ATTY. MELVIN D.C. MANE v. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B.

BELEN
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119, 30 June 2008
An alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law.
Petitioner Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane filed a letter-complaint to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) charging respondent Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen of
demeaning, humilating, and berating him during a hearing of Rural Bank of
Cabuyao, Inc. v. Samue Malabanan, et al. where Mane was counsel for the plaintiff.
During the proceedings, Belen asked Mane about the latters law school. When
Mane answered that he came from Manuel L. Quezon University (MLQU), Belen told
him: Then youre not from UP. Then you cannot equate yourself to me because
there is a saying and I know this, not all law students are created equal, not all law
schools are created equal, not all lawyers are created equal despite what the
Supreme Being that we all are created equal in His form and substance.
Belen further lambasted Mane and lectured him on the latters person, seemingly
disregarding the case at hand. Subsequently, the OCA, upon evaluation, found that
Belens insulting remarks were unwarranted and inexcusable and recommended a
reprimand of Belen.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the statements and actions made by Judge Belen during the hearing
constitute conduct unbecoming of a judge and a violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct
HELD:
The Court held that an alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of
knowledge of the law. By hurdling the Bar Examinations which the Court
administers, taking of the Lawyers oath, and signing of the Roll of Attorneys, a
lawyer is presumed to be competent to discharge his functions and duties as, inter
alia an officer of the court, irrespective of where he obtained his law degree. For a
judge to determine the fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on his alma
mater is clearly an engagement in an argumentum ad hominem.
A judge must address the merits of the case and not the person of the counsel. If
Judge Belen felt that his integrity and dignity were being assaulted, he acted
properly when he directed complainant to explain why he should not be cited for
contempt. He went out of bounds, however, when he engaged on a supercilious
legal and personal discourse.
The Court reminded members of the bench that even on the face of boorish
behavior from those they deal with, they ought to conduct themselves in a manner
befitting gentlemen and high officers of the court.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In the matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee, Haron S. Meiling in the 2002
bar examinations and for disciplinary action as member of Philippine Shari'a Bar,
Melendrez.
In the matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee, Haron S. Meiling in the 2002
bar examinations and for disciplinary action as member of Philippine Shari'a Bar,
Melendrez.
FACTS:

MELENDREZ filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify
Haron S. Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on
him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Sharia Bar.
Alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar
Examinations that he has three (3) pending criminal cases both for Grave Oral
Defamation and for Less Serious Physical Injuries.
i.
Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against
Melendrez and his wife in front of media practitioners and other people.
ii.
Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the face
of Melendrez wife causing the injuries to the latter.
Alleges that Meling has been using the title Attorney in his communications, as
Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a member of
the Bar.
MELING explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases because retired Judge
Corocoy Moson, their former professor, advised him to settle misunderstanding.
Believing in good faith that the case would be settled because the said Judge has
moral ascendancy over them, considered the three cases that arose from a single
incident as closed and terminated.
i.
Denies the charges and added that the acts do not
involve moral turpitude.
Use of the title Attorney, Meling admits that some of his communications really
contained the word Attorney as they were typed by the office clerk.
Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge of non-disclosure against Meling:
Meling should have known that only the court of competent jurisdiction can dismiss
cases, not a retired judge nor a law professor. In fact, the cases filed against Meling
are still pending.
Even if these cases were already dismissed, he is still required to disclose the same
for the Court to ascertain his good moral character.
ISSUE:
WON Melings act of concealing cases constitutes dishonesty. YES.
HELD:
PETITION IS GRANTED. MEMBERSHIP IS SUSPENDED until further orders from the
Court, the suspension to take effect immediately. Insofar as the Petition seeks to
prevent Haron S. Meling from taking the Lawyers Oath and signing the Roll of
Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar, the same is DISMISSED for having
become moot and academic (Meling did not pass the bar).
Rule 7.01: A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the
bar.
He is aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there was no valid reason why he
signed as attorney whoever may have typed the letters.
i.
Unauthorized use of the appellation attorney may render a person liable for
indirect contempt of court.
PRACTICE OF LAW IS A HIGH PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
Limited to citizens of good moral character, with special educational qualifications,
duly ascertained and certified.

Requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of greater importance so far as the
general public and the proper administration of justice are concerned, than the
possession of legal learning.
Application form of 2002 Bar Examinations requires the applicant that applicant to
aver that he or she has not been charged with any act or omission punishable by
law, rule or regulation before a fiscal, judge, officer or administrative body, or
indicted for, or accused or convicted by any court or tribunal of, any offense or
crime involving moral turpitude; nor is there any pending case or charge against
him/her.
Meling did not reveal that he has three pending criminal cases. His deliberate
silence constitutes concealment, done under oath at that.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
**FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ART. 11-12 OF THE CIVIL CODE In The Matter of the
Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm Name Ozaeta, Romulo, De
Leon etc. 92 SCRA 1 July 30, 1979 Melencio-Herrera,
J
.: Facts: The surviving parters of Atty. Herminio Ozaeta filed a petition praying that
they be allowed to continue using, in the name of their firm, the names of their
partner who passed away. One of the petitioners arguments stated that no local
custom prohibits the continued use of a deceased partners name in a professional
firms name in so far as Greater Manila Area is concerned. No custom exists which
recognizes that the name of a law firm necessarily identifies the individual members
of the firm. They also stated that the continued use of a deceased partners name in
the firm name of law partnerships has been consistently allowed by U.S. Courts and
is an accepted practice in the legal profession of most countries in the world. Issue:
Whether or not the law firm Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta & Reyes is
allowed to sustain the name of their deceased partner, Atty. Herminio Ozaeta, in the
name of their firm. Held: NO. Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics
adopted by the American Bar Association stated the following: The continued use
of the name of a deceased or former partner when
permissible by local custom,
is not unethical but care should be taken that no imposition or deception is
practiced through this use. No local custom permits or allows the continued use of
a deceased or former partners name in the firm names of law partnerships. Firm
names, under Philippine custom, identify the more active or senior partners in a
firm. Firm names in the Philippines change and evolve when partners die, leave or a
new one is added. It is questionable to add the new name of a partner and sustain
the name of the deceased one since they have never been, technically, partners in
the first place. When it comes to the arguments of the petitioners stating that U.S.
Courts grant the continued use of the deceased partners name, this is so because
in the U.S., it is a sanctioned custom as stated in the case of
Mendelsohn v. Equitable Life Assurance Society
(33 N.Y.S 2d 733). This does not apply in the Philippines. The petition filed herein is
denied and petitioner is advised to drop the name OZAETA from the firm name