Mindanao, to do the same." 29
The opposition of Fortunato to the subject petition in intervention of IBP-Southern Luzon was joined by his successor, Marlou B.
Ubano (Ubano), Gov. Manuel L. Enage, Jr. of IBP-Eastern Visayas,30 and the members of the House of Delegates of IBP-Western
Visayas.31 Nasser A. Marohomsalic (Marohomsalic),32 one of the original parties in this case, Gov. Leonor Gernoa-Romeo33 of IBPBicolandia, and the IBP-BOG34 likewise filed their respective comments.
Position of IBP-Southern Luzon
In support of its bid to qualify in the election for EVP for the 2011-2013 term, IBP-Southern Luzon takes the following positions:
In view of the Courts resolution to bar its representative, Vinluan, from succeeding as IBP-President for the 2009-2011
term, the IBP-Southern Luzon was effectively deprived of its right to the IBP presidency.35
With the election of Eugene A. Tan as IBP-President (January 29, 1990-April 1991), IBP-Western Visayas should no
longer be allowed to field a candidate in the forthcoming election for EVP.36
As he was just elected on January 5, 2013, Ubano cannot be considered qualified to seek the position of EVP cum IBPPresident due to his lack of experience.37
Position of IBP-Western Visayas
For its part, IBP-Western Visayas advances the following arguments in support of its position that it is the only region qualified to
field a candidate for EVP for the 2011-2013 term:
The Petition in Intervention of IBP-Southern Luzon should not be entertained as it would be contrary to Section 2, Rule
19, it being filed following the finality of the December 14, 2010 Resolution of the Court.38
With the term of current IBP-President Libarios coming to an end, IBP-Western Visayas is the only region left qualified
to field a candidate for EVP, pursuant to the December 14, 2010 Resolution of the Court.39
The IBP Southern Luzon had already taken its turn in the rotation system following the election of Vinluan as EVP
(2007-2009) and Raoul R. Angangco (Angangco) who also served as EVP during the 1995-1997 term.401wphi1
The election of Eugene Tan cannot be considered as part of the current rotation as he was elected following the special
elections held as a result of the October 6, 1989 Resolution of the Court.
Synthesized, the core issues that must be addressed for the resolution of the Court are the following:
A. Whether the motion for intervention of IBP-Southern Luzon can be allowed and admitted.
B. Whether the first rotational cycle was completed with the election of Atty. Leonard De Vera.
C. Whether IBP-Southern Luzon has already served in the current rotation.
D. Whether the IBP-Western Visayas has already served in the current rotation.

The Motion for Intervention Should be Allowed and Admitted


There is no dispute that the Constitution has empowered the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning "the integrated
bar."41 Pursuant thereto, the Court wields a continuing power of supervision over the IBP and its affairs like the elections of its
officers. The current controversy has been precipitated by the petition in intervention of IBP-Southern Luzon, praying that the
election of the EVP for the 2011-2013 term be opened to all and that it be considered as qualified to field a candidate for the said
position.
In the exercise of its continuing supervisory power, the Court is allowing the matter to be raised as an issue because it has not yet
been squarely settled, as will be pointed out later on.1wphi1 Moreover, it is not only an exercise of its constitutional and statutory
mandated duty, but also of its symbolic function of providing guiding principles, precepts and doctrines 42 for the purpose of steering
the members of the bench and the bar to the proper path.
It should be noted that this is merely an administrative matter, a bar matter to be specific, where technical rules are not strictly
applied. In fact, in administrative cases, there is no rule regarding entry of judgment. Where there is no entry of
judgment, finality and immutability do not come into play. On several occasions, the Court has re-opened administrative cases and
modified its decisions that had long attained finality in the interest of justice. A recent example is Talens-Dabon v. Judge
Arceo,43 where the Court lifted the ban against the disqualification of the respondent from re-employment in government. In Re:
Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing for Clemency,44 the Court granted
clemency so the respondent could transfer to a higher position. In Petition for Judicial Clemency of Judge Irma Zita v.
Masamayor,45 the respondent was given judicial clemency for her past administrative offenses so she could apply for a lateral
transfer.
At any rate, granting that technical rules are strictly applied in administrative matters, the Court can exercise its power and
prerogative to suspend its own rules and to exempt a case from their operation if and when justice requires it. "The power to
suspend or even disregard rules of procedure can be so pervasive and compelling as to alter even that which this Court itself had
already declared final."46
The First Rotational Cycle Already Completed
As earlier recited, Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws was amended in the December 14, 2010 Resolution 47 of the Court to read as
follows:
Sec. 47. National Officers. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall have a President, an Executive Vice President, and nine (9)
regional Governors. The Executive Vice President shall be elected on a strict rotation basis by the Board of Governors from among
themselves, by the vote of at least five (5) Governors. The Governors shall be ex officio Vice President for their respective regions.
There shall also be a Secretary and Treasurer of the Board of Governors.
The violation of the rotation rule in any election shall be penalized by annulment of the election and disqualification of the offender
from election or appointment to any office in the IBP.
From the above, it is clear that the amendment was effected to underscore the shift of the rotation from the position of president to
that of EVP. The purpose of the system being to ensure that all the regions will have an equal opportunity to serve as EVP and then
automatically succeed as president.
As previously mentioned, in Velez,48 the Court stated that the rotation system applies to the election of the EVP only and considered
the service of then EVP De Vera, representing the Eastern Mindanao region, as having completed the first rotational cycle. For said
reason, the Court affirmed the election of Salazar of Bicolandia as EVP. The Court explained that the rotation cycle with respect to
the presidency would have been completed with the succession of EVP De Vera as IBP-President. The specific words used in
Velez49 were:
In Bar Matter 491, it is clear that it is the position of IBP EVP which is actually rotated among the nine Regional Governors. The
rotation with respect to the Presidency is merely a result of the automatic succession rule of the IBP EVP to the Presidency. Thus,
the rotation rule pertains in particular to the position of IBP EVP, while the automatic succession rule pertains to the Presidency. The
rotation with respect to the Presidency is but a consequence of the automatic succession rule provided in Section 47 of the IBP ByLaws.
In the case at bar, the rotation rule was duly complied with since upon the election of Atty. De Vera as IBP EVP, each of the nine IBP
regions had already produced an EVP and, thus, the rotation was completed. It is only unfortunate that the supervening event of
Atty. de Vera's removal as IBP Governor and EVP rendered it impossible for him to assume the IBP Presidency. The fact remains,
however, that the rotation rule had been completed despite the non-assumption by Atty. de Vera to the IBP Presidency.

The notion that the ruling in Velez50 should not be considered at all by the Court because it is barred by the Omnibus Motion Rule
deserves scant consideration. It may have been earlier overlooked, but the Court is not barred from motu propio taking judicial
notice of such judicial pronouncement, pursuant to its continuing supervisory powers over the IBP.
The Second Rotational Cycle
While there may have been no categorical pronouncement in Velez that the second rotational cycle started with the election of
Salazar as EVP, it cannot be denied that it was so. With the Velez declaration that the election of De Vera as EVP completed the
first cycle, there can be no other consequence except that the term of EVP Salazar commenced a new rotational cycle. From the
records, it appears that the following had already served as EVP in the Second Rotational Cycle:
1. Jose Vicente Salazar

Bicolandia

2005

2. Feliciano M. Bautista

Central Luzon

2005-2007

3. Rogelio Vinluan

Southern Luzon

2007-2009

4. Roan L. Libarios

Eastern Mindanao

2009-2011

As there were only four (4) regions which had served as EVP, there are still five (5) other regions which have not yet so served.
These regions are:
1. Northern Luzon
2. Greater Manila Area
3. Eastern Visayas
4. Western Visayas
5. Western Mindanao
Needless to state, Western Visayas is not the only region that can vie for EVP for the 2011-2013 term. This answers the query of
Fortunato.
With respect to IBP-Southern Luzon, following the ruling in Velez,51 it is clear that it already had its turn to serve as EVP in the
Second Rotational Cycle.
The Special Committee failed to take into account the Velez ruling
In arriving at its December 14, 2010 Resolution,52 the Court then was confronted with limited issues. Among those were: 1] the
validity of the election of Nasser A. Marohomsalic as governor of the IBP-Western Mindanao Region; 2] the validity of the election of
Manuel M. Maramba as governor for the Greater Manila Region for the term 2009-2011; 3] the validity of the election of Erwin M.
Fortunato as governor for Western Visayas Region for the term 2009-2011; and 4] the validity of the elections for EVP for the 20092011 term presided by then IBP-President Bautista. The four issues were intertwined since the validity of the elections presided by
IBP-President Bautista was questioned on the alleged lack of quorum, as it was attended by Marohomsalic, whose own election was
then also being questioned.
With those limited issues resolved, the Court directed that special elections should be held for the election of EVP for the remaining
2009-2011 term "to heal the divisions in the IBP and promote unity by enabling all the nine (9) governors-elect to elect the EVP in a
unified meeting called for that purpose."53 In ordering the special elections to be conducted, the Court took into account the report of
the Special Committee as follows:
The list of national presidents furnished the Special Committee by the IBP National Secretariat, shows that the governors of the
following regions were President of the IBP during the past nine (9) terms (1991-2009):
Numeriano Tanopo, Jr. (Pangasinan) --- Central Luzon ------- 1991-1993
Mervin G. Encanto (Quezon City) -------- Manila --------------- 1993-1995
Raoul R. Angangco (Makati) ------------- Southern Luzon ----- 1995-1997

Jose Aguila Grapilon (Biliran) ----------- Eastern Visayas ---- 1997-1999


Arthur D. Lim (Zambasulta) ------------- Western Mindanao--1999-2001
Teofilo S. Pilando, Jr. (Kalinga-Apayao)-Northern Luzon --- 2001-2003
Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz (Camarines Sur) Bicolandia ---------- 2003-2005
Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz (Camarines Sur) Bicolandia -----2005-Aug 2006
Jose Vicente B. Salazar (Albay) ---------- Bicolandia ---- Aug. 2006-2007
Feliciano M. Bautista (Pangasinan) ----- Central Luzon ------ 2007-2009
Only the governors of the Western Visayas and Eastern Mindanao regions have not yet had their turn as Executive Vice President
cum next IBP President, while Central Luzon and Bicolandia have had two (2) terms already.
Therefore, either the governor of the Western Visayas Region, or the governor of the Eastern Mindanao Region should be elected
as Executive Vice-President for the 2009-2011 term. The one who is not chosen for this term, shall have his turn in the next (20112013) term. Afterwards, another rotation shall commence with Greater Manila in the lead, followed by Southern Luzon, Eastern
Visayas, Western Mindanao, Northern Luzon, Bicolandia, Central Luzon, and either Western Visayas or Eastern Mindanao at the
end of the round.54
Apparently, the report of the Special Committee failed to take into account the ruling in Velez 55 that the service of then EVP Leonard
De Vera, representing the Eastern Mindanao region, completed the first rotational cycle.
Thus, it committed two inaccuracies. First, it erroneously reported that "only the governors of the Western Visayas and Eastern
Mindanao regions have not yet had their turn as Executive Vice President." Second, it erroneously considered Central Luzon and
Bicolandia as having had two terms each in the First Rotational Cycle, when their second services were for the Second Rotational
Cycle.
The unfortunate fact, however, is that the erroneous statements of the Special Committee were used as bases for the
recommendation that "either the governor of the Western Visayas Region, or the governor of the Eastern Mindanao Region should
be elected as Executive Vice-President for the 2009-2011 term."
Worse, they were cited by IBP-Western Visayas as bases to oppose the Petition in Intervention of IBP-Southern Luzon, arguing that
it would be contrary to Section 2, Rule 19, it being filed following the finality of the December 14, 2010 Resolution 56 of the Court.
At any rate, the statement of the Court in its December 14, 2010 Resolution57 that "only the governors of the Western Visayas and
Eastern Mindanao regions have not yet had their turn as Executive Vice President," did not pertain to the lis mota of the case. Thus,
it did not settle anything so as to be deemed a precedent-setting ruling. Those statements, therefore, could not be considered as
overturning, vacating and setting aside the ruling in Velez58 that the service of then EVP De Vera completed the first rotational
cycle.
The election of Eugene Tan As IBP President
Much has been said about the election of Eugene Tan as IBP-President. IBP-Southern Luzon argues that with his election and
service as IBP-President from January 29, 1990 to April 1991, the IBP-Western Visayas should no longer be allowed to field a
candidate in the forthcoming elections for the EVP.59 IBP-Western Visayas counters that his election could not be considered as part
of the current rotation as he was elected following the special elections held as a result of the October 6, 1989 Resolution of the
Court. It has also been argued that he merely served as Interim President.
As Velez60 declared that the election of EVP De Vera completed the first rotational cycle, it could only mean that all regions had their
respective turns in the first rotational cycle. Thus, in this second rotational cycle, issues as to the nature of his election and service
as IBP-President during the First Rotational Cycle are inconsequential.
At any rate, Eugene Tan could not be considered as an interim president. It was Justice Felix Antonio who was designated by the
Court as Interim Caretaker until the election of the IBP-President by the elected IBP-BOG. The election of the new President and
Executive Vice-President was directed by the Court itself and in no way can it be said that they served on an interim basis. Besides,
at that time, under Section 47, the rotation concerned the presidency only. Section 47 was ordered to be amended only in the

December 14, 2010 Resolution,61 despite Bar Matter No. 491 and Velez,62 which recognized the operational fact that the rotation
was from the position of President to that of EVP.
If Eugene Tan served only up to April, 1991, it was not because he served merely in the interim. He served up to that time only
because he resigned. As reflected in Bar Matter No. 565, dated October 15, 1991, Tan resigned as IBP-President when he was
charged by several staff members of the IBP in a letter-complaint to the Chief Justice, with favoritism or discrimination in the hiring
of officers and employees in the IBP and with extravagant and irregular expenditure of IBP funds. The Court found the acts of
Eugene Tan as constituting grave abuse of authority and serious misconduct in office, which would have warranted his removal from
office. Considering that he had earlier tendered his resignation as IBP-President and his term of office already expired on June 30,
1991, the Court imposed on him the penalty of severe censure only.63
Moreover, in A.M. No. 491, the Court stressed that: "One who has served as President of the IBP may not run for election as EVPIBP in a succeeding election until after the rotation of the presidency among the nine (9) regions shall have completed; whereupon
the rotation shall begin anew."
Rotation by Exclusion
As clarified in the December 4, 2012 Resolution of the Court, the rotation should be by exclusion. In said resolution, it was stated:
Resolution of the Court
Re: IBP-Western Visayas Region
After an assiduous review of the facts, the issues and the arguments raised by the parties involved, the Court finds wisdom in the
position of the IBP-BOG, through retired Justice Santiago M. Kapunan, that at the start of a new rotational cycle "all chapters are
deemed qualified to vie for the governorship for the 2011-2013 term without prejudice to the chapters entering into a consensus to
adopt any pre-ordained sequence in the new rotation cycle provided each chapter will have its turn in the rotation." Stated differently,
the IBP-BOG recommends the adoption of the rotation by exclusion scheme. The Court quotes with approval the reasons given by
the IBP-BOG on this score:
6. After due deliberation, the Board of Governors agreed and resolved to recommend adherence to the principle of "rotation by
exclusion" based on the following reasons:
a) Election through "rotation by exclusion" is the more established rule in the IBP. The rule prescribes that once a member
of the chapter is elected as Governor, his chapter would be excluded in the next turn until all have taken their turns in the
rotation cycle. Once a full rotation cycle ends and a fresh cycle commences, all the chapters in the region are once again
entitled to vie but subject again to the rule on rotation by exclusion.
b) Election through a "rotation by exclusion" allows for a more democratic election process. The rule provides for freedom
of choice while upholding the equitable principle of rotation which assures that every member-chapter has its turn in every
rotation cycle.
c) On the other hand, rotation by pre-ordained sequence, or election based on the same order as the previous cycle,
tends to defeat the purpose of an election. The element of choice which is crucial to a democratic process is virtually
removed. Only one chapter could vie for election at every turn as the entire sequence, from first to last, is already
predetermined by the order in the previous rotation cycle. This concept of rotation by pre-ordained sequence negates
freedom of choice, which is the bedrock of any democratic election process.
d) The pronouncement of the Special Committee, which the Supreme Court may have adopted in AM No. 09-5-2-SC,
involving the application of the rotation rule in the previous election for GMR may not be controlling, not being one of the
principal issues raised in the GMR elections.
7. Thus, applying the principle of rotation by exclusion in Western Visayas which starts with a new rotation cycle, all chapters (with
the exception of Romblon) are deemed qualified to vie for the Governorship for 2011-2013 term without prejudice to the chapters
entering into a consensus to adopt any pre-ordained sequence in the new rotation cycle provided each chapter will have its turn in
the rotation.
The Court takes notice of the predictability of the rotation by succession scheme. Through the rotation by exclusion scheme, the
elections would be more genuine as the opportunity to serve as Governor at any time is once again open to all chapters, unless, of
course, a chapter has already served in the new cycle. While predictability is not altogether avoided, as in the case where only one
chapter remains in the cycle, still, as previously noted by the Court "the rotation rule should be applied in harmony with, and not in
derogation of, the sovereign will of the electorate as expressed through the ballot."

Thus, as applied in the IBP-Western Visayas Region, initially, all the chapters shall have the equal opportunity to vie for the position
of Governor for the next cycle except Romblon, so as no chapter shall serve consecutively. Every winner shall then be excluded
after its term. Romblon then joins the succeeding elections after the first winner in the cycle.64
As stated therein, it would be without prejudice to the regions entering into a consensus to adopt any pre-ordained sequence in the
new rotation cycle, provided each region would have its turn in the rotation.
As noted by the Court in its December 4, 2012 Resolution, there is a sense of predictability in the rotation by the pre-ordained
scheme. Through the rotation by exclusion scheme, the elections will be more genuine, as the opportunity to serve at any time is
once again open to all, unless, of course, a region has already served in the new cycle. While predictability is not altogether
avoided, as in the case where only one region remains in the cycle, still, as previously noted by the Court "the rotation rule should
be applied in harmony with, and not in derogation of, the sovereign will of the electorate as expressed through the ballot." 65
The December 14, 2010 Resolution
That the Court, in its December 14, 2010 Resolution,66 ordered the election of the EVP-IBP for the next term based on the
inaccurate report of the Special Committee, is a fact. That cannot be erased. As a consequence thereof, Libarios of IBP-Eastern
Mindanao is now the IBP President. He, however, is part of the second rotational cycle because 1] in Velez67 it was categorically
ruled that the service of then EVP De Vera, representing the Eastern Mindanao region, completed the first rotational cycle; and 2]
he could not be part of the first rotational cycle because EVP de Vera of the same region had already been elected as such.
It is to be noted that in the December 14, 2010 Resolution,68 the Court did not categorically overturn the ruling in Velez. 69 It merely
directed the election of the next EVP, without any reference to any rotational cycle.
To declare that the first rotational cycle as not yet completed will cause more confusion than solution. In fact, it has spawned this
current controversy. To consider the service of current president, Libarios, as part of the first rotational cycle would completely ignore
the ruling in Velez.70
The Best Option: Open to All Regions
How then do we treat the turns of those who had already served in the second rotational cycle? Shall we treat them as anomalies?
As aberrant developments, as Justice Brion puts it?
A remedy is to reconcile the conflicting decisions and resolutions with nothing in mind but the best interest of the IBP. It appears
from the pleadings, however, that the differences are irresoluble.
To avoid the endless conflicts, confusions and controversies which have been irritably plaguing the IBP, the solution is to start
another rotational round, a new cycle, open to all regions. At any rate, all regions, after the election of Libarios, would be
considered as already having its turn in the presidency. This is not to detract from the fact that under Section 47, as amended, and
from the pertinent rulings, the position of EVP-IBP is the one being actually rotated, but as stated in the December 14, 2010
Resolution,71 it will enable the IBP "to start on a clean and correct slate, free from the politicking and the under handed tactics that
have characterized the IBP elections for so long."
Section 47 of the IBP By-Laws should be further amended
Whatever the decision of the Court may be, to prevent future wranglings and guide the IBP in their future course of action, Section
47 and Section 49 of the IBP By-laws should again be amended. Stress should be placed on the automatic succession of the EVP
to the position of the president. Surprisingly, the automatic succession does not appear in present Section 47, as ordered amended
by the Court in the December 14, 2010 Resolution. It should be restored. Accordingly, Section 47 and Section 49, Article VII, are
recommended to read as follows:
Sec. 47. Election of National President Executive Vice President. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall have a President, an
Executive Vice President, and nine (9) regional Governors. The Governors shall be ex-officio Vice President for their respective
regions.
The Board of Governors shall elect the President and Executive Vice President from among themselves each by a vote of at least
five (5) Governors. Upon expiration of the term of the President, the Executive Vice-President shall automatically succeed as
President.
Each region, as enumerated under Section 3, Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court, shall have the opportunity to have its representative
elected as Executive Vice-President, provided that, the election for the position of Executive Vice President shall be on a strict
rotation by exclusion basis. A region, whose representative has just been elected as Executive Vice President, can no longer have

its representative elected for the same position in subsequent elections until after all regions have had the opportunity to be elected
as such. At the end of the rotational cycle, all regions, except the region whose representative has just served the immediately
preceding term, may be elected for another term as Executive Vice-President in the new rotational cycle. The region whose
representative served last in the previous rotational cycle may be elected Executive Vice-President only after the first term of the
new rotational cycle ends, subject once more to the rule on exclusion.
The order of rotation by exclusion shall be without prejudice to the regions entering into a consensus to adopt any pre-ordained
sequence in the new rotation cycle provided each region will have its turn in the rotation.
A violation of the rotation rule in any election shall be penalized by annulment of the election and disqualification of the offender from
election or appointment to any office in the IBP.
SEC. 49. Terms of office. - The President and the Executive Vice-President shall hold office for a term of two years from July 1
following their election until June 30 of their second year in office and until their successors shall have been duly chosen and
qualified.
In the event the President is absent or unable to act, his functions and duties shall be performed by the Executive Vice President,
and in the event of the death, resignation, or removal of the President, the Executive Vice President shall serve as Acting President
for the unexpired portion of the term. His tenure as such shall not be considered a new turn in the rotation.
In the event of death, resignation, removal or disability of the Executive Vice President, the Board of Directors shall elect among the
regions qualified to be elected as Executive Vice President to serve the unexpired portion of the term or period of disability.
In the event of the death, resignation, removal or disability of both the President and the Executive Vice President, the Board of
Governors shall elect an Acting President to hold office for the unexpired portion of the term or during the period of disability. Unless
otherwise provided in these By-Laws, all other officers and employees appointed by the President with the consent of the Board
shall hold office at the pleasure of the Board or for such term as the Board may fix.
u>Creation of a permanent Committee for IBP Affairs
To further avoid conflicting and confusing rulings in the various IBP cases like what happened to this one, the December 14,2010
Resolution and Velez,72 it is recommended that the Court create a committee for IBP affairs to primarily attend to the problems and
needs of a very important professional body and to make recommendation for its improvement and strengthening.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby resolves to:
1] GRANT the Motion for Leave to Intervene and to Admit the Attached Petition In Intervention;
2] DECLARE that the election for the position of the EVP for the 2011-2013 term be open to all regions.
3] AMEND Section 47 and Section 49, Article VII of the IBP By-Laws to read as recommended in the body of this
disposition.
4] CREATE a permanent Committee for IBP Affairs.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of the Philippines


SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. 545-SBC December 26, 1974


PURISIMA BARBA, complainant,
vs.
HECTOR S. PEDRO, respondent.
RESOLUTION

FERNANDO, J.:p
Hector S. Pedro, a successful bar candidate in the 1956 examinations, having obtained an average of 81.16%, but thus far
unsuccessful in his efforts to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath, which had to be deferred because of a complaint for immorality
filed against him by Purisima Barba, reiterates his plea for admission to the bar. It is unquestioned that he had amorous relations
with the complainant resulting in the birth of a child. He failed, however, to marry her, having thereafter chosen another woman for
his bride. After the lapse of eighteen years, and considering that his conduct in the meanwhile has not on the whole shown to be
blameworthy, this Court feels that he has sufficiently atoned for that youthful indiscretion, having in mind likewise, that people of
prominence in the municipality where he resides, did intercede on his behalf. Accordingly the long-sought privilege of membership in
the bar will not be denied him any longer, but with this caveat. He must comply with his moral and legal obligation to his child born
out of wedlock with complainant Purisima Barba.
He has in his favor a resolution of this Court that dates back to January 15, 1969: "In the matter of the petition of Hector S. Pedro to
take the oath as member of the Philippine Bar, alleging that while he passed the bar examinations given by this Court in 1956 with
an average of 81.16%, he was not permitted to take his oath as a member of the Philippine Bar by reason of an administrative
complaint against him filed with this Court be a Miss Purisima Barba of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, the complaint alleging immorality
in that petitioner, sometime in July, 1953, came to her house and with lewd designs succeeded in gratifying his carnal desires, an
act repeated thereafter on three different occasions accompanied by pledges to marry, as a result of which a child was born on April
23, 1954, a matter which when investigated resulted in a report that the complaint was well-grounded, petitioner being prevented
thus from taking his oath; the present petition alleging further that petitioner is now married to Mrs. Estela U. Pedro, a public school
teacher of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, and that from January 4, 1960 up to the present, he has been employed as community
development worker with the Presidential Arm on Community Development (PACD) that he has since then conducted himself well in
his relations with the community as well as in the performance of his duties as such official, attaching to his petition certifications of
his good behavior from the Municipal Mayor of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, the Provincial Development Officer of the PACD, the
President of the San Nicolas Bar Association, and the Grand Knight of the Knights of Columbus of San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, and a
resolution of the Ilocos Norte Bar Association and likewise enclosing an affidavit of complainant Miss Purisima Barba attesting to
petitioner's good conduct and behavior and expressing that she no longer has any opposition to his taking his oath as a lawyer this
Court resolved to defer action on such petition until petitioner has given satisfactory proof to this Court as to the action subsequently
pursued by him with reference to the child who was born out of his relations with complainant Miss Purisima Barba." 1 Thereafter
came this resolution of February 26, 1969: "Hector S. Pedro having offered proof as to the action subsequently pursued by him with
reference to the child who was born out of his relations with complainant Purisima Barba, in compliance with the resolution of
January 15, 1969, [the Court resolved] to allow respondent Hector S. Pedro to take the lawyer's oath." 2 Unfortunately, before he
could do so in accordance with the above resolution, there was a letter from the aforesaid complainant Purisima Barba objecting to
his taking his oath as a lawyer, premised on the fact that the affidavit submitted by him as to her withdrawal of her opposition to his
membership in the bar did not represent her true feelings.

Thereafter, on March 6, 1969, this Court suspended the effectivity of its previous resolution of February 26, 1969, which would have
allowed him to take the lawyer's oath. Moreover, he was required to comment. This he did in a pleading submitted on March 28,
1969. He denied the allegation of falsity concerning the affidavit of complainant. This Court then, in another resolution of April 8,
1969, referred the matter to its Legal Officer, Ricardo Paras Jr., for investigation and report. A report was submitted on August 26,
1969. It stated that after a careful evaluation of the testimony given by the complainant and the respondent, the conclusion is
warranted that complainant "had all along thought that the document Exhibit "A" was an affidavit of recognition of their daughter,
Imelda, and definitely not an affidavit of withdrawal of her opposition to Mr. Pedro's admission to the Philippine Bar." 3 The parties
were heard on the matter on January 19, 1970, with the complainant standing fast on her firm resolve to prevent respondent from
taking the lawyer's oath. That attitude she has maintained all this while. It remains her deep conviction that respondent lacks good
moral character, as proven by his failure to marry her "after having carnal knowledge of her." As she pointed out in her last pleading
dated July 5, 1972: "The respondent was twenty seven years old when he committed the acts complained of and he was very much
qualified to marry the complainant herein, but he did not comply with his promise to march her to the altar. Instead he married
another
woman." 4
It cannot be denied that respondent's conduct left much to be desired. He had committed a transgression, if not against the law,
against the high moral standard requisite for membership in the bar. He had proven false to his word. What is worse, he did sully her
honor. This on the one side. On the other hand, eighteen years had gone by from the time of the 1956 examinations. He was a
successful bar candidate but because of this lapse from moral propriety, he has not been allowed to take the lawyer's oath. It
likewise appears, from the testimonials submitted, that he has behaved rather well. At least, no other misdeed has been attributed to
him. There is no affront to reason then in ruling that the punishment, while deserved, has lasted long enough. He has sufficiently
rehabilitated himself. Retribution has been exacted, He has expiated for his offense. It is understandable that the bitterness in the
heart of complainant cannot easily be erased, but that should not prove decisive. Even the most heinous of crimes prescribe after a
certain period. 5 Moreover, as the transgression resulted from the frailty of flesh, the sociologist MacIver referring to it as "so powerful
an appetite," an imperative of life closely associated with the "recklessness and the caprice of desire," 6 this Court feels that all the
years he has been denied the privilege of being a lawyer would satisfy the requirement that failure to live up to the requisite moral
standard is not to be taken lightly. It could also be said that in offenses of this character, the blame hardly belongs to the man
alone. 7
It must be impressed on respondent Hector S. Pedro, however, that while his plea to take the lawyer's oath is to be granted, it is
indispensable, if he expects to be a member of the bar in good standing, that he complies with the moral and legal obligation
incumbent upon him as the father of the child born out of wedlock as a result of his relationship with complainant Purisima Barba.
WHEREFORE, the resolution of March 6, 1969, suspending a previous resolution of February 26, 1969, is set aside and in
accordance therewith, respondent Hector S. Pedro is allowed to take the lawyer's oath as was provided in the February 26, 1969
resolution.
In re: Atty. Jose Principe, Bar Matter No. 543, 20 September 20, 1990
There is no such thing as retirement in the IBP as understood in labor law. A lawyer, however, may terminate his bar membership
after filing the required verified notice of termination with the Secretary of the Integrated Bar.

Republic of the Philippines


SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
B.M. No. 44 February 24, 1992
EUFROSINA Y. TAN, complainant,
vs.
NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL, respondent.
SBC No. 609 February 24, 1992
MOISES B. BOQUIA, complainant,
vs.
NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL, respondent.
SBC No. 616 February 24, 1992
HERVE DAGPIN, complainant,
vs.
NICOLAS EL. SABANDAL, respondent.
Nelbert T. Paculan for respondent.
Moises B. Boquia for himself and Herve Dagpin.
RESOLUTION

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:
On 29 November 1983, * this Court sustained the charge of unauthorized practice of law filed against respondent Sabandal and
accordingly denied the latter's petition to be allowed to take the oath as member of the Philippine Bar and to sign the Roll of
Attorneys.
From 1984-1988, Sabandal filed Motions for Reconsideration of the aforesaid Resolution, all of which were either denied or "Noted
without action." The Court, however, on 10 February 1989, after considering his plea for mercy and forgiveness, his willingness to
reform and the several testimonials attesting to his good moral character and civic consciousness, reconsidered its earlier
Resolution and finally allowed him to take the lawyer's oath "with the Court binding him to his assurance that he shall strictly abide
by and adhere to the language, meaning and spirit of the Lawyer's Oath and the highest standards of the legal profession" (Yap Tan
v. Sabandal, 10 February 1989, 170 SCRA 211).

However, before a date could be set for Sabandal's oath-taking, complainants Tan, Dagpin and Boquia each filed separate motions
for reconsideration of the Resolution of 10 February 1989. These were acted upon in the Resolution of 4 July 1989 hereunder
quoted, in part, for ready reference:
On 7 April 1989, Complainant Herve Dagpin in SBC No. 616, and Complainant Moises Boquia in SBC No. 609
also filed a Motion for Reconsideration of our Resolution allowing respondent to take his oath. They alleged that
respondent had deliberately and maliciously excluded them in his Petition of 28 June 1988. That, of course, is
without merit considering that in his Petition of 28 June 1988, respondent had discussed said cases quite
lengthily.
On 27 April 1989, Complainant Tan also manifested that Complainant Benjamin Cabigon in BM No. 59 and
Complainant Cornelio Agnis in SBC No. 624, had passed away so that they are in no position to submit their
respective Comments.
One of the considerations we had taken into account in allowing respondent to take his oath, was a testimonial
from the IBP Zamboanga del Norte Chapter, dated 29 December 1986, certifying that respondent was "acting
with morality and has been careful in his actuations in the community."
Complainant Tan maintains that said IBP testimonial was signed only by the then President of the IBP,
Zamboanga del Norte Chapter, Atty. Senen O. Angeles, without authorization from the Board of Officers of said
Chapter; and that Atty. Angeles was respondent's own counsel as well as the lawyer of respondent's parents-inlaw in CAR Case No. 347, Ozamiz City. Attached to Complainant's Motion for Reconsideration was a
Certification, dated 24 February 1989, signed by the IBP Zamboanga del Norte Chapter President, Atty.
Norberto L. Nuevas, stating that "the present Board of Officers with the undersigned as President had not
issued any testimonial attesting to the good moral character and civic consciousness of Mr. Nicolas Sabandal."
In his Comment, received by the Court on 27 March 1989, respondent states that the IBP testimonial referred to
by Complainant Tan must have been that signed by the former IBP Zamboanga del Norte Chapter President,
Atty. Senen O. Angeles, addressed to the Chief Justice, dated 29 December 1986, and that he himself had not
submitted to the Court any certification from the IBP Zamboanga del Norte Chapter Board of Officers of 19881989.
Under the circumstances, the Court has deemed it best to require the present Board of Officers of the IBP,
Zamboanga del Norte Chapter, to MANIFEST whether or not it is willing to give a testimonial certifying to
respondent's good moral character as to entitle him to take the lawyer's oath, and if not, the reason therefor.
The Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del Norte is likewise required to submit a
COMMENT on respondent's moral fitness to be a member of the Bar.
Compliance herewith is required within ten (10) days from notice.
Pursuant to the aforesaid Resolution, Judge Pelagio R. Lachica, Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del
Norte, filed his Comment, dated 4 August 1989, and received on 25 August 1989, pertinently reading:
The undersigned, who is not well acquainted personally with the respondent, is not aware of any acts
committed by him as would disqualify him from admission to the Bar. It might be relevant to mention, however,
that there is Civil Case No. 3747 entitled Republic of the Philippines, Represented by the Director of Lands,
Plaintiff, versus Nicolas Sabandal, Register of Deeds of Zamboanga del Norte and Rural Bank of Pinan,
(Zamboanga del Norte), Inc., for Cancellation of Title and/or Reversion pending in this Court in which said
respondent, per complaint filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, is alleged to have secured a free patent
and later a certificate of title to a parcel of land which, upon investigation, turned out to be a swampland and not
susceptible of acquisition under a free patent, and which he later mortgaged to the Rural Bank of Pinan (ZN)
Inc. The mortgage was later foreclosed and the land sold at public auction and respondent has not redeemed
the land until the present. (Emphasis Supplied)
The IBP Zamboanga del Norte Chapter also submitted a Certification, dated 2 February 1990, signed by its Secretary Peter Y. Co
and attested to by its President Gil L. Batula, to wit:
This is to certify that based on the certifications issued by the Office of the Clerk of CourtMunicipal Trial Court
in the City of Dipolog; Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga del Norte and the Office of the Provincial and City
Prosecutors, Mr. Nicolas E. Sabandal has not been convicted of any crime, nor is there any pending derogatory

criminal case against him. Based on the above findings, the Board does not find any acts committed by the
petitioner to disqualify him from admission to the Philippine Bar.
We required the complainants to comment on the aforesaid IBP Certification and to reply to Executive Judge Pelagio Lachica's
comment in our Resolution of 15 February 1990.
On 17 April 1990, after taking note of the unrelenting vehement objections of complainants Tan (in BM 44) and Boquia (in SBC 616)
and the Certification by Executive Judge Lachica, dated 4 August 1989, that there is a pending case before his Court involving
respondent Sabandal, this Court resolved to DEFER the setting of a date for the oath-taking of respondent Sabandal and required
Judge Lachica to inform this Court of the outcome of the case entitled Republic v. Sabandal, (Civil Case 3747), pending before his
"Sala" as soon as resolved.
In the meantime, on 18 April 1990, the Court received another Comment, dated 13 March 1990, by complainant Herve Dagpin in
SBC 609, vehemently objecting to the oath-taking of respondent Sabandal and describing his actuations in Civil Case 3747 as
manipulative and surreptitious. This comment was Noted in the Resolution of 22 May 1990.
In a letter, addressed to the Chief Justice, dated 15 August 1990, complainant Tan in Bar Matter 44, informed the Court that her
relationship with Sabandal has "already been restored," as he had asked forgiveness for what has been done to her and that she
finds no necessity in pursuing her case against him. Complainant Tan further stated that she sees no further reason to oppose his
admission to the Bar as he had shown sincere repentance and reformation which she believes make him morally fit to become a
member of the Philippine Bar. "In view of this development," the letter stated, "we highly recommend him for admission to the legal
profession and request this Honorable Court to schedule his oath-taking at a time most convenient." This letter was Noted in the
Resolution of 2 October 1990, which also required a comment on Tan's letter from complainants Boquia and Dagpin.
Moises Boquia, for himself, and complainant Dagpin, in their comment, dated 5 November 1990, stated thus:
Eufrosina Yap Tan's letter dated 15 August 1990 is a private personal disposition which raises the question
whether personal forgiveness is enough basis to exculpate and obliterate these cases. On our part, we believe
and maintain the importance and finality of the Honorable Supreme Court's resolutions in these cases. . . .
It is not within the personal competence, jurisdiction and discretion of any party to change or amend said final
resolutions which are already res judicata. Viewed in the light of the foregoing final and executory resolutions,
these cases therefore should not in the least be considered as anything which is subject and subservient to the
changing moods and dispositions of the parties, devoid of any permanency or finality. Respondent's scheming
change in tactics and strategy could not improve his case.
The above was "Noted" in the Resolution of 29 November 1990.
In compliance with the Resolution of 2 October 1990, Judge Pacifico M. Garcia, Regional Trial Court Judge of Branch 8, Dipolog
City (who apparently succeeded Judge Pelagio Lachica, the latter having availed of optional retirement on 30 June 1990) submitted
to this Court, on 17 December 1990, a copy of the "Judgment," dated 12 December 1990, in Civil Case 3747, entitled "Republic of
the Philippines v. Nicolas Sabandal et al" for Cancellation of Title and/or Reversion, which, according to him, was already considered
closed and terminated.
Said judgment reveals that an amicable settlement, dated 24 October 1990, had been reached between the principal parties,
approved by the Trial Court, and conformed to by the counsel for defendant Rural Bank of Pinan.
Briefly, the said amicable settlement cancelled the Original Certificate of Title under Free Patent in Sabandal's name and the latter's
mortgage thereof in favor of the Rural Bank of Pinan; provided for the surrender of the certificate of title to the Register of Deeds for
proper annotation; reverted to the mass of public domain the land covered by the aforesaid Certificate of' Title with defendant
Sabandal refraining from exercising acts of possession or ownership over said land; caused the defendant Sabandal to pay
defendant Rural Bank of Pinan the sum of P35,000 for the loan and interest; and the Rural Bank of Pinan to waive its cross-claims
against defendant Nicolas Sabandal.
Judge Pacifico Garcia's letter and the afore-mentioned Judgment were NOTED in our Resolution of 29 January 1991. In the same
Resolution, complainants Tan, Boquia and Dagpin were required to comment on the same.
Upon request of Sabandal, a certification, dated 20 December 1990, was sent by Executive judge Jesus Angeles of the RTC of
Zamboanga del Norte, certifying that Sabandal has no pending case with his Court and that he has no cause to object to his
admission to the Philippine Bar. This was "Noted" in the Resolution of 26 February 1991.

Meanwhile, Sabandal reiterated his prayer to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath in a Motion dated 8 June 1991. In our Resolution
of 1 August 1991, we deferred action on the aforesaid Motion pending compliance by the complainants with the Resolution of 29
January 1991 requiring them to comment on the letter of Judge Pacifico M. Garcia.
To date, only complainant Tan has complied with the said Resolution by submitting a Comment, dated 29 August 1991, stating that
the termination of Civil Case No. 3747 is "proof of Sabandal's sincere reformation, of his repentance with restitution of the rights of
complainants he violated," and that "there is no more reason to oppose his admission to the Bar." This was "Noted" in the
Resolution of 24 September 1991.
In a Manifestation, dated 6 December 1991, Sabandal reiterates his plea to be allowed to take the Lawyer's Oath.
His plea must be DENIED.
In our Resolution of 10 February 1989, Sabandal was allowed to take the oath, ten (10) years having elapsed from the time he took
and passed the 1976 Bar examinations, after careful consideration of his show of contrition and willingness to reform. Also taken
cognizance of were the several testimonials attesting to his good moral character and civic consciousness. At that time, we had not
received the objections from complainant Tan to Sabandal's taking the oath nor were we aware of the gravity of the civil case
against him.
It turns out that Civil Case No. 3747 entitled "Republic of the Philippines v. Nicolas Sabandal" was instituted by the Government in
1985 and was brought about because of respondent's procurement of a certificate of free patent over a parcel of land belonging to
the public domain and its use as security for a mortgage in order to obtain a loan. At that time, Sabandal was an employee of the
Bureau of Lands. He did not submit any defense and was declared it default by order of the RTC dated 26 November 1986. The
controversy was eventually settled by mere compromise with respondent surrendering the bogus certificate of title to the
government and paying-off the mortgagor, "to buy peace and forestall further expenses of litigation incurred by defendants" (Rollo,
Judgment in Civil Case No. 3747). The Office of the Solicitor General interposed no objection to the approval of the said amicable
settlement and prayed that judgment be rendered in accordance therewith, "as the amicable settlement may amount to a confession
by the defendant" (Rollo, supra). It must also be stressed that in 1985, at the time said case was instituted, Sabandal's petition to
take the lawyer's oath had already been denied on 29 November 1983 and he was then submitting to this Court motions for
reconsideration alleging his good moral character without, however, mentioning the pendency of that civil case against him.
In view of the nature of that case and the circumstances attending its termination, the Court now entertains second thoughts about
respondent's fitness to become a member of the Bar.
It should be recalled that Sabandal worked as Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands. Said employment facilitated his
procurement of the free patent title over property which he could not but have known was public land. This was manipulative on his
part and does not speak well of his moral character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in the public service, which can
not be erased by the termination of the case filed by the Republic against him where no determination of his guilt or innocence was
made because the suit had been compromised. Although as the Solicitor General had pointed out, the amicable settlement was
tantamount to a confession on his part. What is more, he could not but have known of the intrinsic invalidity of his title and yet he
took advantage of it by securing a bank loan, mortgaging it as collateral, and notwithstanding the foreclosure of the mortgage and
the sale of the land at public auction, he did not lift a finger to redeem the same until the civil case filed against him was eventually
compromised. This is a sad reflection on his sense of honor and fair dealing. His failure to reveal to this Court the pendency of the
civil case for Reversion filed against him during the period that he was submitting several Motions for Reconsideration before us
also reveal his lack of candor and truthfulness.
There are testimonials attesting to his good moral character, yes. But these were confined to lack of knowledge of the pendency of
any criminal case against him and were obviously made without awareness of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case
instituted by the Government against him. Those testimonials can not, therefore, outweigh nor smother his acts of dishonesty and
lack of good moral character.
That the other complainants, namely, Moises Boquia (in SBC 606) and Herve Dagpin (in SBC 619) have not submitted any
opposition to his motion to take the oath, is of no moment. They have already expressed their objections in their earlier comments.
That complainant Tan has withdrawn her objection to his taking the oath can neither tilt the balance in his favor, the basis of her
complaint treating as it does of another subject matter.
Time and again, it has been held that the practice of law is not a matter of right. It is a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are
not only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character:

The Supreme Court and the Philippine Bar have always tried to maintain a high standard for the legal
profession, both in academic preparation and legal training as well as in honesty and fair dealing. The Court
and the licensed lawyers themselves are vitally interested in keeping this high standard; and one of the ways of
achieving this end is to admit to the practice of this noble profession only those persons who are known to be
honest and to possess good moral character. . . . (In re Parazo, 82 Phil. 230).
Although the term "good moral character" admits of broad dimensions, it has been defined as "including at least common honesty"
(Royong v. Oblena, Adm. Case No. 376, April 30, 1963, 7 SCRA 859; In re Del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399 [1928]). It has also been held
that no moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness or candor (Fellner v. Bar Association of Baltimore
City, 131 A. 2d 729).
WHEREFORE, finding respondent Sabandal to be unfit to become a member of the BAR, this Court's Resolution, dated 10
February 1989 is RECALLED and his prayer to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath is hereby denied.
SO ORDERED.

RULE 139-A
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Section 1. Organization. There is hereby organized an official national body to be known as the "Integrated Bar of the
Philippines," composed of all persons whose names now appear or may hereafter be included in the Roll of Attorneys of the
Supreme Court.
Section 2. Purposes. The fundamental purposes of the Integrated Bar shall be to elevate the standards of the legal profession,
improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
Section 3. Regions. The Philippines is hereby divided into nine Regions of the Integrated Bar, to wit:
(a) Northern Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Abra, Batanes, Benguet, Cagayan, Ifugao, Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur,
Isabela, Kalinga-Apayao, La Union, Mountain Province, Nueva Vizcaya, and Quirino.
(b) Central Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Bataan, Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Pangasinan, Tarlac, and
Zambales;
(c) Greater Manila, consisting of the City of Manila and Quezon City;
(d) Southern Luzon, consisting of the provinces of Batangas, Cavite, Laguna, Marinduque, Occidental Mindoro, Oriental
Mindoro, Quezon, and Rizal;
(e) Bicolandia, consisting of the provinces of Albay, Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur, Catanduanes, Masbate, and
Sorsogon;
(f) Eastern Visayas, consisting of the provinces of Bohol, Cebu, Eastern Samar, Leyte, Northern Samar, Samar, and
Southern Leyte;
(g) Western Visayas, consisting of the provinces of Aklan, Antique, Capiz, Iloilo, Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental,
Palawan, Romblon, and Siquijor.
(h) Eastern Mindanao, consisting of the provinces of Agusan del Norte, Agusan Del Sur, Bukidnon, Camiguin, Davao del
Norte, Davao del Sur, Davao Oriental, Misamis Oriental, Surigao del Norte, and Surigao del Sur; and
(i) Western Mindanao, consisting of the cities of Basilan and Zamboanga, and the provinces of Cotabato, Lanao del Norte,
Lanao del Sur, Misamis Occidental, South Cotabato, Sulu, Zamboanga del Norte, and Zamboanga del Sur.
In the event of the creation of any new province, the Board of Governors shall, with the approval of the Supreme Court, determine
the Region to which the said province shall belong.
Section 4. Chapters. A Chapter of the Integrated Bar shall be organized in every province. Except as hereinbelow provided,
every city shall be considered part of the province within which it is geographically situated.
A separate Chapter shall be organized in each of the following political subdivisions or areas;
(a) The sub-province of Aurora;
(b) Each congressional district of the City of Manila;

(c) Quezon City;


(d) Caloocan City, Malabon and Navotas;
(e) Pasay City, Makati, Mandaluyong and San Juan del Monte;
(f) Cebu City; and
(g) Zamboanga City and Basilan City.
Unless he otherwise registers his preference for a particular Chapter, a lawyer shall be considered a member of the Chapter of the
province, city, political subdivision or area where his office, or, in the absence thereof, his residence is located. In no case shall any
lawyer be a member of more than one Chapter.
Each Chapter shall have its own local government as provided for by uniform rules to be prescribed by the Board of Governors and
approved by the Supreme Court, the provisions of Section 19 of this Rule notwithstanding.
Chapters belonging to the same Region may hold regional conventions on matters and problems of common concern.
Section 5. House of Delegates. The Integrated Bar shall have a House of Delegates of not more than one hundred twenty
members who shall be apportioned among all the Chapters as nearly as may be according to the number of their respective
members, but each Chapter shall have at least one Delegate. On or before December 31, 1974, and every four years thereafter, the
Board of Governors shall make an apportionment of Delegates.
The term of the office of Delegate shall begin on the date of the opening of the annual convention of the House and shall end on the
day immediately preceding the date of the opening of the next succeeding annual convention. No person may be a Delegate for
more than two terms.
The House shall hold an annual convention at the call of the Board of Governors at any time during the month of April of each year
for the election of Governor, the reading and discussion of reports including the annual report of the Board of Governors, the
transaction of such other business as may be referred to it by the Board, and the consideration of such additional matters as may be
requested in writing by at least twenty Delegates. Special conventions of the House may be called by the Board of Governors to
consider only such matters as the Board shall indicate. A majority of the Delegates who have registered for a convention, whether
annual or special, shall constitute a quorum to do business.
Section 6. Board of Governors. The Integrated Bar shall be governed by a Board of Governors. Nine Governors shall be elected
by the House of Delegates from the nine Regions on the representation basis of one Governor from each Region. Each Governor
shall be chosen from a list of nominees submitted by the Delegates from the Region, provided that not more than one nominee shall
come from any Chapter. The President and the Executive Vice President, if chosen by the Governors from outside of themselves as
provided in Section 7 of this Rule, shall ipso facto become members of the Board.
The members of the Board shall hold office for a term of one year from the date of their election and until their successors shall have
been duly elected and qualified. No person may be a Governor for more than two terms.
The Board shall meet regularly once every three months, on such date and such time and place as it shall designate. A majority of
all the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum to do business. Special meetings may be called by the President or by five
members of the Board.
Subject to the approval of the Supreme Court, the Board shall adopt By-Laws and promulgate Canons of Professional Responsibility
for all members of the Integrated Bar. The By-Laws and the Canons may be amended by the Supreme Court motu propio or upon
the recommendation of the Board of Governors.
The Board shall prescribe such other rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper to carry out the purposes of the
Integrated Bar as well as the provisions of this Rule.
Section 7. Officers. The Integrated Bar shall have a President and an Executive Vice President who shall be chosen by the
Governors immediately after the latter's election, either from among themselves or from other members of the Integrated Bar, by the
vote of at least five Governors. Each of the regional members of the Board shall be ex officio Vice President for the Region which he
represents.
The President and the Executive Vice President shall hold office for a term of one year from the date of their election and until their
successors shall have duly qualified. The Executive Vice President shall automatically become the President for the next
succeeding full term. The Presidency shall rotate from year to year among all the nine Regions in such order or rotation as the
Board of Governors shall prescribe. No person shall be President or Executive Vice President of the Integrated Bar for more than
one term.
The Integrated Bar shall have a Secretary, a Treasurer, and such other officers and employees as may be required by the Board of
Governors, to be appointed by the President with the consent of the Board, and to hold office at the pleasure of the Board or for
such terms as it may fix. Said officers and employees need not be members of the Integrated Bar.
Section 8. Vacancies. In the event the President is absent or unable to act, his duties shall be performed by the Executive Vice
President; and in the event of the death, resignation, or removal of the President, the Executive Vice President shall serve as Acting
President during the remainder of the term of the office thus vacated. In the event of the death, resignation, removal, or disability of
both the President and the Executive Vice President, the Board of Governors shall elect an Acting President to hold office until the
next succeeding election or during the period of disability.
The filling of vacancies in the House of Delegates, Board of Governors, and all other positions of Officers of the Integrated Bar shall
be as provided in the By-Laws. Whenever the term of an office or position is for a fixed period, the person chosen to fill a vacancy
therein shall serve only for the unexpired term.
Section 9. Membership dues. Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues as the Board of Governors shall
determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed sum equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the collection from each Chapter
shall be set aside as a Welfare Fund for disabled members of the Chapter and the compulsory heirs of deceased members thereof.
Section 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this Rule, default in the payment of annual
dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall
be a ground for the removal of the name of the delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.
Section 11. Voluntary termination of membership; re-instatement. A member may terminate his membership by filing a written
notice to that effect with the Secretary of the Integrated Bar, who shall immediately bring the matter to the attention of the Supreme
Court. Forthwith he shall cease to be a member and his name shall be stricken by the Court from the Roll of Attorneys.

Reinstatement may be made by the Court in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the Board of Governors and
approved by the Court.
Section 12. Grievance procedures. The Board of Governors shall provide in the By-Laws for grievance procedures for the
enforcement and maintenance of discipline among all the members of the Integrated Bar, but no action involving the suspension or
disbarment of a member or the removal of his name from the Roll of Attorneys shall be effective without the final approval of the
Supreme Court.
Section 13. Non-political Bar. The Integrated Bar shall be strictly non-political, and every activity tending to impair this basic
feature is strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory
office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be eligible for election of appointment to any
position in the Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his position as of the moment he
files his certificate of candidacy for any elective public office or accepts appointment to any judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory
office in the Government or any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof.
Section 14. Positions honorary. Except as may be specifically authorized or allowed by the Supreme Court, no Delegate or
Governor and no national or local Officer or committee member shall receive any compensation, allowance or emolument from the
funds of the Integrated Bar for any service rendered therein or be entitled to reimbursement for any expense incurred in the
discharge of his functions.
Section 15. Fiscal matters. The Board of Governors shall administer the funds of the Integrated Bar and shall have the power to
make appropriations and disbursements therefrom. It shall cause proper Books of Accounts to be kept and Financial Statements to
be rendered and shall see to it that the proper audit is made of all accounts of the Integrated Bar and all the Chapters thereof.
Section 16. Journal. The Board of Governors shall cause to be published a quarterly Journal of the Integrated Bar, free copies of
which shall be distributed to every member of the Integrated Bar.
Section 17. Voluntary Bar associations. All voluntary Bar associations now existing or which may hereafter be formed may coexist with the Integrated Bar but shall not operate at cross-purposes therewith.
Section 18. Amendments. This Rule may be amended by the Supreme Court motu propio or upon the recommendation of the
Board of Governors or any Chapter of the Integrated Bar.
Section 19. Organizational period. The Commission on Bar Integration shall organize the local Chapters and toward this end
shall secure the assistance of the Department of Justice and of all Judges throughout the Philippines. All Chapter organizational
meetings shall be held on Saturday, February 17, 1973. In every case, the Commission shall cause proper notice of the date, time
and place of the meeting called to organize a Chapter shall constitute a quorum for the purpose, including the election of a
President, a Vice President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and five Directors.
The Commission shall initially fix the number of Delegates and apportion the same among all the Chapters as nearly as may be in
proportion to the number of their respective members, but each Chapter shall have at least one Delegate. The President of each
Chapter shall concurrently be its Delegate to the House of Delegates. The Vice President shall be his alternate, except where the
Chapter is entitled to have more than one Delegate, in which case the Vice President shall also be a Delegate.
The Board of Directors of the Chapter shall in proper cases elect additional as well as alternate Delegates.
The House of Delegates shall convene in the City of Manila on Saturday, March 17, 1973 for the Purpose of electing a Board of
Governors. The Governors shall immediately assume office and forthwith meet to elect the Officers of the Integrated Bar. The
Officers so chosen shall immediately assume their respective positions.
Section 20. Effectivity. This Rule shall take effect on January 16, 1973.
REPUBLIC ACT No. 6397
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE INTEGRATION OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR.
Section 1. Within two years from the approval of this Act, the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect the integration of the
Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise the standards of the legal profession, improve the
administration of justice, and enable the bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
Section 2. The sum of five hundred thousand pesos is hereby appropriated, out of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, to carry out the purposes of this Act. Thereafter, such sums as may be necessary for the same purpose shall be
included in the annual appropriations for the Supreme Court.
Section 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: September 17, 1971
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 181 May 4, 1973
CONSTITUTING THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES INTO A BODY CORPORATE AND PROVIDING GOVERNMENT
ASSISTANCE THERETO FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITS PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, by virtue of its rule-making power and conformably to the provisions of Republic
Act No. 6397, has ordained the integration of the Philippine Bar by Resolution of January 9, 1973, for the fundamental purposes of
elevating the standards of the legal profession, improving the administration of justice, and enabling the Bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the said Resolution and in accordance with Court Rule 139-A, effective January 16, 1973, the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines has been organized, its various organs have been established, and its officers, both national and local, have
been duly elected and have entered into the exercise and discharge of their respective powers and duties; and

WHEREAS, the Integrated Bar, in the pursuit of its lofty objectives, obviously merits the aid and support of the people and the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines, particularly in the form of direct material and financial assistance, at least during the
initial years of its corporate existence;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the
Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081 dated
September 21, 1972, and General Order No. 1 dated September 22, 1972, and Proclamation No. 1104 dated January 17, 1973, do
hereby order and decree as part of the law of the land that;
Section 1. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines is hereby constituted into a body corporate, by the name, style and title of
"Integrated Bar of the Philippines," with principal office in the Greater Manila Area.
Section 2. The Integrated Bar shall have perpetual succession and shall have all legal powers appertaining to a juridical person,
particularly the power to sue and be sued; to contract and be contracted with; to hold real and personal property as may be
necessary for corporate purposes; to mortgage, lease, sell, transfer, convey and otherwise dispose of the same; to solicit and
receive public and private donations and contributions; to accept and receive real and personal property by gift, devise or bequest;
to levy and collect membership dues and special assessments from its members; to adopt a seal and to alter the same at pleasure;
to have offices and conduct its affairs in the Greater Manila Area and elsewhere; to make and adopt by-laws, rules and regulations
not inconsistent with the laws of the Philippines or the Rules of Court, particularly Rule 139-A thereof; and generally to do all such
acts and things as may be necessary or proper to carry into effect and promote the purposes for which it was organized.
Section 3. All donations or contributions which may be made by private entities or persons to the Integrated Bar shall be exempt
from income and gift taxes, and the same shall further be deductible in full and shall not be included for purposes of computing the
maximum amount deductible under Section 30, paragraph (h), of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
Section 4. All taxes, charges and fees that may be paid by the Integrated Bar or any of its Chapters to the Government or any
political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall be refundable annually to the former for the period extending up to December 31,
1978.
Section 5. The Integrated Bar shall receive by way of donation or lease at a nominal rent from the Government of the Republic of
the Philippines a parcel of land in the Greater Manila Area as a suitable site for the construction of a building for the Integrated Bar,
with full power to mortgage or otherwise encumber the same.
Section 6. The foregoing provisions shall without prejudice to the exercise by the Supreme Court of its rule-making power under the
Constitution or to the provisions of Court Rule 139-A.
Section 7. The sum of five hundred thousand pesos is hereby appropriated, out of any funds in the National Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, for the purposes of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the fiscal year 1973-1974.
Section 8. This Decree shall take effect immediately.