540 SCRA 424 Civil Law Private International Law Nationality

Theory Practice of Law is Reserved for Filipinos

In 1998, Atty. Benjamin Dacanay went to Canada to seek medical

Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as

a member of the Philippine bar.
ADMISSION TO THE BAR QUALIFICATIONS:

help. In order for him to take advantage of Canadas free medical

aid program he became a Canadian citizen in 2004. In 2006

1.

Citizen of the Philippines

2.

Resident thereof

3.

Atleast 21 years of age

4.

Educational requirements

5.

Satisfactory proof of good moral character

6.

No charges involving moral turpitude

7.

Passing the bar

8.

Taking the lawyers oath

9.

Signing the roll of attorneys

however, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to

Republic Act 9225 of the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition
Act of 2003. In the same year, he returned to the Philippines and
he now intends to resume his practice of law.
ISSUE: Whether or not Benjamin Dacanay may still resume his
practice of law.
HELD: Yes. As a rule, the practice of law and other professions in
the Philippines are reserved and limited only to Filipino citizens.
Philippine citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar. So
when Dacanay became a Canadian citizen in 2004, he ceased to
have the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. However,
under RA 9225, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another
country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if
he reacquires his Filipino citizenship in accordance with RA
9225. Hence, when Dacanay reacquires his Filipino citizenship in
2006, his membership to the Philippine bar was deemed to have
never been terminated.
But does this also mean that he can automatically resume his
practice of law right after reacquisition?
No. Dacanay must still comply with several conditions before he
can resume his practice of law, to wit:

10. cert. of license to practice

11. payment of annual membership dues
12. annual professional tax
13. mandatory legal education requirement
14. judicial disciplinary control

(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership

dues in the IBP;
(b) the payment of professional tax;
(c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory
continuing legal education; this is especially significant to refresh
the applicant/petitioners knowledge of Philippine laws and update
him of legal developments and
(d) the retaking of the lawyers oath which will not only remind
him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer
of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines.

Legal Profession Admission to the Bar Citizenship Requirement

In 1998, Vicente Ching finished his law degree at the Saint Louis
University in Baguio City. He eventually passed the bar but he was
advised that he needs to show proof that he is a Filipino citizen
before he be allowed to take his oath. Apparently, Chings father
was a Chinese citizen but his mother was a Filipino citizen. His
parents were married before he was born in 1963. Under the 1935
Constitution, a legitimate child, whose one parent is a foreigner,
acquires the foreign citizenship of the foreign parent. Ching
maintained that he has always considered himself as a Filipino;
that he is a certified public accountant a profession reserved for

Filipinos; that he even served as a councilor in a municipality in

Tapucar were married with 11 children. When respondent became

La Union.

a CFI judge, he cohabited with Elena Pea of whom he had 2

children. A certain Atty. Tranquilino Calo filed an administrative

The Solicitor-General commented on the case by saying that as a

complaint against respondent for immorality. After investigation,

legitimate child of a Chinese and a Filipino, Ching should have

the penalty of suspension from office for a period of six months

elected Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; that

without pay was meted by this Court upon respondent.

under prevailing jurisprudence, upon reaching the age of

Despite this penalty, respondent still continued to cohabit with

majority is construed as within 7 years after reaching the age of

Elena, giving rise to another charge of immorality and other

majority (in his case 21 years old because he was born in 1964

administrative cases, such as: conduct unbecoming an officer of

while the 1935 Constitution was in place).

the court, and grossly immoral conduct. These cases were

consolidated and after investigation, this Court ordered his

Ching did elect Filipino citizenship but he only did so when he was
preparing for the bar in 1998 or 14 years after reaching the age of
majority. Nevertheless, the Solicitor-General recommended that the
rule be relaxed due to the special circumstance of Ching.

lawyers oath.

The Supreme Court cannot agree with the recommendation of the

Solicitor-General. Fourteen years had lapsed and its way beyond
the allowable 7 year period. The Supreme Court even noted that
the period is originally 3 years but it was extended to 7 years. (It
cant

continued living with Elena. Moreover, he completely abandoned

Respondent later contracted marriage with Elena while the

respondent's marriage to complainant subsists. Upon knowing of
that her children allegedly misery because of their father's acts,

HELD: No. Unfortunately, he belatedly elected Filipino citizenship.

it

judge did not impel respondent to mend his ways, and even

complainant and his children.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ching should be allowed to take the

seems

dismissal and separation from the service. But his dismissal as a

be

extended

any

further).

Chings

special

circumstances cant be considered. It is not enough that he

considered all his life that he is a Filipino; that he is a professional
and a public officer (was) serving this country. The rules for
citizenship are in place. Further, Ching didnt give any explanation
why he belatedly chose to elect Filipino citizenship (but I guess its
simply because he never thought hes Chinese not until he applied
to take the bar). The prescribed procedure in electing Philippine
citizenship is certainly not a tedious and painstaking process. All
that is required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of
Philippine citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the
nearest civil registry. Chings unreasonable and unexplained delay
in making his election cannot be simply glossed over.

including deception and intrigues against them. Complainant filed

the present petition for disbarment under the compulsion of the
maternal impulse to shield and protect her children from the
despotic and cruel acts of their own father.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents actuations merit the penalty of
disbarment?

HELD:
Respondent Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar is hereby DISBARRED. The
Clerk of Court is directed to strike out his name from the Roll of
Attorneys.

RATIO:

The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that:

Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 7.03. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in

Tapucar vs. Tapucar

public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the

A.M. No. 4148 July 30, 1998

discredit of the legal profession.

Per Curiam
Members of the Bar, must live up to the standards and norms
FACTS:

expected of the legal profession, by upholding the ideals and tenets

Complainant Remedios Tapucar and respondent Atty. Lauro

embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility always.

Lawyers must maintain a high standard of legal proficiency, as well

The clerk of court has the duty to safely keep all records,

as morality including honesty, integrity and fair dealing. For they

papers, files, exhibits and public property.

are at all times subject to the scrutinizing eye of public opinion

and community approbation. Needless to state, those whose

Atty. Hermenegildo Marasigan, Clerk of Court VI of the Office of

conduct both public and private fails this scrutiny would

the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court North Cotabato, was

have to be disciplined and, after appropriate proceedings,

penalized accordingly.

administratively

charged

with

gravemisconduct and

conduct

unbecoming a public officer for the loss of a motorcycle-subject

In the case at bar, keeping a mistress, entering into another

marriage while a prior one still subsists, as well as abandoning
and/or mistreating complainant and their children, show his
disregard of family obligations, morality and decency, the law and
the lawyer's oath. Such gross misbehavior over a long period of
time clearly shows a serious flaw in respondent's character, his
moral indifference to scandal in the community, and his outright
defiance of established norms. All these could not but put the legal

matter of a criminal case which was placed under his care and
custody.

The administrative case against Atty. Hermenegildo stemmed from

a sworn affidavitcomplaint filed on November 11, 2004 by Rolly
Pentecostes,

the

owner

of

Kawasaki

motorcycle,

which

was recovered by members of the Philippine National Police of

Mlang, North Cotabato from suspected carnappers.

profession in disrepute and place the integrity of the

administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict but
appropriate disciplinary action.

The release order for the motorcycle was issued but Pentecostes
refused to receive it because it was already cannibalized and
unserviceable.

Moreover, it should be recalled that respondent here was once a

member of the judiciary, a fact that aggravates his professional

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) referred the case to the Executive

infractions. For having occupied that place of honor in the Bench,

Judge of RTC, Kabacan, North Cotabato, for investigation, report

he knew a judge's actuations ought to be free from any appearance

and recommendation. Judge Rabang recommended that the

of impropriety. For a judge is the visible representation of the law

administrative complaint against Atty. Hermenegildo be dismissed

and, more importantly, of justice. Ordinary citizens consider him

because there was no proof of Pentecostes claim that the vehicle

as a source of strength that fortifies their will to obey the law.

was cannibalized from the time that it was under Atty.

Indeed, a judge should avoid the slightest infraction of the law in

all of his actuations, lest it be a demoralizing example to others.
Surely, respondent could not have forgotten the Code of Judicial
Conduct entirely as to lose its moral imperatives.

Such gross misbehavior over a long period of time clearly shows a

serious flaw in respondent's character, his moral indifference to

Hermenegildos custody until its transfer to Philippine National

Police (PNP) of Kabacan. The Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Atty. Hermenegildo is guilty of misconduct

scandal in the community, and his outright defiance of established

norms. All these could not but put the legal profession in disrepute

HELD:

and place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril,

hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action

It is the duty of the clerk of court to keep safely all records,

papers, files, exhibits and public property committed to his charge.
[12] Section D (4), Chapter VII of the 1991Manual For Clerks of

ROLLY PENTECOSTES v. ATTY. HERMENEGILDO

529 SCRA 146 (2007)

Court (now Section E[2], paragraph 2.2.3, Chapter VI of the 2002

Revised Manual for

Clerks

of

Court)

which

provides

all exhibits used as evidence and turned over to the court and
before the case/s involving such evidence shall have been

terminated shall be under the custody and safekeeping of the

Issue:

Clerk of Court.

Whether or not Atty. Pascua violated the Notarial Practice Rule.

From the above provisions, it is clear that as clerk of court of the
RTC, Kabacan, Atty. Hermenegildo was charged with the custody
and safekeeping of Pentecostes motorcycle, and to keep it until the
termination of the case, barring circumstances that would justify
its safekeeping elsewhere, and upon the prior authority of the trial
court.

The

Court

said

no

explanation

was

offered

by

Atty.

Hermenegildo, however, for turning over the motorcycle. But

whatever the reason was, Atty. Hermenegildo was mandated to
secure prior consultations with and approval of the trial court.

Moreover disconcerting is the fact that the acknowledgment receipt

evidencing the turnover of the motorcycle from the trial court to
the Kabacan police station was lost from the records, with nary a
lead as to who was responsible for it. These circumstance are
viewed with disfavor as it reflects badly on the safekeeping of court
records, a duty entrusted to Atty. Hermenegildo as clerk of court.

The Court has repeatedly emphasized that clerks of court are

essential

and

ranking

officers

perform delicate functions

vital

of
to

our judicial
the

prompt

system who
and

proper

administration of justice. Their duties include the efficient

recording,

filing

and

management

of court

records and,

as

previously pointed out, the safekeeping of exhibits and public

property committed to their charge.

Ruling:
Yes. Under the notarial law, the notary public shall enter in such
register, in chronologicalorder, the nature of each instrument
executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the
personexecuting, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument.
Failure of the notary to make the proper entryor entries in his
notarial register touching his notarial acts in the manner required
by law is a ground forrevocation of his commission.
Atty. Pascua claims that the omission was not intentional but due
to oversight of his staff.Whichever is the case, Atty. Pascua cannot
escape liability. His failure to enter into his notarial registerthe
documents that he admittedly notarized is a dereliction of duty on
his part as a notary public and heis bound by the acts of his staff.
Furthermore, the claim of Atty. Pascua of simple inadvertence is
untenable. The photocopy ofhis notarial register shows that the
last entry which he notarized on December 28, 1998 is
DocumentNo. 1200 on Page 240. On the other hand, the two
affidavit-complaints allegedly notarized onDecember 10, 1998 are
Document Nos. 1213 and 1214, respectively, under Page No. 243,
Book III. Thus,Fr. Ranhilio and the other complainants are correct
in maintaining that Atty. Pascua falsely assignedfictitious numbers
to the questioned affidavit-complaints, a clear dishonesty on his
part not only as aNotary Public, but also as a member of the Bar.

A member of the Bar may be disciplined or disbarred for any

misconduct in his professional orprivate capacity. The Court has
invariably imposed a penalty for notaries public who were found
guilty ofdishonesty or misconduct in the performance of their
duties.Atty Pascua is declared guilty of misconduct and is
suspended from the practice of law for 3months with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same act will be dealt with more
severely. Hisnotarial commission is revoked.
GSIS v. Pacquing
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1831, En Banc, Res., February 2,

Father Ranhilio Aquino vs Atty. Edwin pascua

2007, per Corona, J.

legal & judicial ethics

Facts:
How may a judge be made administratively liable for ignorance of
the law?
Father Aquino as the Academic head of Philippine Judicial
Academy, filed a complaint againstAtty. Edwin Pascua, a Notary
Public for violation of the Notarial Practice Law. He alleged that
Atty.Pascua falsified two documents wherein both documents had
Doc. No. 1213, Page No. 243. Book III,Series of 1998 and both
are dated on December 10, 1998. It was shown by the Clerk of
Court of RTC-Tuguegarao that none of these entries appear in the
Notarial Register of Atty. Pascua. In his comment,Atty. Pascua
admitted having notarized the two documents on December 10,
1998, but they were notentered in his Notarial Register due to the
oversight of his legal secretary. Complainant maintains thatAtty.
Pascuas omission was not due to inadvertence but a clear case of
falsification.

For a judge to be administratively liable for ignorance of the law,

the acts complained of must be gross or patent.

What constitutes gross ignorance of the law for a judge?

To constitute gross ignorance of the law, such acts must not only
be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but also motivated
by bad faith, fraud, malice or dishonesty.

Does an honest divergence of opinion constitute gross ignorance of

the law?
NO, the honest divergence of opinion as to the legal issues and

applicable laws involved does not constitute gross ignorance of the

law more so if there is no evidence that respondent judges acts
were imbued with malice or bad faith.

knew him sqemed to have acuuiesced to his utatus, did noq render
him a person of good moral character. It is of no moment that his
immoral state was discovered then or now as he is clearly not fit to
remain a member of the bar.

Define bad faith.

Bad faith does not simply connote poor or flawed judgment; it
imports a dishonest purpose, moral obliquity or conscious doing of

RAMON GALANG (1971 Bar Examinee) flunked in 1969, 1966-76,

a wrong.

1962-64 Bar exam

Will an administrative complaint against a judge prosper when

there still exists other sufficient remedies for a party in a case?

FACTS:

NO, the filing of an administrative complaint is not the proper

remedy for correcting the actions of a judge perceived to have gone
beyond the norms of propriety, where a sufficient remedy exists.
The actions against judges should not be considered as

Administrative proceeding against Victorio Lanuevo for

disbarment.

complementary or suppletory to, or substitute for, the judicial

remedies which can be availed of by a party in a case.

of Ramon E. Galang back to the respective examiners for

ROYONG VS. OBLENA

AC No. 376 April 30, 1963
En Banc, Barrera
FACTS:
Complainant Josefina Royong charge the respondent Ariston
Oblena, a member of the bar and bench, with rape. The Solicitor
General immediately conducted an investigation and found out
that there was no rape, the carnal knowledge between complainant
and respondent seems to be consensual sex.
In view of his own findings as a result of his investigation, that
even if respondent did not commit the alleged rape, nevertheless,
he was guilty of other misconduct. The Solicitor General made
another complaint charging the respondent of falsely and
deliberately alleging in his application for admission to the bar that
he is a person of good moral character, of living adulterously with
Briccia Angeles at the same time maintaining illicit relations with
the 18 year old Josefina Royong. Thus rendering him unfit to
practice law, praying that this Court render judgment ordering the
permanent removal of the respondent as lawyer and judge.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the illicit relation of the respondent with Josefina
Royong and the adulterous cohabitation of respondent with Briccia
Angeles warrants disbarment.
HELD:
Ariston Oblena was disbarred.
RATIO:
The continued possession of a fair private and professional
character or a good moral character is a requisite condition for the
rightful continuance in the practice of law for one who has been
admitted, and its loss requires suspension or disbarment even
though the statutes do not specify that as ground for disbarment.
Respondent's conduct though unrelated to his office and in no way
directly bearing on his profession, has nevertheless rendered him
unfit and unworthy of the privileges of a lawyer.
Fornication, if committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as have proven in this case, as to shock common
sense of decency, certainly may justify positive action by the Court
in protecting the prestige of the noble profession of the law.
As former Chief Justice Moran observed: An applicant for license
to practice law is required to show good moral character, or what
he really is, as distinguished from good reputation, or from the
opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is
held by the public in the place where he is known.
Respondent, therefore, did not possess a good moral character at
the time he applied for admission to the bar. He lived an
adulterous life with Briccia Angeles, and the fact that people who

Admitted having brought the five examination notebooks

re-evalution or re-checking.

The five examiners admitted having re-evaluated or rechecked the notebook to him by the Bar Confidant,
stating that he has the authority to do the same and that
the examinee concerned failed only in his particular
subject and was on the borderline of passing.

Ramon galang was able to pass the 1971 bar exam

because of Lanuevos move but the exam results bears
that he failed in 5 subjects namely in (Political, Civil,
Mercantile, Criminal & Remedial).

Galang on the otherhand, denied of having charged of

Slight Physical Injuries on Eufrosino de Vera, a law
student of MLQU.

RULING:
The court disbarred Lanuevo has no authority to request the
examiners to re-evaluate grades of examinees w/o prior authority
from Supreme Court.
He does not possess any discretion with respect to the matter of
admission of examinees to the bar. He does not a have any
business evaluating the answers of the examinees.

Consequently, Galang was also disbarred Sec. 2 of Rule 138 of the

Revised Rules of Curt of 1964, candidates for admission to the bar
must be of good moral character. Galang has a pending criminal
cases of Physical Injuries, he committed perjury when he declared
under oath that he had no pending criminal case this resulted him
to revoked his license.

signed in the pleading as counsel for the candidate.

In Re: Lanuevo 66 SCRA 254 August 29, 1975

FACTS: This is an administrative proceeding against Victorio

Lanueva who was the Bar Confidant during the 1971 Bar
Examination emanating from the revelation of one Oscar Landicho,
a bar examinee of the same bar exam, in his confidential letter
that the result of the bar exam of one of the bar examinee later
identified as Ramon Galang was raised before the result was
released to make him pass the bar. Acting upon said letter, the
court called the 5 bar examiners and the Bar Confident Lanuevo to
submit their sworn statements on the matter. It appears that each
of the 5 bar examiners were approached by Lanuevo with the
examination booklet asking them to re-evaluate the grades of the
bar examiner explaining that it is a practice policy in bar exams
that he will review the grades obtained in all subjects by an
examinee and when he finds a candidate to have extraordinary
high grades in other subjects and low grade in one subject he can
bring it to the examiner for reconsideration to help
the candidate pass. In good faith of trust and confidence to the
authority of Lanuevo, the examiners re-evaluated the exam of
the candidate and reconsider the grade they give for each subject
matter. Further investigation also revealed that Ramon Galang was
charged with crime of slight physical injuries in the Mla. MTC but
did not revealed the information in his application to take the bar
examination.
ISSUE: WON Lanuevo has the authority to ask bar examiners to
re-evaluate and re-correct the examination result of a bar
candidate.
RULING: The court ruled that it is evident that Lanuevo has
deceptively staged a plot to convince each examiner individually to
re-evaluate the grades of Galang in order to help him pass the bar
without prior authorization of the Court. His duty as a Bar
Confident is limited only as a custodian of the examination
notebooks after they are corrected by the examiners where he is
tasked to tally the general average of the bar candidate. All
requests for re-evaluation of grades from the bar exam shall be
made by the candidate themselves. With the facts fully established
that Lanuevo initiated the re-evaluation of the exam answers of
Galang without the authority of the Court, he has breached the
trust and confidence given to him by the court and was disbarred
with his name stricken out from the rolls of attorneys. Galang was
likewise disbarred for fraudulently concealing the criminal charges
against him in his application for the bar exam while under oath
constituting perjury. The court believed that the 5 bar examiners
acted in good faith and thereby absolved from the case but
reminded to perform their duties with due care.

Aguirre v Rana B.M. No. 1036 June 10, 2000

FACTS: Respondent is a successful bar passer who was allowed
only to take oath but not to sign the roll of attorneys pending the
resolution of the complaint of the petitioner who charges
respondent with unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct,
violation of law, and grave misrepresentation. Apparently, the
respondent appeared as counsel to an election candidate before
the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers (MBEC) of Masbate
before he took his oath and signed the rolls of attorneys. In his
comment, respondent alleges he only provide specific assistance
and advice not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law. He
contends that he did not sign the pleadings as a lawyer. The Office
of the Bar Confidant was tasked to investigate and its findings
disclosed that according to the minutes of the meeting of the
MBEC, the respondent actively participated in the proceeding and

I: WON the respondent is fit for admission to the bar.

R: The court held that respondent did engaged in unauthorized
practice of law. It held that all the activities he participated during
that time involves the practice of law despite the fact that he is not
yet a member of the Bar. The right to practice law is not a right but
a privilege extended to those morally upright and with the proper
knowledge and skills. It involves strict regulation, one of which is
on the moral character of its members. Passing the bar is not the
only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent
should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer
still had to be performed, namely: his lawyers oath to be
administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of
Attorneys. Because the court finds respondent not morally fit to be
admitted in the Bar, notwithstanding the fact that he already took
his oath, he was denied admission to the bar.

FACTS: The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed

practicing Attorney in the Philippines. The IBP Board of Governors
recommended to the Court the removal of the name of the
respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay
his membership dues assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court
139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III, of the
IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of IBP, payment of
membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same.
Edillon contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion
of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled
as a pre-condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good
standing, to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding
dues, and that as a consequence of this compelled financial
support of the said organization to which he is admitted personally
antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and
properly guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the
respondent concludes the above provisions of the Court Rule and
of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court may compel Atty. Edillion to pay
his membership fee to the IBP.
HELD: The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which every
lawyer must be a member of as distinguished from bar
associations in which membership is merely optional and
voluntary. All lawyers are subject to comply with the rules
prescribed for the governance of the Bar including payment a
reasonable annual fees as one of the requirements. The Rules of
Court only compels him to pay his annual dues and it is not in
violation of his constitutional freedom to associate. Bar integration
does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to
attend or not the meeting of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or
refuse to vote in its election as he chooses. The only compulsion to
which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme
Court in order to further the States legitimate interest in elevating
the quality of professional legal services, may require thet the cost
of the regulatory program the lawyers.
Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of
the State. The right to practice law before the courts of this
country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and
inquiry. And if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure
is recognize then a penalty designed to enforce its payment is not
void as unreasonable as arbitrary. Furthermore, the Court has
jurisdiction over matters of admission, suspension, disbarment,
and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation as part of its

inherent judicial functions and responsibilities thus the court may

compel all members of the Integrated Bar to pay their annual dues.