1 LEDESMA V CLIMACO

authorized the adoption of firm names without any

FACTS:
restriction as to the use of the name of a deceased partner,
Ledesma is counsel de parte of one accused. Thereafter, o the Canons of Professional Ethics allows the continued
he was appointed as Election Registrar of Cadiz, Negros
use of a deceased partner when permissible by
Occidental by COMELEC
local custom.
Ledesma withdrew as counsel on the basis that his
ISSUE:
appointment as Election Registrar would require full time
W/N law firms may continue to use the names o deceased
service as well as on the volume or pressure of work will
partners in their firm names
prevent him from handling adequately the defense.
HELD:
Judge Climaco denied his motion, and even appointed him
as counsel de officio of the accused.
NO!
ISSUE: WoN the withdrawal of Ledesma should be allowed Art. 1840 primarily deals with the exception of liability on
cases of a dissolved partnership, of the individual
HELD: No.
property of the deceased partner for debts contracted by
the person who continues the business using the
RATIO:
partnership name. what the law contemplates is a hold over
1.There is obvious reluctance of Ledesma to comply with situation preparatory to formal reorganization. Art. 1840
his responsibilities as counsel de oficio. Then, even
treats more of a commercial partnership with a good will to
assuming that he continues his position, his volume of work protect rather than a professional partnership whose
is likely to be very much less than present. There is no
reputation depends on the personal qualifications of its
excuse for him to shirk from his obligation as member of the individual members.
bar, who expects to remain in good standing, should fulfill.
2.Ledesma was not mindful of his obligation as counsel de A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to
oficio. He ought to know that membership in the bar is a
partnerships formed by other professionals or for
privilege burdened with conditions. Being appointed as
business. a partnership for the practice of law is not a legal
counsel de oficio requires a high degree of fidelity (law is a entity. It is not a partnership formed for then
profession and not a mere trade). Requires counsel of
purpose of carrying on trade or business or of holding
repute and eminence.
property. Thus, assumed or trade name in law practice is
3.In criminal cases, right to counsel is absolute. No fair
improper. The right to practice law is not a natural or
hearing unless the accused be given an opportunity to be constitutional right but is in the nature of a privilege or
heard by counsel.
franchise.
4.The denial by Judge Climaco was due to the principal
effect to delay the case (case has already been postponed It must be considered that in the Philippines, no local
for 8 times)
custom permits or allows the continued use of a deceased
2 IN RE SYCIP
FACTS:
This is a consolidated petition. The first one filed by the
surviving partners of atty. Alexander Sycip and the other
filed by the surviving partners of Atty. Herminio Ovaepa.
They pray that they be allowed to continue using the names
of partners who had passed away.

partners name. Therefore, the cited provision on Canons of

Professional Ethics is not applicable.
DISSENTING OPINION:
Petition may be granted with the condition that it be
indicated in the letterheads of the 2 firms that Sycip
andOvaepa are dead or the period when they served as
partners sould be stated therein

ALAWI V ALAUYA
Petitioners based their petitions on the following arguments: PARTIES
o Art. 1840 of the Civil Code,
o in regulating other professions, the legislature has
ALAWI, sales rep of E.B. Villarosa

YES, PARTICULARLY SECTION 4

ALAUYA, incumbent executive clerk of court

RATIO
FACTS

Section 4 public officials and employees at all times

Through ALAWIS agency, a contract was executed for the respect the rights of others, and refrain from doing acts
purchase on installments by ALAUYA of a housing unit
contrary to law, public order, public safety and public
interest
A housing loan was also granted to ALAUYA by the

National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC)

ALAUYA, being a member of the Sharia Bar and an officer
of the Court, may not use language which is abusive,
Subsequently, ALAUYA wrote a letter to the President of
offensive, scandalous, menacing or otherwise improper
Villarosa advising termination of his contract on the grounds
that his consent was vitiated by gross misrepresentation,
His radical deviation from these norms cannot be excused
deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by
ALAWI
ISSUE
and
proceeded to expound using acerbic language

W/N ALAUYA BEING A MEMBER OF THE SHARIA BAR

CAN USE THE TITLE ATTORNEY
HELD

A copy of the letter, which bore no stamps, was sent to the

VP of Villarosa
NO, RESERVED ONLY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN
ADMITTED AS MEMBERS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR
ALAUYA also wrote the NHMFC repudiating as void his
contract with Villarosa and asking for cancellation of his
RATIO
loan

Court has already had an occasion to declare that persons

Finally, ALAUYA wrote 3 other letters to officers of the SC to who pass the Sharia Bar are not full-fledged members of
stop deductions from his salary regarding the loan
the Philippine Bar and may practice law only before Sharia
from NHMFC
courts

NHMFC also wrote the SC requesting it to stop said

ALAUYAS wish of not using counsellor because of
deductions
confusion withcouncilor is immaterial because
disinclination to use said title does not warrant his use of
Learning of the letters, ALAWI filed a complaint alleging that the title attorney.
ALAUYA
o Committed malicious and libelous charges
VICTORIA BARRIENTOS V. TRANSFIGURACION DAAROL
o Usurped the title of attorney
ISSUE

FACTS:
This is a disbarment case filed by Barrientos against Atty
Daarol, on grounds of deceit and grossly immoral conduct.

W/N ALAUYA VIOLATED THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND

Barrientos first knew Daarlo in 1969. She was a college
ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND
student, single. Atty. Daarol went to her house because he was
EMPLOYEES
a friend of her sister, hence they also became friends. She knew
HELD

Daarol to be a single and as a General Manager of ZANECO

(electic cooperative).
On June 1973, Daarol went to Barrientos house and

asked her to be one of the usherettes in the Masons convention ISSUE:

so the latter said he should ask for the permission of her
W/N Daarol should be disbarred for grossly immoral
parents. They consented and so she served as an usherette,
conduct.
Daarol picking her up and taking her home everyday.
In July 1973, Daarol came to petitioners house and HELD/RATIO:
invited her for a joy ride, with the permission of her mother
YES. The fact of his previous marriage was disclosed by
(who was Daarols former classmate). They went to the beach
and Daarol proposed his love for Barrientos and told her that if respondent only after the complainant became pregnant. Even
she would accept him, he would marry her within 6 months then, respondent misrepresented himself as being eligible to refrom her acceptance. After a few days of courting, she accepted marry for having been estranged from his wife for 16 years and
the offer of love. Visitations continued and they agreed to get dangled a marriage proposal on the assurance that he would
work for the annulment of his first marriage. It was a deception
married in Dec 1973.
after all as it turned out that respondent never bothered to
In Aug 1973, he took Barrientos to a party and when they annul said marriage.
left, he took her for a joy ride to an airport in Sicayab where
Respondent resorted to deceit in the satisfaction of his
there were no houses around. There, he pressured her into
having sexual intercourse reiterating that he loved her, and thatsexual desires at the expense of the gullible complainant. He is
he would marry her and that December was very near anyway perverted. He says that: "I see nothing wrong with this
they would marry soon. She gave in after much hesitation relationship despite my being married." Worse, he even
suggested abortion.
because she loved him. She cried after the deed.
Finally, respondent even had the temerity to allege that
This event happened frequently thereafter during August
to October 1973, where she consented because she loved him. he is a Moslem convert and as such, could enter into multiple
Eventually, she became pregnant and informed Daarol. He marriages and has inquired into the possibility of marrying
however suggested that she have the baby aborted. She complainant. As records indicate, however, his claim of having
refused. He told her that she didnt have to worry because they embraced the Islam religion is not supported by any evidence
save that of his self-serving testimony.
were getting married soon anyway.
By his acts of deceit and immoral tendencies to
In late October 1973, Daarol came to see Barrientos and
her mother and told them that he could not marry her because appease his sexual desires, respondent Daarol has amply
he was already married. He reassured them though that he has demonstrated his moral delinquency. Hence, his removal for
been separated from his wife for 16 years and that he would conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar on the grounds of
work for the annulment of his marriage and subsequently marry deceit and grossly immoral conduct is in order.
her. So Barrientos waited and delivered the baby but eventually
wasnt able to contact Daarol anymore (he went MIA).