CASE DIGESTS

I.

1.) RE: 1999 BAR EXAMINATIONS, MARK ANTHONY PURSIMA

Facts: Petitioner Mark Anthony Purisima, a 1999 Bar Examinations passer, was disqualified from
becoming a member of the Philippine Bar. In a Resolution by the Court, Purisima’s examinations are
declared null and void on two (2) grounds:
a) He failed to submit the required Certificate of Completion of the pre-bar review course
under oath for his conditional admission to the 1999 Bar Examinations which should
have been passed within sixty (60) days from the last day of the examinations
b) He committed a serious act of dishonesty when he made it appear that he took his pre-
bar review course at the Philippine Law School (PLS) when it has been certified that PLS
had not offered such course since 1967.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but was denied. His father, retired Regional Trial
Court Judge Amante Purisima, filed a Petition to Reopen Bar Matter 986, but the Court noted that no
further pleadings will be entertained.
Petitioner filed a Motion for Due Process, in which he claimed that his statement that he enrolled
in and passed the regular fourth year review classes at the Philippine Law School (PLS) was a clerical
error and a mere result of oversight which is not tantamount to a deliberate and willful declaration of
falsehood. He further explained that it was his schoolmate, Ms. Lilian Felipe, who filled up the form for
him and was the one who erroneously typed Philippine Law School instead of the University of Santo
Tomas. He failed to check the veracity of the information supplied by Ms. Felipe due to his preparations
for the upcoming examinations.
He further claimed that a week after the filing of the said Petition, he submitted the Certification
of Completion of the Pre-Bar Review issued by Dean Amado Dimayuga of the UST Faculty of Civil Law
as Annex D of his Petition, proving that he enrolled and attended the pre-bar review in UST. He likewise
claimed that he failed to submit the said certification within the 60-day period because he thought it was
unnecessary in view of the Certification of Completion issued by Dean Dimayuga.
The Office of the Bar Confidant conducted a summary hearing, and found that petitioner should
be given the benefit of the doubt.

2.) ALAN P. PAGUIA v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Facts: Petitioner Alan F. Paguia, in his capacity as citizen and taxpayer, filed an action for Writ of
Certiorari to invalidate Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s nomination of respondent former Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr. as Permanent Representative to the United Nations for violation of Section 23 of
Republic Act No. 7157, or the Philippine Foreign Service Act of 1991. The said provision states the
mandatory retirement age of all officers and employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) at 65
years old. Davide’s age at the time of his nomination is 70 years old. Petitioner theorizes that Section 23 of
RA No. 7157 imposes an absolute rule for all DFA employees, career or non-career, thus Davide’s entry
into the DFA ranks discriminates against the rest of the DFA officials and employees.
Respondent, in turn, questioned petitioner’s standing to bring the suit because of his indefinite
suspension form the practice of law.

3. FERDINAND A. CRUZ v. ALBERTO MINA

Facts: Petitioner Ferdinand A. Cruz filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) a formal Entry of
Appearance as private prosecutor in a criminal case for Grave Threats, where his father, Mariano Cruz, is
the complaining witness. The petitioner, a third year law student, justifies his appearance as private
prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the ruling of the Court En
Banc in Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr. that a non-lawyer may appear before the inferior courts as an
agent or friend of a party litigant. The petitioner further avers that his appearance was with the prior
conformity of the public prosecutor and a written authority of Mariano Cruz appointing him to be his
agent in the prosecution of his case.
However, in an Order by the MeTC, petitioner was denied permission for petitioner to appear as
private prosecutor on the ground that Circular No. 19 governing limited law student practice, together
with Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court, or the Law Student Practice Rule, should take precedence over the
ruling of the Court in the Cantimbuhan case.

4. VICTORIANO BULACAN v. FAUSTINO TORCINO

Facts: Petitioner Victoriano Bulacan filed a complaint for forcible entry and detainer against respondent
Faustino Torcino and Felipa Torcino. The complaint was signed by Nicolas Nunez, Jr. in his capacity as
“Friend counsel for the Plaintiff” but was verified by the plaintiff-appellee himself. Defendants, upon
filing their answer, did not question the fact that the said complaint was signed by Nunez, a non-member
of the bar.
The court rendered a decision ordering the Torcinos to demolish and remove the portion of their
house which was illegally constructed on the land of the plaintiff. The MTC stated that petitioner is
indeed the owner and has been in possession of the subject land.
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the complaint was not signed by the
plaintiff or by an admitted attorney, and should therefore be considered as sham and false. Days later,
another Motion to Dismiss was filed with an additional discussion that verification of the complaint by
the plaintiff-appellee does not itself cure the defect in the said complaint.

5. RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYER’S OATH

Facts: Al Caparros Argosino, along with thirteen (13) other individuals, was charged with the crime of
homicide in connection with the death of Raul Camaligan, who died in the course of hazing conducted as
part of a fraternity initiation rites. Upon entering into a plea bargaining, they pleaded guilty to a lesser
offense of homicide through reckless imprudence. The accused were sentenced to imprisonment with a
period ranging from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 4 years.
Several days later, Argosino and his colleagues filed an application for probation, which was
granted by the court with a period set at two years.
Less than a month later, he filed a Petition for Admission to Take the 1993 Bar Examinations, in
which he disclosed his criminal conviction and probation status. He was allowed to take the
examinations, and successfully passed. However, he was not allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath.
Argosino filed a Petition allowing him to take the attorney’s oath of office and to be admitted to
the practice of law, claiming that his probation period has already been terminated. It is to be noted,
however, that his probation period did not last for more than ten (10) months.

6. IN RE: NEED THAT LAW STUDENT PRACTICING UNDER RULE 138-A BE ACTUALLY
SUPERVISED DURING TRIAL (BAR MATTER NO. 730).
Facts: Mr. Cornelio Carmona Jr., an intern at the Office of Legal Aid, UP-College of Law (UP-OLA)
represented and conducted hearings and completed the representation of the plaintiff’s evidence-in-chief
without the presence of a supervising lawyer. His presence was questioned by the defendant’s counsel,
retired Justice Barredo, during the hearing because the latter was not accompanied by a duly accredited
lawyer.
Justice Barredo asserts that under Rule 138-A, a law student appearing before the trial court
should be accompanied by a supervising lawyer. On the other hand, UP-OLA claims that the matter of
allowing a law intern to appear unaccompanied by a duly accredited supervising lawyer should be left to
the sound discretion of the court after having made at least one supervised appearance.
7. FERDINAND A. CRUZ v. ATTY STANLEY CABRERA
Facts: Complainant is allegedly a fourth year law student who instituted several actions against his
neighbors and appeared for and in his behalf in his own cases. Respondent, who was the counsel of the
neighbors, questioned complainant during the hearing of whether or not he is a lawyer. In the exchange,
respondent accused complainant of misrepresenting himself, and exclaimed “Appear ka ng appear,
pumas aka muna!”
Complainant alleged that such imputations by the respondent were intended to malign him
before the public and to discredit his honor, with the intention to threaten him not to appear anymore in
cases he was handling. Further, he claims that respondent’s improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior
and misconduct was a patent transgression of legal ethics.
Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the reason he informed the court that complainant
is not a lawyer was because the presiding Judge did not know that complainant is not a lawyer and
complainant did not inform the presiding judge that he is not a lawyer.

8. ROMULO CANTIMBUHAN v. HON. NICANOR J. CRUZ

Facts: Petitioners Nelson Malana and Robert Lucila, senior law students of the University of the
Philippines, assist needy clients in the Office of the Legal Aid. They filed their appearances as friends of
complainant-petitioner Romulo Cantimbuhan in a criminal complaint for less serious physical injuries
filed in the Municipal Trial Court.
Respondent Judge Nicanor Cruz disallowed petitioner’s appearances as private prosecutors in
the said criminal case. Petitioners claimed that respondent judge violated Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court which states:

SEC. 34. By whom litigation conducted. — In the court of a justice of the peace a
party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed
by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may
conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be
either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.

Respondent on the other hand, contends that pursuant to Section 4 and 15, Rule 110 of the Rules
of Court, it is the fiscal who is empowered to determine who shall be the private prosecutor in a criminal
case. Thus, petitioners’ appearance is subject to the direction and control of the fiscal.