ARTIAGA JR. V.

VILLANUEVA
Facts:This case is about the disbarment case filed by Artiaga against Villanueva for alleged unethical practices.The case started with the controversy over 2 parcel of lands with revocable permit applications, originally the permitsbelong to a certain Malabayabas and Suyo, which was later on sold to the client of Artiaga. However on a later date, when the clientof Villanueva filed for revocable permit application it was found out that the area being claimed has already been titled to the clientof Artiaga. Hence the dispute was brought to the Bureau of Lands for decision.Initially the Director of Lands rendered a decision in favour of the client of Artiaga, however it was appealed by Villanuevaand the decision was change, after another appeal the final decision was in favour of the client of Artiaga. The decision being finaland executory an order of execution was issued however the client of Villanueva remained in possession of the said parcel of lands.Thereafter a series of motions and case where filed by Villanueva as a dilatory tactics to seek a favourable ruling. Issue:Whether or not the acts of Villanueva is considered unethical. Ruling :The court ruled that acts of Atty. Villanueva is in violation of his oath that he wll do no falsehood nor consent to doing of anyin court. According to the court it was clear that atty. Villanueva caused his client to commit perjury so that the forceful entry casewill fall under the jurisdiction of the court, this is shown by the intentional amendment to the original complaint par 5, wherein underthe original complaint the time line was 1960, while on the amended complaint the time stated is 1973, the court state that thereason for such change is so that the action may still be filed or entertained by the court, since the action prescribes one year afteraccrual of cause of action.The court further states that it is expected that a lawyer will defend the clients cause with zeal, however in doing so itshould not disregard its duty to the court and the truth. Due to his actions the client was in another case charged with perjury, whichis detrimental to the client.The court also found that atty. Villanueva is guilty of lack of condor and respect for the court and the rights of hisadversary, as shown in the case, the client of Artiaga has already won the case, however Villanueva filed urgent ex-parte motionsand instead of waiting for the result of such, he perfected his appeal, thus further delaying the implementation of the first lawfulorder of the court. Furthermore when his appeal was denied, Villanueva turned to other venues such as CAR for positive results, indoing so he did not disclose of the prior proceedings that was held in the court thus securing an ex-parte proceeding. In this case thecourt found Villanueva guilty of forum shopping.

In the matter of the Petition forAuthority To Continue use of the firmname Ozaeta, Romulo, etc.
F: 2 separate petitions were filed by thesurviving partners of Atty. Alexander Sycipand the surviving partners of HerminianoOzaeta, praying that they be allowed tocontinue using, in the name of their firms,the names of partners who passed away.Arguments:1.Under the law, a partnership is notprohibited from continuing its businessunder a firm name which includes thename of the deceased partner.( Art.1840 of the Civil Code )2.In regulating other professions, suchas accountancy and engineering, thelegislature has authorized the adoption of firm names without anyrestriction as to the use, in such firmname, of the deceased partner.3.The Canons of Professional Ethics arenot transgressed because as adoptedby American Bar Association: thecontinued use of the name of adeceased or former partner whenpermissible by local custom is notunethical, but care should be takenthat no imposition or deception ispracticed through this use.4.The deaths of the partners were wellpublicized.5.No local custom prohibits thecontinued use of the partners name ina professional firms name.6. The continued use of the deceasedpartners name in the firm name of law partnerships has been consistently allowed by the courts. I: W/N the names of the deceasedpartners should be allowed to continue inuse in the firm name.

Held: Art. 1815. Every partnership shalloperate under a firm name, whichmay or may not include the nameof one or more of the partners.Those who, not being members of the partnership, include theirnames in the firm name, shall besubject to the liability of a partner.(partners should be living personswho can be subjected to liability) Art. 1840 treats more of acommercial partnership with agood will to protect rather than aprofessional partnership, with nosealable good will but whosereputation depends on the personalqualifications of its individualmembers. The partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened topartnerships formed by other professionals or for business. Thepractice of law is also a specialprivilege, highly personal andpartaking of the nature of a publictrust.

Firm names, under local customs,identify the more active and moresenior members or partners of thelaw firm. The possibility of deception uponthe public, real, or consequential,where the name of a deceasedpartner continues to be usedcannot be ruled out.NB: Rule 3.02 of the CPR approved andpromulgated by the SC on June 21,1988 ineffect abandoned the ruling in the Sycipcase. (see Art. 1815 Civil Code)

Aguirre v. Rana B. M. No. 1036 June 10, 2003

Facts:Respondent has appeared before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers as counsel in the May2001 elections. The minutes of the MBEC proceedings show that respondent actively participated inthe election proceedings. Respondent has likewise appeared in the MBEC proceedings even beforetaking the lawyer's oath on May 22, 2001 .Issue:Whether or not respondent has engeaged in unauthorized practice of law. Ruling:The Supreme Court has ruled that he has engaged in unauthorized practice of law.Without license, respondent, as shown in the MBEC proceedings, has engeaged in the practice of law.The exercise of such presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment andeven public trust since a lawyer is considered an officer of the Court.A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar exams. The same isa privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar exams, if the person seekingadmission had practiced law without license.The Rules of Court (Sec. 3(e), Rule 71) provides that a person isliable for indirect contempt of court for unauthorized practice of law.