People of the Philippines vs Simplicio Villanueva

September 5, 2012

14 SCRA 109 Legal Ethics Practice of Law Isolated Appearance

In 1959, Villanueva was charged with Malicious Mischief in the municipality of Alaminos in Laguna. In said case, the private
offended party asked his lawyer friend, Ariston Fule to prosecute said case. Apparently, Fule was the fiscal in San Pablo, Laguna.
Villanueva the opposed the appearance of Fule as counsel for the offended party as he said that according to the Rules of Court
when an attorney had been appointed to the position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal and therein qualified, by operation
of law, he ceased to engage in private law practice.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ariston Fule is engaged in private law practice.

HELD: No. Private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of the
legal profession and that his professional services are available to the public for a compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in
consideration of his said services. In the case at bar, Fule is not being compensated but rather hes doing it for free for his friend
who happened to be the offended party. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary
actions, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise. Further, the fact that the Secretary of
Justice approved Fules appearance for his friend should be given credence.

Cayetano vs. Monsod

201 SCRA 210

September 1991

Facts: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of chairman of the COMELEC.
Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not posses required qualification of having been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years. The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on
Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of
their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective
position in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the
Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

Issue: Whether the respondent does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.

Held: In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or
litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceeding, the
management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general,
all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and
condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditors
claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and
guardianship have been held to constitute law practice. Practice of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.

The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years is incorrect since Atty. Monsods past work experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of
industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement for the position of COMELEC chairman, The respondent has been engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years does In the view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.
Mauricio Ulep vs The Legal Clinic

223 SCRA 378 42 SCAD 287 Legal Ethics Advertisement in the Legal Profession Practice of Law

In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was to move toward specialization and
to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic
because of the latters advertisements which contain the following:

SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
8:30am 6:00pm
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON

An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office
hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retirees Visa. Declaration
of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.

Call Marivic.

THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy

Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767

It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein
Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can take care of a clients problem no matter how
complicated it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he and his staff of
lawyers, who, like doctors, are specialists in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and
criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals,
counselors and attorneys.

As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the US which now allows it (John Bates vs
The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The Legal
Clinic offers.

ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is allowed; whether or not its advertisement
may be allowed.

HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed
mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of
paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the
 services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly
admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.

Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in
making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The
standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of
his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements
of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law which their experts
can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.

The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-
merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct.
Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That
publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial
stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able service and
the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the following as allowed forms of advertisement:

1. Advertisement in a reputable law list

2. Use of ordinary simple professional card

3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization

SALLY D. BONGALONTAvs. ATTY. PABLITO M. CASTILLO and ALFONSO M. MARTIJA

FACTS:

Sally Bongalonta charged Pablito M. Castillo and Alfonso M. Martija, members of the Philippine Bar, with unjust and unethical
conduct, to wit: representing conflicting interests and abetting a scheme to frustrate the execution or satisfaction of a judgment
which complainant might obtain.

The letter-complaint stated that complainant filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, for estafa, against the Sps. Luisa and
SolomerAbuel. She also filed, a separate civil action, where she was able to obtain a writ of preliminary attachment and by
virtue thereof, a piece of real property situated in Pasig, Rizal and registered in the name of the Sps. Abuel. Atty. Pablito
Castillo was the counsel of the Sps. Abuel in the aforesaid criminal and civil cases.

During the pendency of these cases, one Gregorio Lantin filed a civil case for collection of a sum of money based on a
promissory note, also with the Pasig Regional Trial Court, against the Sps. Abuel. In the said case Gregorio Lantin was
represented by Atty. Alfonso Martija. In this case, the Sps. Abuelwere declared in default for their failure to file the necessary
responsive pleading and evidence ex-parte was received against them followed by a judgment by default rendered in favor of
Gregorio Lantin. A writ of execution was, in due time, issued and the same property previously attached by complainant was
levied upon.

It is further alleged that in all the pleadings filed in these three (3) aforementioned cases, Atty. Pablito Castillo and Atty. Alfonso
Martija placed the same address, the same PTR and the same IBP receipt number.Thus, complainant concluded that the civil
case filed by Gregorio Lantin was merely a part of the scheme of the Sps. Abuel to frustrate the satisfaction of the money
judgment which complainant might obtain in the civil case he filed.

After hearing, the IBP Board of Governors issued it Resolution with the following findings and recommendations:
 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Pablito M. Castillo be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of six (6) months for using the IBP Official Receipt No. of his co-respondent Atty. Alfonso M. Martija.The complaint
against Atty. Martija is hereby DISMISSED for lack of evidence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility?

RULING:

The Court agreed with the foregoing findings and recommendations. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege
bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for
the conferment of such privilege. One of these requirements is the observance of honesty and candor. Courts are entitled to
expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. A lawyer, on the other hand,
has the fundamental duty to satisfy that expectation, for this reason, he is required to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in court.

WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Pablito M. Castillo guilty committing a falsehood in violation of his lawyer's oath and of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND him from the practice of law for a period of six (6)
months, with a warning that commission of the same or similar offense in the future will result in the imposition of a more
severe penalty.

In Re: Al C. Argosino 246 SCRA 14 (1995)

IN MATTER OF THE ADMISSION TO THE BAR AND OATH-TAKING OF SUCCESSFUL BAR APPLICANT AL C. ARGOSINO

DOCTRINES:

The practice of law is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral character, with special education qualifications, duly
ascertained and certified.
Requirement of good moral character is of greater importance so far as the general public and proper administration of justice is
concerned.
All aspects of moral character and behavior may be inquired into in respect of those seeking admission to the Bar.
Requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by those who would seek admission to the bar must be a necessity more
stringent than the norm of conduct expected from members of the general public.
Participation in the prolonged mindless physical beatings inflicted upon Raul Camaligan constituted evident rejection of that moral
duty and was totally irresponsible behavior, which makes impossible a finding that the participant was possessed of good moral
character.
Good moral character is a requirement possession of which must be demonstrated at the time of the application for permission to
take the bar examinations and more importantly at the time of application for admission to the bar and to take the attorney's oath of
office.

FACTS:
On February 4, 1992 ,Argosino, together with 13 others, was charged with the crime of homicide in connection with the death of one
Raul Camaligan. The death of Camaligan stemmed from the affliction of severe physical injuries upon him in course of "hazing"
conducted as part of the university fraternity initiation rites. On February 11, 1993, the accused were consequently sentenced to
suffer imprisonment for a period ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years.
Eleven (11) days later, Mr. Argosino and his colleagues filed an application for probation with the lower court. The application was
granted on June 18 1993. The period of probation was set at two (2) years, counted from the probationer's initial report to the
probation officer assigned to supervise him.

Less than a month later, Argosino filed a petition to take the bar exam. He was allowed and he passed the exam, but was not
allowed to take the lawyer's oath of office.

On April 15, 1994, Argosino filed a petition to allow him to take the attorney's oath and be admitted to the practice of law. He
averred that his probation period had been terminated. It is noted that his probation period did not last for more than 10 months.

ISSUE: Whether or not Al Argosino may take the lawyers oath office and admit him to the practice of law.

HELD: The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the STRICT, INTELLECTUAL and MORAL
QUALIFICATIONS required of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient administration of justice. The court upheld
the principle of maintaining the good moral character of all Bar members, keeping in mind that such is of greater importance so far
as the general public and the proper administration of justice are concerned. Hence he was asked by the court to produce evidence
that would certify that he has reformed and has become a responsible member of the community through sworn statements of
individuals who have a good reputation for truth and who have actually known Mr. Argosino for a significant period of time to certify
that he is morally fit to the admission of the law profession. The petitioner is then allowed to take the lawyers oath, sign the Roll of
Attorneys and thereafter to practice the legal profession.