IN RE CASTILLO REYES (1993)

FACTS: Petitioner graduated from UP College of Law in 1939; passed the bar
in 1939; inducted to and served in the US Armed Forces in the Far East
during WWII and thus became eligible for citizenship under the 1990 US
Immigration Act; became a naturalized citizen of the US in 1993. His name
was struck from the Roll of Attorneys. Only Filipino citizens may practice law
in the Philippines. This requirement is prescribed by the Constitution, XII 14,
and the ROC, 2 Rule 138. (From UP Legal Ethics Reviewer)
NARAG VS NARAG
Facts: On Nov. 13, 1989, Mrs. Julieta B. Narag filed an administrative
complaint for disbarment against her husband Atty. Dominador Narag, whom
she accused of having violated Code of Professional Responsibility as a
member of the Bar. In her complaint, Mrs. Narag narrated that her husband
was a full time College instructor in St. Louis College of Tuguegrao, and he
had an illicit relationship with his 17-year old student Ms. Gina Espita. On
1990, Mrs. Narag sent a letter seeking for the dismissal of her previous
administrative complaint, and admitted that all her allegations in the said
complaint are not true and the love letters presented are all forgeries.
Suddenly, a year later, Mrs. Narag filed another complaint with her seven
children as co-signatories, again appealing for the disbarment of Atty. Narag.
In the said complaint, Mrs. Narag accused the Respondent of gross
immorality for abandoning his family in order to live with his paramour, and
having illegitimate children. The burden of proof now rests upon Mrs. Narag.
By the witnesses presented by the complainant, mainly the brother of Ms.
Gina Espita and her children, the complainant was able to establish that
respondent abandoned his family and live with another woman.
Issue: WON Atty. Narag fails to meet the good moral character qualification
as a member of the Bar.

Held: YES. Good moral character is a continuing qualification required for

every member of the bar. Thus, when a lawyer fails to meet the exacting
standard of moral integrity, the Supreme Court may withdraw his privilege to
practice law. In this case, respondent was found guilty of gross immoral
conduct and he violates the Code of Professional Responsibility (Rule 1.01,
Canon 7 and Rule 7.03), which warrant the imposition of the penalty of
disbarment to practice law and an order to strike out his name from the Roll
of Attorneys. So ordered.
SPOUSES OLBES VS DECIEMBRE
Facts: Spouses Olbes filed a Petition for the disbarment of Atty. Victor
Deciembre alleging a serious transgression of the Code of Professional
Responsibility by filling up the blank checks entrusted to him by herein
petitioners. The said five blank checks were given to the respondent for
security of a loan in the amount of 10, 000n Php. After the loan was paid a
receipt was issued, respondent filled up four (4) checks for 50, 000 Php with
different maturity date. All the said checks were dishonored, and so
respondent filed a criminal case of estafa against the petitioners. This,
however, prompted the petitioners to file a disbarment case against the
respondent.
In the Report of Commissioner Dulay, he recommended that the respondent
be suspended from the practice of law, for the reason that his statements
under oath are in direct contrast to his testimony during the crossexamination, and he was not being truthful in his narration of the transaction
of the checks.
Issue: WON the acts of Atty. Deciembre is in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility

Held: YES. The Court agrees with the findings of Commissioner Dulay, but
the penalty should be more severe than a mere suspension for two (2) years.
Respondent is found guilty of gross misconduct, dishonesty and violation of
Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of Code of Professional Responsibility, an acts indicative
of moral depravity not expected from, and highly unbecoming, a member of
the bar.
The Respondent committed abominable dishonesty by abusing the
confidence reposed in him by petitioners. It was their high regard for him as
a member of the bar that made them trust him with their blank checks.
Wherefore, he is suspended indefinitely from the practice of law.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMISSION TO THE BAR AND OATH-TAKING
OF SUCCESSFUL BAR APPLICANT AL C. ARGOSINO (1995)
Facts: Herein Petitioner Argosino was found guilty together with 13 other
individuals of the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence with the
death of one Raul Camaligan, by inflicting severe physical injuries in the
course of hazing as a part of the initiation rites. 11 days after the judgment
of the said criminal case, Petitioner filed an application for Probation for 2
years and it was granted. Less than a month later, Petitioner then filed a
Petition for Admission to Take the 1993 Bar Examinations, which was also
granted. He passed the Bar Examination, he was not, however, allowed to
take the lawyer's oath of office. On 15 April 1994, Mr. Argosino filed a Petition
with the Supreme Court to allow him to take the attorney's oath of office and
to admit him to the practice of law.
Issue: WON Mr. Argosino fails to meet the requirement of Good Moral
Character
Held: YES. Good Moral character is one of the requirements for the
Admission to take the Bar, and it must be demonstrated more importantly, at

the time to take the Attorney's Oath of Office. Even before the petitioner took
the Bar Examination, his participation in the deplorable "hazing" activities
and his failure to discharge his moral duty to protect the life and well-being
of a "neophyte member" certainly fell far short of the required standard of
good moral character.
The Court then Directed Mr. Argosino to submit evidence showing that he
may be now regarded as complying with the requirement of Good Moral
Character and also to inform the Court, by appropriate written manifestation,
of the names and addresses of the father and mother of the victim Raul
Camaligan.
PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYERS OATH (1997)
Petitioner Argosino, in compliance with the resolution, submitted no less than
fifteen (15) certifications executed by among others two (2) senators, five (5)
trial court judges, and six (6) members of religious orders. Petitioner likewise
submitted evidence that a scholarship foundation had been established in
honor of Raul Camaligan, the hazing victim, through joint efforts of the
latter's family and the eight (8) accused in the criminal case. The Court
required Atty. Gilbert Calamligan, the father of Victim, to comment on
petitioners prayer to take the lawyers oath of office, and it is natural for a
father of a victim to find a room for forgiveness. However, according to him,
He is not in a position to say whether petitioner is now morally fit for
admission to the bar. He therefore submits the matter to the sound discretion
of the Court.
The Court, after a very careful evaluation of the case, resolved to allow Mr.
Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys and practice the
legal profession.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF TELESFORO

A. DIAO
Facts: Telesforo Diao passed the 1953 Bar Examination and was engaged to
practice law. Two years later, Severino Martinez filed that the respondent
failed to meet the requirement in academic qualifications and that he falsely
represented his application in order to take the Bar Exam. It was alleged in
the Petition that: (1) Diao did not complete his High School training; and (2)
Diao never attended Quisimbing College and never obtained his A.A Diploma,
thus, not in compliance with the required Pre-Legal Education. In Diaos
answer, he admitted the first allegation, but not the second one. He admitted
that he was able to finish only until 3rd Yr High School, but he entered in the
Service of US Army, which is equivalent to a High School Diploma. As to the
second charge, it is clearly meritorious that he never obtained his A.A Degree
from Quisimbing College.
Issue: WON Diao should be charged of Disbarment from practicing law
Held: YES. The Court held that Diaos admission to take the Bar which is
obtained under false pretenses must be revoked. The fact that he hurdled
the Bar examinations is immaterial. Passing such examinations is not the
only qualification to become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed
courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential. Thus, Diaos
name was removed from the Roll of Attorneys and he is required to return his
Lawyers Diploma.
In Re: ARGOSINO, Supra (LAWYERS OATH)
The Court stressed to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's oath is NOT a mere
ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should at ALL TIMES
weigh his actions according to the sworn promises he makes when taking the
lawyer's oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves strictly according to the

lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the administration

of justice will undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier for everyone
concerned.
OLBES VS DECIEMBRE, Supra (LAWYERS OATH)
The oath that lawyers swear to likewise impresses upon them the duty of
exhibiting the highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor in their
relationships with others. The oath is a sacred trust that must be upheld and
kept inviolable at all times. Thus, lawyers may be disciplined for any
conduct, whether in their professional or in their private capacity, if such
conduct renders them unfit to continue to be officers of the court.
By taking the lawyers oath, a lawyer becomes the guardian of truth and the
rule of law and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial
administration of justice. Good moral character includes at least common
honesty. Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable
practices that are disgraceful and dishonorable, they reveal a basic moral
flaw.
IN RE: APPLICATION OF ADRIANO HERNANDEZ
Non-graduates of Philippine law schools have also been allowed to take the
Bar Examinations. In a Resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc dated July
27, 1993 (Re: Application of Adriano M. Hernandez to take the 1993 Bar
Examinations), the Court allowed the applicant, a Filipino citizen who
obtained a Juris Doctor from Columbia University, New York and who has
taken fourth year review courses and other bar subjects at the Ateneo Law
School, to take the 1993 Bar Examinations, considering the fact that in the
past, it had allowed Filipinos who have studied law in foreign law schools
from the strict requirements of Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138 and allowed
them to take the bar examinations, but with the caveat that:

beginning next year, the Court WILL NOT ALLOW GRADUATES OF FOREIGN
LAW SCHOOLS TO TAKE THE BAR EXAMINATIONS. An applicant who desires
to take the bar examinations must not only have studied law in a local law
school but has to present the certifications required under Sections 5 and 6
of Rule 138 in order to take the bar examination. Since graduates of foreign
law schools cannot submit said certifications, they shall henceforth not be
allowed to take the bar examinations (emphasis supplied).
BAR MATTER 1153
In March 2010 the Philippine Supreme Court Issued Bar Matter 1153
amending provisions in sec 5 and 6 of rule 138 of the rules of court now
allowing Filipino foreign law school graduates to take the bar exam provided
that they comply with the following:

completion of all courses leading to a degree of Bachelor of laws or its

equivalent
recognition or accreditation of the law school by proper authority
completion of all fourth year subjects in a program of a law school duly

accredited by the Philippine Government

Present proof of completing a separate bachelors degree.

In Bar Matter No. 1153 (Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing
Reforms in the Bar Examinations through Amendments to Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court, March 9, 2010) the Supreme Court once again allowed Filipino
graduates of foreign law schools to take the Philippine Bar, subject to certain
conditions, and amended Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Section 5 of the Rule now provides that before being admitted to the
examination, all applicants for admission to the bar shall satisfactorily show
that they have successfully completed all the prescribed courses for the
degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree in a law school or
university officially recognized by the Philippine Government or by the proper
authority in the foreign jurisdiction where the degree has been granted.
Section 5 now also provides that a Filipino citizen who graduated from a
foreign law school shall be admitted to the bar examination only upon

submission to the Supreme Court of certifications showing: (a) completion of

all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent
degree; (b) recognition or accreditation of the law school by the proper
authority; and (c) completion of all fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of
Laws academic program in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine
Government.
A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her degree in Bachelor
of Laws or its equivalent in a foreign law school must also present proof of
completion of a separate bachelors degree.
Since the law course is designed to acquaint the law student with (hopefully)
the whole spectrum of Philippine law, those who obtain their law degrees
from non-Philippine law schools have to work doubly hard in preparing for the
Bar Examinations, since they studied a different set of laws in law school. But
if they are up to the challenge, the Supreme Court, pursuant to Bar Matter
No. 1153, is very much willing to accommodate them.