Canon 1: A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for

law and legal processes.

Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Piatt v Abordo (1933)
Aborodo was a member of the Ph bar when he accepted the offer of 2 individuals to sell him a quantity of opium for P1.50 per WON the Sec. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure grounds for the suspension or disbarment of a lawyer.
tin. On the same day, he was brought to Rizal Ave. outside of the city limits where they found a number of persons awaiting offense >the general rule is the court will not assume jurisdiction to discipline one of its members for misconduct of an alleged
them in an automobile. A can of opium, believing it was opium, was given to him and delivered to one Cabrales the amount of committed action committed in his private capacity, unless the gross misconduct not connected with his professional duties, shows
P600 in payment of the stuff. Returning to Mnl, they were overtaken by pretending constabulary soldiers who told him to stop. by Abordo him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him.
Instead he drew his revolver and command the driver of the van to turn into Calle Vito Cruz. Upon reaching his home, he found affects his >As good character is an essential qualification for admission of an atty. To practice, when the attys character is bad in
out that the stuff was fake opium. He then reported the incident to the police station of manila. status as such respect as to show that he is unsafe and unfit to be entrusted with the powers of an atty, the courts retain the power
-He admitted that he had entered into the transactions aid and adding he was sincerely sorry for it and vows not to repeat. His atty-at-law to discipline him.
defense was that the acts he committed could not affect his status as atty-at-law and could not, therefore, constitute a ground for and thus, a >the intention to flaunt the law was present even if consummation of the overt act was not accomplished. In the eyes of
disciplinary action. ground for the canons of professional ethics which govern the conduct of attys, the act was as reprehensible as if it had been brought
disciplinary to a successful culmination. As a lawyer, he is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws.
action. >suspended for 1yr because the case was grave and merited as severe a sentence and being lenient would serve merely to
condone a pernicious example set by hi, and would result in action entirely inadequate.
Ui v Bonifacio (2000)
-disbarment case against Iris Bonifacio for allegedly carrying on an immoral relationship with Carlos Ui, husband of Leslie Ui petitioner. The Commission on Bar Discipline said that it fails to find any act of Bonifacio that can be considered as unprincipled
-L.Ui found out that her husband was having an illicit relationship with Boni and begot a daughter and had been living together. or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. The board of governors of the IBP approved the recommendation
-Carlos Ui admitted the affair. Leslie went to Iris office where Iris told her that they have a daughter and that their relationship was already over. but warned her that a repletion of the same will mere a more severe penaltywas reprimanded.
So Leslie thought everything would be fine but she again discovered that their illicit relationship continued and they had a second child. She SC: agree to the findingsshe admitted that she knew that Ui has children but never asked as to his wife or they were
again went to her office and pleaded to stop their relationship but Iris said no and that she was even employed by her husband in his company. even married. That they did not live together during their marriage. All these lead to the inescapable conclusion that she
-so Leslie filed this disbarment case. Iris answered that she knew Carlos was a bachelor when they met and that they were married in Hawaii was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. However, their marriage, which she considered valid, cant be
USA in 1985. She knew that he had a children prior to their wedding but no longer living together. They did not live together bec they wanted to considered immoral. For such to warrant disciplinary action, the act must be grossly immoral, that is, it must be so
let the children gradually to know and accept the fact of his 2nd wedding. corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. Her act of
-in Iris defense, it was she who was the victim in this case bec she did not know that carlos was already married and the upon learning this, she immediately distancing herself from Ui after learning the truth proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and
immediately cut-off all her ties with carlos. She stated that there was no reason for her to doubt at that time that the civil status of carlos was that the high moral standard of the legal profession. The burden of proof was also not sufficiently provided by Leslie Ui.
of a bachelor bec he spent so much time with her, and was so open in his courtship. That her actions cant be considered as willful flagrant, or -lastly, she should have verify the info contained in the alleged photocopy of the marriage license, so her stand that she
shameless, nor can it suggest moral indifference. acted in good faith cannot have meritreprimanded and disbarment case dismissed.
Figueroa v Barranco (1997)
-Patricia Figueroa filed a case not to allow the admission of Simeon Barranco, Jr. to the legal profession. She averred WON respondent is allowed to take the Yes, the Court ruled that he was already preventing from taking the LO in 19771 bec of the charge
that Barranco did not fulfill his repeated promises to marry her despite having a child with her after he passes the bar lawyer oath. of gross immorality made by Figueroa. The court find nothing that is grossly immoral in the
exams. That their relationship ended in 1971 and she learned that Barranco married another woman. conduct of Barranco but only a doubtful moral character on his part. The petition was only an act of
revenge by Figueroa who voluntary gave herself to Barranco. So the 26yrs that he was prevented
from taking the LO is enough punishment for him
Pimentel v Llorente (2000)
-Aquilino Pimentel alleged that Antonio WON Antonio Comelec dismissed that case for lack of evidence.
Llorente and Ligaya Salayon tampered Llorente and SC hold that Llorente and Salayon are guilty of misconduct.
with the votes received by him that by Ligaya Salayon The IBP recommends the dismissal of the complaint bec 1) Rs had no involvement in the tabulation of the election returns, 2) the canvassing was done in the presence of watchers, reps of political
singing the Statements of Votes and should be disbarred parties, the media, and the general public 3) its mala in se and not mala prohibita failed to establish criminal intent of Rs. This recommendation is NOT acceptable.
Certificate of Canvass despite their from signing the >the Rs do not dispute the fact that massive irregularities attended the canvassing of the Pasig City elections. That these could only be due to honest mistake, etc. The court ruled that there is limit to this
knowledge that some of the entries were alleged tampered reason. The certification signed by him belied the contention that he merely certified the genuineness and due execution of the SoVs but not their correctness.
false, they committed a serious breach SoVs and CoC. > Now, a lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official.25 However, if the misconduct
of public trust and of their LO. They also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyer's oath or is of such character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such
argued that the alleged errors could only individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct.
be attributed to honest mistake, > by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code which stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
oversight and/or fatigue. deceitful conduct." By express provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in the government service. In addition, they likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to "do no falsehood."
>warning and penalty
Cordova v Cordova (1989)
-Salvacion Delizo charged her husband, Atty. Laurence Cordova, with immorality and acts unbecoming WON L. Yes. The court agreed with the findings of fact of the IBP Board. That the most recent reconciliation between complainant and respondent,
a member of the Bar. Cordova assuming the same to be real, does not excuse and wipe away the misconduct and immoral behavior of the respondent carried out in public, and
-Laurence was declared in default for failure to answer. But in a telegramic message by Salvacion, she should be necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a member of the Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itself. An applicant for admission to membership in
said that they have reconciled already but failed to submit her evidence before the Commission so the disciplined the bar is required to show that he is possessed of good moral character. That requirement is not exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to
IBP submitted its recommendation reprimanding Laurence for his acts. for gross membership of the bar. On the contrary, that requirement persists as a continuing condition for membership in the Bar in good standing.
-in the report by IBP, it found that L.Cordova left his family as well as his job and went with Fely misconduct. > Cordova maintained for about two (2) years an adulterous relationship with a married woman not his wife, in full view of the general public, to
Holgado who also already married. Then he and his orig wife had a reconciliation, promising he would the humiliation and detriment of his legitimate family which he, rubbing salt on the wound, failed or refused to support. After a brief period of
cut his ties with Fely. But sometime when Salvacion returned home in manila, she found out that her "reform" respondent took up again with another woman not his wife, cohabiting with her and bringing along his young daughter to live with
husband left their home and again had a new mistress, Luisita Magallanes. them. Clearly, respondent flaunted his disregard of the fundamental institution of marriage and its elementary obligations before his own daughter
and the community at large. HE IS SUSPENDED INDEFINITELY.
People v Tuanda (1990)
-4 criminal cases were filed against Fe Tuanda: estafa and 3 violation WON the The Court denied the motion; her suspension order should not be lifted. The court ruled that she as correctly suspended from the practice of law bec she had been convicted
of BP Blg 22. Was suspended in relation to hid latter charges. suspension order of crimes involving moral turpitude; also add that the crimes she was convicted of also import deceit and violation her attys oath and the code of professional responsibility
-filed a motion to lift order of suspension that she did not intend to against her should nder both of which she was bound to "obey the laws of the land." Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude might not (as in the instant case, violation of B.P. Blg. 22
case damage to Marquez and that she had not violated the LO. be lifted. does not) relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer; however, it certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such offense.
Castillo vda de Mijares v Villaluz (1997)
Judge vda de Mijares charged Onofre Villaluz, a WON he is guilty of The court find him guilty of deceit and grossly immoral conduct. He has made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution of demanding respect and dignity.4 He himself asserts that
retired Judge of CA, with gross immorality and gross misconduct at the time of his marriage to herein complainant, the decision of the court annulling his marriage to his first wife, Librada Pea, had not yet attained finality. Worse, four months after his
grave misconduct. The CA found him guilty of amounting to his marriage to petitioner, respondent married another woman, Lydia Geraldez, in Cavite, after making a false statement in his application for marriage license that his previous marriage had been
gross misconduct for the crime of bigamy. disbarment. annulled.
-they wed sometime after obtaining a decree > The theory of respondent that what (was) solemnized with complainant was nothing but a "sham" marriage is too incredible to deserve serious consideration. According to respondent, he
declaring her husband is presumptively dead after entered into subject marriage in an effort to save the complainant from the charge of immorality against her. But, to repeat: regardless of the intention of respondent in saying "I do" with
16yrs of absence. Then she learned that, after complainant before a competent authority, all ingredients of a valid marriage were present. His consent thereto was freely given. Judge Myrna Lim Verano was authorized by law to solemnize
several months of the heated exchange of words the civil marriage, and both contracting parties had the legal capacity to contract such marriage.
between them, from Judge Makasiar that he > From the foregoing, it is evident that respondent dismally fails to meet the standard of moral fitness for continued membership in the legal profession. The nature of the office of an attorney
solemnized the wedding of Judge Villaluz and at law requires that he shall be a person of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent for admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also
Lydia Geraldez so filed an instant case for essential for remaining in the practice of law.6 Under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The
disbarment. commission of grossly immoral conduct and deceit are grounds for suspension or disbarment of lawyers.
Stemmerik v Mas (2009)
-Keld Stemmerik wanted to acquire real property in the Ph WON Mas is The CBD finds him guilty of gross misconduct by using his position as a lawyer to misled his client on the matter of land ownership by a foreigner. That he was nothing more than an
and seeked the advice of Leonuel Mas. He trusted him and guilty of gross embezzler who misused his professional status as an atty as a tool for deceiving complainant and absconding with his clients money. He was dishonest and deceitful. That he abused
agreed to purchase the property through him. He returned to misconduct and the trust and confidence reposed by Stemmerik. Thus, he was recommended to be disbarred. IBP adopted this and ordered him to return the money.
Denmark and entrusted the processing of all docus to should be SC: affirmed IBP. 1) he should not be allowed to benefit from his disappearing act. 2) he has committed a serious breach of his oath as a lawyerguilty of culpable violation of the
Mas.After various contracts and agreements, Stemmerik tried disbarred. Code of Professional Responsibilityoath to support the Consti, to obey the laws and to do no falsehood.
to get in touch with Mas but was unsuccessful. Then when he > By advising complainant that a foreigner could legally and validly acquire real estate in the Philippines and by assuring complainant that the property was alienable, respondent
returned to Ph, he sought the help of another law firm and deliberately foisted a falsehood on his client. He did not give due regard to the trust and confidence reposed in him by complainant. Instead, he deceived complainant and misled him
learned that aliens could not own land under Ph laws and that into parting with 400,000 for services that were both illegal and unprofessional. Moreover, by pocketing and misappropriating the 3.8 million given by complainant for the purchase
the questioned property is inalienable as it was situated of the property, respondent committed a fraudulent act that was criminal in nature.
within the former US Military Reservation. Mas cannot be > A lawyer who resorts to nefarious schemes to circumvent the law and uses his legal knowledge to further his selfish ends to the great prejudice of others, poses a clear and present
foundabandoned his office and not paying Attys dues. danger to the rule of law and to the legal system. He does not only tarnish the image of the bar and degrade the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, he also betrays everything
Stemmerik filed a disbarment case. that the legal profession stands for. DISBARRED
Calub v Suller (2000)
-Cristino Calub filed a disbarment case against Abraham Suller WON Calub is Yes, the testimonies of the witnesses suffice to show that he acted in a grossly reprehensible manner in taking advantage of his neighbors wife.
premised on grossly immoral conduct for having raped his guilty of gross > A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity
neighbors wife (Calubs). misconduct and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
-the case was referred to CBD of IBP for resolution. The board resulting for In this case, we find that suspension for one year recommended by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is not sufficient punishment for the immoral act of respondent. The rape of
issued a reso recommending that the disciplinary penalty of disbarment. his neighbor's wife constituted serious moral depravity even if his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal prosecution for rape. He is not worthy to remain a
suspension from the practice of law for 1 yr be meted on him. member of the bar. The privilege to practice law is bestowed upon individuals who are competent intellectually, academically and, equally important, morally. "Good moral
Although the CFI acquitted him, this is not determinative of this character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but it must also be possessed at all times in order to maintain one's good standing in that exclusive
admin case. and honored fraternity.
Garrido v Garrido (2010)
Maelotisea filed a complaint against Angel Garrido The CBD submitted the recommendation for disbarment to the IBP of Angel but dismiss the case of Romana.
and Romana Valencia seeking the disbarment of the 2 The court resolved to adopt the finding against Garrido but reject to adopt that of romanas.
for gross immorality. That the 2 got married on 1978 1)marriage and study of law are not mutually exclusive, 2)he misrepresented himself as single to Maelotisea, 3)contracted her marriage with Maelotisea knowing the subsistence of his 1 st marriage, 4)he engaged
in Hongkong and Angel left his legit family for in an extra-marital affair with Atty. Valencia while his 2 marriages were in place and married her thereafter, 5)misused his legal knowledge to convice Valencia that he was free to marry by saying his 2nd marriage
Romana and failed to give financial support to his is not valid, 6)after admission to the practice of law, he had cohabited and had sexual relations with 2 women and 7) he petitioned for the nullity of his marriage to maelotisea instead of facing up to his
legit children. responsibility
-he argued that his marriage with Maelotisea was not >multiple violations relating to the legal professionviolations of the bar admission rules, LO, and of the ethical rules of the profession; did not possess the good moral character required of a lawyer at the time
valid as he was already married to Constancia David of his admission to the Bar.
when he married her. He further alleged that she all As for Romana Valencia: cannot overlook that prior to becoming a lawyer, she already knew that Garrido was a married man and that he had a family but she entered into a romantic relationship with him. While
knew and understood his escapades before she Atty. Valencia contends that Atty. Garridos marriage with Maelotisea was null and void, the fact remains that he took a man away from a woman who bore him six (6) children. Ordinary decency would have
married him in 1962.Moreover, that all his marriages required her to ward off Atty. Garridos advances, as he was a married man, in fact a twice-married man with both marriages subsisting at that time; she should have said no to Atty. Garrido from the very start.
were contracted before he became member of the Bar. >they had their marriage abroad to escape legal issues here and that she was not using her husbands surname; while she professed to be the lawfully wedded wife, she helped the second family build a house prior
Romana contended that she was not the mistress bec to her marriage to Atty. Garrido, and did not object to sharing her husband with the woman of his second marriage.
Maelotisea was not the legal wife and that she knew >Atty. Valencia violated Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as her behavior demeaned the dignity of and discredited the legal profession. She simply failed in her duty as a lawyer
their relationship but remained silent. to adhere unwaveringly to the highest standards of morality.
WON Garrido is guilty of gross misconduct. >both are disbarred. Garrido Rule 1.01 while Valencia Rule 7.03
Ventura v Samson (2012)
-Maria Victoria Ventura filed a complaint for disbarment or suspension before ibp cbd against WON Danilo is guilty The Court find that his acts of engaging in sex with a young lass constitutes gross immoral conduct that warrants sanction.
Danilo Samson for grossly immoral condct; that he raped her sometime in 2001 and 2002 for gross immoral > Respondent not only admitted he had sexual intercourse with complainant but also showed no remorse whatsoever when he asserted that he
when she was merely 13yo; he was then married to Teresita Samson. He admitted this in his conduct. did nothing wrong because she allegedly agreed and he even gave her money. Indeed, his act of having carnal knowledge of a woman other
counter-affidavit. than his wife manifests his disrespect for the laws on the sanctity of marriage and his own marital vow of fidelity. Moreover, the fact that he
-he alleged that he didnt knew she was only 13yo and that the act done was of mutual procured the act by enticing a very young woman with money showed his utmost moral depravity and low regard for the dignity of the human
agreement after he gave her the money. And that the case was a way of revenge of Victorias person and the ethics of his profession.
mother Corazon against him as a result of her separation from the employment in the law > The fact that complainant filed an Affidavit of Desistance during the pendency of this case is of no moment. Complainants Affidavit of
office. Desistance cannot have the effect of abating the instant proceedings in view of the public service character of the practice of law and the nature
-the investigation found probable cause for him to stand trial for qualified seduction while the of disbarment proceedings as a public interest concern. A case of suspension or disbarment is sui generis and not meant to grant relief to a
charge of rape was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. complainant as in a civil case, but is intended to cleanse the ranks of the legal profession of its undesirable members in order to protect the
-however, on 14dec2006, the Venturas was withdrawing the complaint they filed before RTC public and the courts. A disbarment case is not an investigation into the acts of respondent but on his conduct as an officer of the court and his
and IBP because Victoria stated that what happened between them was based on a mutual fitness to continue as a member of the Bar.
agreement. >Illicit sexual relations have been previously punished with disbarment, indefinite or definite suspension, depending on the circumstances.24 In
-but IBP CBD recommended to suspend him for 1yr from the practice of law for immorality. this case, respondents gross misbehavior and unrepentant demeanor clearly shows a serious flaw in his character, his moral indifference to
sexual exploitation of a minor, and his outright defiance of established norms. All these could not but put the legal profession in disrepute and
place the integrity of the administration of justice in peril, hence the need for strict but appropriate disciplinary action.
De Leon v Pedrena (2013)
-Jocelyn De Leon filed with IBP a complaint for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law against Tyron Pedrena; alleged that he WON Yes, during the hearing, the Investigating Commissioner finds De Leons statement more credible than
sexually harassed her. Pedreno Pedrenas. The presence of a witness as stated by Pedrena was not proven by his affidavits.
-Pedrena averred that her allegations were unsubstantiated and that entertaining such would open the gates to those who had evil desires to is guilty >Atty. Pedreas misconduct was aggravated by the fact that he was then a Public Attorney mandated to
destroy the names of good lawyers; that the complaint is premature and should be dismissed on the ground of forum shopping. During the of gross provide free legal service to indigent litigants, and by the fact that De Leon was then such a client. He also
hearing, Pedrena did not appear and automatically waived his right to the proceedings. immoral disregarded his oath as a public officer to serve others and to be accountable at all times, because he thereby
-IBP recommended for his disbarment, holding that the disbarment case was sui generis and could proceed independently of the criminal case conduct. took advantage of her vulnerability as a client then in desperate need of his legal assistance.
that was based on the same facts; modified to suspension for 3 months. >penalty of suspension from the practice of law for 2yrs is fitting and just. (Calub)
Roa v Moreno (2010)
-Juan Moreno sold a parcel of land to WON Juan MTC: guilty of swindling.
Alfredo Roa for P70K but did not Moreno is guilty RTC: reversed; no sufficient evidence. Roa then filed a complaint with IBP.
issue a deed of sale. Instead, he issued of gross IBP: guilty of violating rule 1.01 and 7.03 of the code of professional responsibilityrecommended to suspend for 3mos.
a temporary receipt and a certificate of misconduct. SC: sustained the ruling of the court.
land occupancy purportedly issued by > Respondents credibility is highly questionable. Records show that respondent even issued a bogus Certificate of Land Occupancy to complainant whose only fault was that he did not know better. The
the general overseer of the estate. And Certificate of Land Occupancy has all the badges of intent to defraud. It purports to be issued by the "Office of the General Overseer." It contains a verification by the "Lead, Record Department" that the lot
assured him that he could use the land plan "conforms with the record on file." It is even printed on parchment paper strikingly similar to a certificate of title. To the unlettered, it can easily pass off as a document evidencing title.
from then on. > The innocent public who deal in good faith with the likes of respondent are not without recourse in law. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
-Roa learned that the CLO could not >Conduct, as used in the Rule, is not confined to the performance of a lawyers professional duties. A lawyer may be disciplined for misconduct committed either in his professional or private capacity. The
be registered in the register of deeds test is whether his conduct shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor, or whether it renders him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
so he went to see Moreno where he > In the present case, respondent acted in his private capacity. He misrepresented that he owned the lot he sold to complainant. He refused to return the amount paid by complainant. As a final blow, he
admitted that the real owner of the lot denied having any transaction with complainant. It is crystal-clear in the mind of the Court that he fell short of his duty under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. We cannot, and
was a certain rubio and that there was we should not, let respondents dishonest and deceitful conduct go unpunished.
a pending legal controversy over the > Respondents refusal to return to complainant the money paid for the lot is unbecoming a member of the bar and an officer of the court. By his conduct, respondent failed to live up to the strict standard of
lot. Then he demanded to return the professionalism required by the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondents acts violated the trust and respect complainant reposed in him as a member of the Bar and an officer of the court.
70K and filed a crim case in MTC. SUSPENDED FOR 2 YRS. 3 mos is not enough.
Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system
In re Terrell (1903)
-Howard Terrell had assisted in WON he should be suspended The promoting of organizations, with knowledge of their objects, for the purpose of violating or evading the laws against crime constitutes such misconduct on the part of an attorney, an officer of
the org of Centro Bellas Artes for his acts. the court, as amounts to malpractice or gross misconduct in his office, and for which he may be removed or suspended. (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 21.) The assisting of a client in a scheme
Club which was made for the which the attorney knows to be dishonest, or the conniving at a violation of law, are acts which justify disbarment. In this case, however, inasmuch as the defendant in the case of the United
purpose of evading the law then States, vs. Terrell was acquitted on the charge of estafa, and has not, therefore, been convicted of crime, and as the acts with which he is charged in this proceeding, while unprofessional and
in force in the said city and for hence to be condemned, are not criminal in their nature, we are of opinion that the ends of justice will be served by the suspension of said Howard D. Terrell from the practice of law in the
acting as atty of it. Philippine Islands for the term of one year from the 7th day of February, 1903.
Estrada v Sandiganbayan (2003)
- Atty. Paguia is the counsel of Joseph Estrada in the case of Estrada vs. Arroyo. Atty. Paguia asserts that the members of the Supreme Court should W/N Atty. Atty. Paguia is sanctioned. He is indefinitely suspended from practice of law.
inhibit themselves from hearing the petition because of Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judges from participating in Paguia >Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates the lawyer should observe and
partisan political activities. According the Atty. Paguia, the justices have violated the rule by participating in the EDSA 2 rally and authorizing the should be maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers. In liberally imputing sinister and
assumption of office by President Arroyo. sanctioned devious motives and questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the
-The Sandiganbayan denied the petition and motion for reconsideration of Atty. Paguia to dismiss all the criminal cases against Estrada. Atty. Paguia for conduct court, Atty. Paguia has only succeeded seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of
attacked the decision of the Court in the case of Estrada vs. Arroyo by saying: similar in the decisions involving admin. agencies, if the act of the unbecoming. justice.
justices is lawful, it is the act of the Supreme Court, and if the act of the judges is not lawful, it is not the act of the Supreme Court. As such, Atty. >Atty. Paguia has also been called to the mandate of Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional
Paguia asserts that the decision in Estrada vs. Arroyo being unlawful in view of Rule 5.10 of Code of Judicial Conduct, is not the act of the SC. Responsibility prohibiting a member of the bar from making such public statements on a case that
-Atty. Paguia repeated his assault on the court in both broadcast and print media. For that reason, the court asked him to show cause why he should not may tend to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
be sanctioned.
Kupers v Hontanosas (2009)
-Willem Kupers alleged that Johnson WON IBP: the board dismissed the complaint and that respondent did not really perform an illegal act. The act was not illegal per se since the lease agreement was likely made to reflect the agreement among the
Hontanosas 1) prepared and notarized Hontanosas parties without considering the legality of the situation.
contracts that are both invalid and illegal as is should SC: reject the Boards recommendation The Court stressed that much is demanded from those who engage in the practice of law bec they have a duty not only to their clients but also to the court, to the
these contracts violated the limitation on be bar, and to the public.
aliens leasing private lands, 2) served suspended >The investigating commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors both found that the majority of the charges against the respondent lack proof. Our own review of the records confirms that most of the
conflicting interests since he performed legal for illegally charges are unsupported by evidence. Such charges are simply the unsubstantiated accusations in the complaint with nary a whit of concrete proof such as affidavits of the clients whose trust respondents
services for adverse [arties, 3) refused to notarizing had allegedly breached.
furnish copies of the contracts he notarized 4) certain However, administrative cases against lawyers are sui generes and as such the complainant in the case need not be the aggrieved party. Thus even if complainant is not a party to the contracts, the charge of
notarized docus without keeping copies contracts. drafting and notarizing contracts in contravention of law holds weight. A plain reading of these contracts clearly shows that they violate the law limiting lease of private lands to aliens for a period of
thereof 5) failed to properly discharge his duty twenty five (25) years renewable for another twenty five (25) years.
to his client Karl Novak, particularly when he > In preparing and notarizing the illegal lease contracts, respondent violated the Attorneys Oath and several canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility. One of the foremost sworn duties of an
refused to accept his dismissal as counsel for attorney-at-law is to "obey the laws of the Philippines." This duty is enshrined in the Attorneys Oath16 and in Canon 1, which provides that "(a) lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
novak, etc. land and promote respect for law and legal processes." Rule 1.02 under Canon 1 states: "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at decreasing confidence in the legal
-mockery of the Ph legal system by systems."
deceitfully paasing as material facts >The supreme penalty of disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. While we will not hesitate to
opinionated, baseless and false allegations as remove an erring attorney from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers, where the evidence calls for it, we will also not disbar him where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end.
well as a falsified document. So instead of 3mos, made it to 6mos.
Rule 1.03 A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any mans cause
Rule 1.04 A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement
Castaneda v Ago (1975)
-Castaneda and Henson filed a suit against Pastor Ago to WON the Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the annulment of the sheriffs sale, elementary justice demands that the petitions, long denied the fruits of their victory in the
recover certain machineries which was rendered in favor counsel of replevin suit, must now enjoy them, for, the respondents, abetted by their lawyer Jose M. Luison, have misused legal remedies and prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of
of Castaneda. Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of Ago misused the judgment, to the extended prejudice of the petitioners. Ago, with his counsel, maneuvered for 14yrs to doggedly resist execution of the judgment thru manifold tactics in and from one
prelim execution injunction to restrain the sheriff from legal court to another (5 times in SC).
enforcing the writ of execution to save his fam house and remedies to >the Court condemns such attitude by his counsel, who has tried to use the Court to subvert the very ends of justice. With this, Atty. Luison allowed himself to become an instigator of
lot which was denied. He also failed to redeem the extend or controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the
property. delay the primacy of truth and moral justice.
-Ago was joined by his wife Lourdes Uy Ago bec the case at bar.
property was of their conjugal property. After several
petition for prelim injunctions for the writ of possession,
the CA ruled in favor of Ago.
Canon 2: A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient and convenient manner compatible with the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the profession
Rule 2.01 A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.
IBP Handbook
Ledesma v Climaco (1974)
-Ledesma is counsel de parte of one of the accused in the case pending in the sala of Judge WON the No.
Climaco. Thereafter, he was appointed as Election Registrar of Cadiz, Negros Occidental withdrawal of 1.There is obvious reluctance of Ledesma to comply with his responsibilities as counsel de oficio. Then, even assuming that he continues his position, his
by COMELEC Ledesma volume of work is likely to be very much less than present. There is no excuse for him to shirk from his obligation as member of the bar, who expects to
-Ledesma withdrew as counsel on the basis that his appointment as Election Registrar should be remain in good standing, should fulfill.
would require full time service as well as on the volume or pressure of work will prevent allowed 2.Ledesma was not mindful of his obligation as counsel de oficio. He ought to know that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions.
him from handling adequately the defense. Being appointed as counsel de oficio requires a high degree of fidelity (law is a profession and not a mere trade). Requires counsel of repute and eminence.
-Judge Climaco denied his motion, and even appointed him as counsel de officio of 2 3.In criminal cases, right to counsel is absolute. No fair hearing unless the accused be given an opportunity to be heard by counsel.
accused. 4.The denial by Judge Climaco was due to the principal effect to delay the case (case has already been postponed for 8 times)
Rule 2.02 In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latters rights
Rule 2.03 A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business
Rule 138, Sec. 27, Rules of Court
In re: Tagorda 1929
-Luis Tagorda is a member of the provincial board of Isabela Yes, Tagorda is in a way advertising his services and this is contrary to the Canons of Professional Ethics. In 1919, the code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act
-Previous to the last election, he used placards which in a way was advertising his services as a No. 2828 provides that the practice f soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice/
lawyer and notary public >The most worthy and effective advertising for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity. The law is a profession and not a business.
-He also wrote a letter to a lieutenant of a barrio in Echague,Isabela. In essence he was informing the >Solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional.
lieutenant that he will be in Echague during the weekends and the lieutenant should convey this >It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring lawsuit.
information to the other people in his town. That he must inform the people of his desire to live and to >Solicitation of cases result in the lowering of the confidence of the community and integrity of the members of the bar. It results in needless litigations and in
serve them in his capacity as lawyer and notary public. incenting to strife. >Tagorda suspended for a month.
WON the acts of Tagorda is advertising
Ulep v Legal Clinic 1993
>In 1984, The Legal Clinic (consist of mostly paralegals) was formed by Atty. Rogelio 1. WON the 1. Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The
Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was to move toward specialization and to cater to Legal Clinic is services it offered include various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate
clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a engaged in the undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice
complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latters advertisements which was practice of law; of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by
presumed to be illegal since it promotes extramarital affairs and specialty specifically whether such is paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
divorce of marriage. It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled allowed
Rx for Legal Problems in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that considering they 2. Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal
they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can take care of a clients problem are mostly services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession condemn the
no matter how complicated it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby paralegals lawyers advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a
Concepcion situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are 2. WON its merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other
specialists in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in advertisement circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and family law. may be allowed >The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for
These specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys. professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to
>That they are not engaged in the practice of law but in rendering of legal support the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and
services proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal
>As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the following as allowed forms of
in the US which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that advertisement:
besides, the advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The Advertisement in a reputable law list
Legal Clinic offers. Use of ordinary simple professional card
Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization
Linsangan v Tolentino 2009
-This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Pedro Linsangan against WON Atty. The Court adopted the recommendation of CBD finding that Tolention had encroached on the professional practice of Linsangan and that he contravened the ruled against
Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and Tolentino is soliciting cases for gain. Rule 2.03 provides that lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers. Such acts
encroachment of professional services. guilty of constitute malpractice, a ground for disbarment.
-Linsangan alleged that Tolention, with the help of paralegal Fe Marie soliciting of >Complainant presented substantial evidence (consisting of the sworn statements of the very same persons coaxed by Labiano and referred to respondents office) to prove that
Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal representation. That he clients and respondent indeed solicited legal business as well as profited from referrals suits. Although respondent initially denied knowing Labiano in his answer, he later admitted it during
promised them financial assistance and expeditious collection on their encroachment the mandatory hearing.
claims (Supported by a sworn affidavit of Linsangant's client). of >Through Labianos actions, respondents law practice was benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer representation on the strength of Labianos word that respondent
Linsangan also attached Tolentino's calling card, questioning its professional could produce a more favorable result.
propriety. services. >Based on the foregoing, respondent clearly solicited employment violating Rule 2.03, and Rule 1.03 and Canon 3 of the CPR and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent's-contention -With regard to respondents violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain him by a
1. Atty. Tolentino denied knowing Labiano. (Which he later then promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his services. Respondent committed an unethical, predatory overstep into anothers legal practice. He cannot escape
admitted) liability under Rule 8.02 of the CPR.
2. He also denied authorizing the printing of such calling cards. >the calling card contains with financial assistance which was clearly used to entice clients to change counsel with a promise of loans to finance their legal actionsdegraded
the integrity of the bar and deserved no place in the legal profession.
Villatuya v Tabalingcos 2012
-Manuel Villatuya charges Bede WON IBP: no merit for the first charge of dishonesty for the nonpayment of certain shares in the fees; but guilty of the crime bigamy; also guilty to have violated the rule on the solicitation of client for having advertise
Tabalingcos with unlawful Tabalingcos his legal services and unlawfully solicited cases. It is recommended that he be reprimanded for the violation.
solicitation of cases. That he violated the SC: 1) The allegations for the nonpayment was not proven
established 2 firms to use them as rule in 2) a review of the records shows that tabalingcos used the business entities in the report to solicit clients and to advertise his legal services, purporting to be specialized in corporate rehab cases. A lawyer is not
fronts to advertise his legal services soliciting prohibited from engaging in business or other lawful occupation but impropriety arises when the business is of such a nature or is conducted in such a manner as to be inconsistent with the lawyers duties as a
and solicit cases. cases. member of the bar.
But he contend that they had an >It is clear from the documentary evidence submitted by complainant that Jesi & Jane Management, Inc., which purports to be a financial and legal consultant, was indeed a vehicle used by respondent as a means
agreement with Jesi and Jane to procure professional employment. Management, Inc., which proposed an agreement for the engagement of legal services. The letter clearly states that, should the prospective client agree to the proposed fees,
manangement that it would attend to respondent would render legal services related to the formers loan obligation with a bank. This circumvention is considered objectionable and violates the Code, because the letter is signed by respondent as
the financial aspect of the cases to be President of Jesi & Jane Management, Inc., and not as partner or associate of a law firm. Rule 15.08 of the Code mandates that the lawyer is mandated to inform the client whether the former is acting as a lawyer
presented in court. or in another capacity. This duty is a must in those occupations related to the practice of law. In this case, it is confusing for the client if it is not clear whether respondent is offering consultancy or legal services.
Rule 2.04 A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.
Canon 3: A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF FACTS.
Rule 3.01 A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services
Khan v Simbillo 2003
- Respondent Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo advertised himself in some leading newspapers as an WON Respondent Atty. - Yes. Respondent Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo was found guilty for violating Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Annulment of Marriage Specialist. Rizalino T. Simbillo is and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
- Petitioner Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr. filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo guilty of violating Rules -he admitted he caused the publication of the advertisements; What adds to the gravity of respondents acts is that in advertising himself as
for improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services. 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code a self-styled "Annulment of Marriage Specialist," he wittingly or unwittingly erodes and undermines not only the stability but also the
- Respondent Simbillo admitted the acts imputed to him, but argued that advertising and of Professional sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct despite the contemporary climate of permissiveness in our society.
solicitation per se are not prohibited acts; that the time has come to change our views about Responsibility and Rule - He was suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year and was sternly warned that repetition of the same or similar offense will be
prohibition on advertising and solicitation; that the interest of the public is not served by the 138, Section 27 of the dealt with more severely.
absolute prohibition on lawyer advertising; that the Court can lift the ban on lawyer advertising; Rules of Court. - Practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is
and that the rationale behind the decadesold prohibition should be abandoned. not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a
livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the primary
consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves
Rule 3.02 In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is deceased.
Dacanay v baker and McKenzie 1985
-Atty. Vicente Torres sent a letter to one Rosie Clurman, represented by Atty. Adriano Dacanay, asking Clurman to release some shares to Torres client WON - No. Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law
-The letterhead contained the name Baker & McKenzie. Dacanay denied Clurmans liability and at the same time he asked why is Torres using the letterhead Baker & McKenzie, a foreign respondents (10 firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines.
partnership established in Chicago, Illinois. lawyers) can Such use of foreign law firm name is unethical
-No reply was received so Dacanay filed an administrative complaint enjoining Torres from using Baker & McKenzie. make use of the therefore Torres and his law firm are enjoined
-Later, Torres said that he is an associate of the law firm Guerrero & Torres; that their law firm is a member of Baker & McKenzie; that the said foreign firm has members in 30 cities all over the firm name Baker from using Baker & McKenzie in their
world; that they associated with them in order to make a representation that they can render legal services of the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign & McKenzie practice of law.
trade and investment.
In re Petition of Sycip
-This is a consolidated petition. The first one filed WON law NO.
by the surviving partners of atty. Alexander Sycip firms may >Art. 1840 primarily deals with the exception of liability on cases of a dissolved partnership, of the individual property of the deceased partner for debts contracted by the person who continues the
and the other filed by the surviving partners of continue to business using the partnership name. what the law contemplates is a hold over situation preparatory to formal reorganization. Art. 1840 treats more of a commercial partnership with a good will to
Atty. Herminio Ovaepa. They pray that they be use the protect rather than a professional partnership whose reputation depends on the personal qualifications of its individual members.
allowed to continue using the names of partners names of >Art. 1815 provides that the use of a deceased name will run counter to it. It is clear that names in a firm name of a partnership must be either be those of living partners and n the case of non-
who had passed away. deceased partners, should be living persons who can be subject to liability.
-Petitioners based their petitions on the following partners in >A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships formed by other professionals or for business. a partnership for the practice of law is not a legal entity. It is not a partnership
arguments: their firm formed for then purpose of carrying on trade or business or of holding property. Thus, assumed or trade name in law practice is improper. The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional
>Art. 1840 of the Civil Code, names right but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise. The possibility of deception upon the public, real or consequential, where the name of a deceased partner continues to be used cannot be ruled out.
>in regulating other professions, the legislature has A person in search of legal counsel might be guided by the familiar ring of a distinguished name appearing in a firm title.
authorized the adoption of firm names without any >It must be considered that in the Philippines, no local custom permits or allows the continued use of a deceased partners name. Therefore, the cited provision on Canons of Professional Ethics is
restriction as to the use of the name of a deceased not applicable. Remove SYCIP and OZEATA
partner,
>the Canons of Professional Ethics allows the DISSENTING OPINION: Petition may be granted with the condition that it be indicated in the letterheads of the 2 firms that Sycip and Ovaepa are dead or the period when they served as partners
continued use of a deceased partner when should be stated therein.
permissible by local custom.
Rule 3.03 Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law currently.
Samonte v Gatdula
-The complainant, Julieta Borromeo Samonte charged Rolando R. Gatdula with grave misconduct consisting in the alleged WON Yes. The inclusion/retention of his name in the professional card constitutes an act of solicitation which violates Section
engaging in the private practice of law which is in conflict with his official functions as Branch Clerk of Court. The complainant Gatdula is 7, sub-par. (b)(2) of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) which
represents her sister as plaintiff in a civil case for ejectment. Contrary to their expectation that execution will proceed, they instead guilty of declares it unlawful for a public official or employees to, among others: (2) Engage in the private practice of their
received a temporary restraining order. Samonte contends that the order was hasty and irregular as she was never notified of the infraction. profession unless authorized by the Constituion or law, provided that such practice will not conflict with official
application for preliminary injunction. Gatdula, when asked by the complainant of the reason of the decision, blamed Samontes functions.
lawyer for writing the address in the complaint for ejectment and told her that if she wanted the execution to proceed, she should >he does not deny his name in the card, although Samonte did not substantiate her claim that it was Gatdula who gave her
change her lawyer and retain the law office of respondent, at the same time giving his calling card with the name Baligod, the card.
Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera. The decision of the Court continued not to be favorable to Samonte, which caused her to WHEREFORE, respondent is reprimanded for engaging in the private practice of law. He is further ordered to cause the
file administrative complaint against Gatdula. exclusion of his name in the firm name of any office engaged in the private practice of law
Rule 3.04 A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract legal business.
Cruz v Salva 1959
-A certain Manuel Monroy was murdered. CFI Pasay found Castelo, De Jesus, Bonifacio, Mendoza, Berdugo, et al. guilty of murder. They all WON - No. The members of the Court were greatly disturbed and annoyed by such publicity and
appealed and Castelo sought a new trial. Castelo was then again found guilty. Respond sensationalism, all of which may properly be laid at the door of respondent Salva. In this, he committed
-President Magsaysay ordered a reinvestigation. The Philippine Constabulary questioned people and got confessions pointing to persons other than ent Salva what was regard a grievous error and poor judgment for which we fail to find any excuse or satisfactory
those convicted. Castelo, et al. wrote to Fiscal Salva to conduct a reinvestigation on the basis of these new confessions. Fiscal Salva conferred with conducte explanation. His actuations in this regard went well beyond the bounds or prudence, discretion and
the Sol. Gen. and the Justice Secretary decided to have the results of the investigation made available to the counsel of the appellants. The Chief of d the good taste. It is bad enough to have such undue publicity when a said publicity and sensationalism is
the Philippine Constabulary furnished Fiscal Salva copies of the affidavits and confessions. Salva organized a committee for reinvestigation and investiga allowed, even encouraged, when the case is on appeal and is pending consideration by the Tribunal, the
subpoenaed Timoteo Cruz, who was implicated as instigator and mastermind in the new affidavits and confessions. The investigation was conducted tion whole thing becomes inexcusable, even abhorrent, and the Court, in the interest of justice, is
in the session hall of the Municipal Court of Pasay City to accommodate the big crowd that wanted to witness the proceeding, including the members properly. constrained and called upon to put an end to it and a deterrent against its repetition by meting an
of the press. Cruz counsel questioned the jurisdiction of the committee and of Salva to conduct a preliminary investigation of the case because it was appropriate disciplinary measure, even a penalty to the one liable.
still a pending appeal in the Supreme Court. The counsel now filed this present petition. Salva said that he subpoenaed Cruz because of Cruz oral - Salva is publicly reprehended and censured for the uncalled for and wide publicity and sensationalism
and personal request to allow him to appear at the investigation. The SC issued a writ of preliminary injunction stopping the preliminary that he had given to and allowed in connection with his investigation, which we consider and find to be
investigation. contempt of court.