[ AC. No.

8319, Sep 16, 2015 ] Enriquez for knowingly making untruthM statements in the complaint in Civil Case No. 390 and that the IBP suspended him for a period of one
DAVID WILLIAMS v. ATTY. RUDY T. ENRIQUEZ + (1) year. The Court, however, in its Resolution,[12] dated November 27, 2013, set aside the IBP Resolution and dismissed the administrative
DECISION case.

MENDOZA, J.: In his Comment,[13] Atty. Enriquez countered that he was merely representing the heirs of Aurea Briones Ventolero who were defending their
Before the Court are three (3) administrative cases - A.C. No. 8319, A.C. No. 8329 and A.C. No. 8366 - filed by Spouses David and Marisa title over Lot 2920.
Williams (Spouses Williams) against Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez (Atty. Enriquez) which were ordered consolidated by the Court on March 1, 2010[1]
and referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) on November 15, 2010 for investigation, report At the IBP Level
and recommendation.[2]
In its Report and Recommendation,[14] dated August 4, 2011, the IBP-CBD found that Atty. Enriquez failed to squarely refute the charge of
In the separate Report and Recommendation,[3] both dated August 4, 2011, the IBP- CBD recommended the dismissal of A.C. No. 8319 and forum shopping and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law and as a member of the Bar for six (6) months.
A.C. No. 8366 for lack of merit. Concurring with the recommendations, the IBP Board of Governors dismissed both complaints, first in its
September 20, 2012 Resolution,[4] and second, in its February 13, 2013 Resolution.[5] As no motion for reconsideration on petition for review In its Resolution,[15] dated February 13, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the report and recommendation of the IBP-
was filed, the Court, in its November 26, 2014 Resolution,[6] declared these cases, A.C. No. 8319 and A.C. No. 8366, closed and terminated. CBD finding Atty. Enriquez liable for violation of the rule on forum-shopping.
The Court's Ruling
Hence, the Court shall limit its discussion on A.C. No. 8329.
The Court agrees with the recommendation of the IBP.
The Factual Antecedents
The conclusion of culpability reached by the IBP-CBD, together with the elucidation found in the November 8, 2006 Order of RTC Judge
Spouses Williams filed a Complaint-Affidavit[7] for disbarment, dated June 26, 2009, against Atty. Enriquez for 1] violation of the rule on forum Maxino, in Civil Case No. 390 (also referred to as Civil Case No. 13404) and the May 27, 2008 Decision of MCTC Judge Tangente-Laguda in
shopping; and 2] purposely filing a groundless, false and unlawful suit. Civil Case No. 521-B, clearly warranted the imposition of the recommended disciplinary sanction against Atty. Enriquez. As correctly
observed by the IBP, Atty. Enriquez did not deny the allegation that he engaged in forum-shopping. Atty. Enriquez knew that in Civil Case No.
Spouses Williams alleged that in December 2002, a complaint for forcible entry, docketed as Civil Case No. 390,[8] was filed against them 390, the MCTC decision was reversed and set aside on appeal and the complaint for forcible entry was dismissed against Spouses Williams.
before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Valencia-Bacong, Negros Oriental (MCTC), by Desiderio Briones Ventolero, Francisco Briones He, nonetheless, drafted another complaint for forcible entry involving Lot 2920 and prodded Paciano, also an alleged heir of Aurea and
Ventolero, Ramon Verar, Martin Umbac, and Lucia Briones (plaintiffs), where Atty. Enriquez acted as their counsel. The case involved a parcel Ceriaco Ventolero, to file Civil Case No. 521-B, against Spouses Williams. Even if Atty. Enriquez did not sign the complaint in Civil Case No.
of land, Lot No. 2920, situated in San Miguel, Bacong, Negros Oriental. The MCTC resolved the case in favor of the plaintiffs, and on appeal, 521, he could still be held administratively liable because he obviously wrote the complaint as could be gleaned from the similarity of the words
the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 44, in Dumaguete City (RTC-Br.44) affirmed the decision.[9] While the case was under and phrases used in the complaint in Civil Case No. 390. Atty. Enriquez likewise prepared and verified the answer to the counterclaim in Civil
reconsideration, Judge Candelario V. Gonzales of RTC-Br. 44 inhibited himself and the case was re-raffled and assigned to RTC, Branch 32 Case No. 521-B, another proof that he knew and actively participated in the litigation of Civil Case 521-B. Doubtless, this undesirable practice
(RTC-Br. 32), presided by Judge Roderick A. Maxino (Judge Maxino). On November 8, 2006, RTC-Br. 32 reversed and set aside the MCTC violated his oath as a member of the Bar and transgressed the known virtues and values which the legal profession demands from its
decision and dismissed the complaint for forcible entry against Spouses Williams.[10] members.

Spouses Williams also alleged that during the pendency of Civil Case No. 390, Atty. Enriquez instructed Paciano Ventolero Umbac (Paciano) In a long line of cases, this Court has held that forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a
to use death threats to chase off their caretaker and then to illegally invade Lot 2920 and destroy an old house owned by their favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the
predecessor/vendor, Orlando Verar Rian, Jr. (Orlando); that as a result, Marisa Williams (Marisa) and Orlando filed Civil Case No. 502-B for same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[16] An important factor in determining its existence
forcible entry against Paciano where a decision was rendered in their favor and a writ of execution was issued ordering Paciano to vacate the is the vexation caused to the courts and the parties-litigants by the filing of similar cases to claim substantially the same reliefs.[17]
property. According to Spouses Williams, Atty. Enriquez, who was representing himself as the counsel of the plaintiffs, was nothing more than
the leader of a group of usurpers, squatters and would be extortionists who were trying to punish them because they refused an earlier This Court has consistently warned counsels not to abuse the court processes, specifically, by forum shopping which resultantly clogs the
demand for a cash payoff. court dockets and can result in conflicting rulings.[18] In previous cases, willful and deliberate forum shopping has been made punishable either
as direct or indirect contempt of court.
Spouses Williams further claimed that Atty. Enriquez subsequently drafted a new complaint for forcible entry, falsely alleging that Marisa and
Orlando together with two hired goons forcibly entered Lot 2920 and ejected Paciano by throwing rocks at him and hitting various parts of his As a retired judge, Atty. Enriquez should know that a lawyer's primary duty is to assist the courts in the administration of justice. Any conduct
body; that the two goons wrecked the old house; and that Paciano was the owner of Lot 2920 by way of successional rights from his that tends to delay, impede or obstruct the administration of justice contravenes this obligation.[19] In engaging in such malpractice, Atty.
grandparents, Aurea and Ceriaco Ventolero. Spouses Williams added that Atty. Enriquez, in order to prevent another administrative case, Enriquez violated Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which directs lawyers to obey the laws of the land and to promote
instructed Paciano to file the case for forcible entry on his own and he would thereafter take over as counsel of record; and that Paciano, under respect for the law and the legal processes. He also disregarded his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice,[20] and
the direction of Atty. Enriquez, filed the complaint for forcible entry, docketed as Civil Case No. 521-B. the prohibition against unduly delaying a case by misusing court processes.[21] For all his reprehensible actions, the Court deems it appropriate
to suspend Atty. Enriquez for six (6) months from the practice of law. This penalty serves to emphasize the seriousness of the Court in dealing
On May 27, 2008, the MCTC dismissed the subsequent suit on the ground of litis pendentia. It found that in Civil Case No. 390 and Civil with such contemptible abuse of the judicial process. Thus, in the case of Flores v. Chua,[22] the Court held:
Case No. 521-B, there was an "almost word-for-word similarity" in the two complaints; that both involved the same subject matter; that the A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The bar should maintain a high standard of legal proficiency
plaintiffs in the two suits shared the same cause of action as both claimed prior physical possession; and that the parties in the two cases as well as honesty and fair dealing. A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to society, to the bar, to the
shared a community of interest.[11] courts and to his clients. To this end a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act which might lessen in any degree the
confidence and trust reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession.
Spouses Williams asserted that although Atty. Enriquez did not sign the complaint in Civil Case No. 521-B, there was proof that he drafted it WHEREFORE, Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez is guilty of violating Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is SUSPENDED from the
and participated in the filing of the case considering that (1) Paciano was illiterate, spoke no English, and could not possibly draft the complaint practice of law for a period of Six (6) Months. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more
without the help of Atty. Einriquez; (2) the complaints in Civil Case No. 390 and Civil Case No. 521-B were identical, (3) the person who severely.
marked the annexes in Civil Case No. 390 and Civil Case No. 521-B had identical handwriting with that of Atty. Enriquez; and (4) the Answer
to Counterclaim in Civil Case No. 521-B was prepared, verified and filed by Atty. Enriquez. Atty. Enriquez is DIRECTED to inform the Court of the date of his receipt of this decision to determine the reckoning point of the effectivity of
his suspension.
Lastly, Spouses Williams informed the Court that they previously filed an administrative case, docketed as A.C. No. 7329, against Atty.
Let a copy of this decision be made part of his records in the Office of the Bar Confidant, and copies be famished the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts. On March 29, 2000, the RTC rendered judgment in favor of Atty. Mendoza and against Felicisima and her siblings. The RTC ruled that
Felicisima failed to substantiate her claim that she did not enter into a contingency contract for legal services with Atty. Mendoza, and ordered
SO ORDERED.
Felicisima to pay Atty. Mendoza P1,258,000.00 (for the land sold at P7,120,800.00) representing attorney's fees as well as the total cost of
Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez,* and Leonen, JJ., concur. suit.7

Atty. Navarro then filed a Notice of Appeal8 on behalf of Felicisima. However, Atty. Mendoza moved for an execution pending appeal with the
RTC. Since no opposition was filed by Felicisima and her siblings, the RTC granted the said motion and issued a writ of execution, which
resulted in the levy and eventual transfer of Felicisima's properties covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. T-433859 and T-433860 in
A.C. No. 6056, September 09, 2015 favor of Atty. Mendoza as the highest bidder in the execution sale.9

FELICISIMA MENDOZA VDA. DE ROBOSA, Complainant, v. ATTYS. JUAN B. MENDOZA AND EUSEBIO P. NAVARRO, JR., Meanwhile, the Court of Appeals (CA) ordered Felicisima to file an appellant's brief but Atty. Navarro failed to file the same within the period
Respondents. granted by the CA. Consequently, the CA dismissed Felicisima's appeal for non-compliance with Section 1(e), Rule 50 of the Revised Rules of
Court.10
DECISION
On June 3, 2003, Felicisima filed a complaint-affidavit for disbarment before this Court against Atty. Mendoza for allegedly deceiving her into
VILLARAMA, JR., J.: signing the Contract for Service by taking advantage of her illiteracy, and against Atty. Navarro for dereliction of duty in handling her case
before the CA causing her properties to be levied and sold at public auction.11
Before us is a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Juan B. Mendoza (Atty. Mendoza) for alleged deceitful acts against his client, and Atty.
Eusebio P. Navarro, Jr. (Atty. Navarro) for negligence in the handling of his client's defense in the collection case filed by Atty. Mendoza. Felicisima alleges that Atty. Mendoza made her sign a document at her house without the presence of her siblings. Said document (Contract
for Service) was written in English which she does not understand. She claims that Atty. Mendoza told her the document will shield her from
Factual Antecedents her siblings' possible future claims on the property because she alone is entitled to the property as her siblings did not help her in processing
the application for original registration. She was not given a copy of the said document and she discovered only during the trial that Atty.
Mendoza anchors his claim over Vs of proceeds from the sale of the land awarded by the CENRO and LMB on the same document she had
Eladio Mendoza (Eladio) applied for original registration of two parcels of land (Lot Nos. 3771 and 2489) situated in Calamba, Laguna before signed.12
the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) at Los Banos, Laguna and Land Management Bureau (LMB) in Manila.1
While his application was still pending, Eladio died leaving all his children as heirs to his estate; among them is herein complainant Felicisima As to Atty. Navarro, Felicisima claims that her case before the CA was neglected despite repeated follow-ups on her part. She also points out
Mendoza Vda. De Robosa (Felicisima). Eladio's children pursued the application and executed a Special Power of Attorney 2 (SPA) in favor of that Atty. Navarro abandoned her case before the RTC when the latter failed to file an opposition to Atty. Mendoza's motion for execution
Felicisima. Their relative, Atty. Mendoza, prepared and notarized the said SPA. They also engaged the services of Atty. Mendoza as their pending appeal, which resulted in the loss of her properties.13
counsel in the proceedings before the CENRO and LMB.
In his Comment,14 Atty. Mendoza avers that he has been a lawyer since 1954 and retired sometime in 1983 due to partial disability. Fie went
On February 20, 1993, upon the behest of Atty. Mendoza, Felicisima signed a Contract for Service3 prepared by Atty. Mendoza. The said back to practicing his profession in 1996 on a selective basis due to his disability but completely stopped a year after. Being 82 years of age at
contract stipulated that in the event of a favorable CENRO or LMB resolution, Felicisima shall convey to Atty. Mendoza one-fifth (1/5) of the the time of filing his comment, Atty. Mendoza admits that he is now totally disabled, cannot walk on his own, cannot even write and sign his
lands subject of the application or one-fifth (1/5) of the proceeds should the same property be sold. name, and can only move about with the help of his family for he has been suffering from a severe case of "acute gouty arthritic attack" which
causes extreme difficulty in moving virtually all his joints. He points out that he had previously handled pro bono a concubinage case filed by
The CENRO and the LMB proceedings resulted in the dismissal of Felicisima and her siblings' application for Lot No. 2489 and the partial Felicisima against her husband, having yielded to her repeated pleas as she was then financially hard-up and psychologically distraught. For
grant of their application for Lot No. 3771.4 The Bureau of Lands issued an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) covering one-third (VV) or about the application with the CENRO and LMB, he agreed to be paid for his legal services on a contingent basis, which contract was subsequently
8,901 square meters of Lot No. 3771 in the names of Felicisima and her siblings. Subsequently, Felicisima and her siblings sold the land to found by the RTC to be valid. When it was time to collect his attorney's fees, Felicisima and her siblings refused to pay him without any
Greenfield Corporation (Greenfield) and received the amount of P2,000,000.00 as down payment. justifiable reason and even threatened to shoot him if he continued to press for his compensation. This left Atty. Mendoza with no other
recourse but to avail of the judicial process to enforce his claim.
On October 15, 1998, Atty. Mendoza, joined by his wife Filomena S. Mendoza, filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tanauan, Batangas a
Complaint5 against Felicisima and her siblings (Civil Case No. T-1080). Atty. Mendoza claimed that except for the amount of P40,000.00, Replying to the comment of Atty. Mendoza, Felicisima maintains that she did not understand the contents of the Contract for Service and if it
Felicisima and her siblings refused to pay his attorney's fees equivalent to 1/5 of the proceeds of the sale of the land as stipulated in the was truly their agreement (contingent basis) they would not have given money to Atty. Mendoza amounting to P66,000.00. in fact, she points
Contract for Service. out that Atty. Mendoza failed to recover one of the lands applied for and to have the land awarded to them titled because he became ill.
Further, she denies the allegation that she and her siblings threatened to shoot Atty. Mendoza for how could they do it to a lawyer who will
In their Answer with Counterclaim,6 Felicisima and her siblings denied the "existence and authenticity of the x x x Contract of Service," adding certainly have them jailed. Besides, he never mentioned such incident during the hearing of the case.
that it did not reflect the true intention of the parties as they only agreed to pay Atty. Mendoza PI,500.00 per appearance and up to P1,500.00
for gasoline expenses. They also asserted that, based on quantum meruit, Atty. Mendoza is not entitled to the claimed attorney's fees because On his part, Atty. Navarro asserts that he did his best to win Felicisima's case although he was unsuccessful. He explains that even before
they lost in one case and he failed to accomplish the titling of the land awarded to them, which would have enhanced the value of the property. handling Felicisima's case, he had been saddled by many cases involving politicians and sympathizers, having previously served as councilor
in the Municipality of Sto. Tomas, Batangas for two consecutive terms. He thus emphasized to Felicisima that in order to "keep the case alive",
Felicisima and her siblings hired the services of Atty. Navarro as their counsel in Civil Case No. T-1080. he could file the Notice of Appeal in her behalf, and instructed her to look for another lawyer who has the time to attend to her case and that
she would return to him only when she failed to get one. However, Atty. Navarro admits that since he was too preoccupied with so many cases Atty. Navarro filed a motion for reconsideration23 contending that the IBP Board of Governors failed to consider that after the filing of the Notice
in the local courts, he had altogether forgotten about Felicisima's case, not having seen her again as per their agreement. of Appeal, there was no more lawyer-client relationship between him and Felicisima. Insisting that there was a miscommunication between him
and Felicisima regarding his instruction that she should engage the services of another lawyer after the filing of the Notice of Appeal, he
Atty. Navarro avers that after a long time Felicisima suddenly showed up at his office complaining why there was no appellant's brief filed on stressed that she only later found it difficult to scout for a new lawyer because she was being charged exorbitant acceptance fees. Hence,
her behalf at the CA. He claims that Felicisima blamed her and even accused him of conniving with Atty. Mendoza. Felicisima would not Felicisima should be held equally negligent in not hiring the services of another lawyer despite a clear understanding to this effect. He further
accept his explanation and she obviously failed to understand his earlier instruction as he had filed the Notice of Appeal precisely to give her cites the lack of communication between him and Felicisima, which resulted in the late filing of the Notice of Withdrawal that she volunteered to
enough time to secure the services of a new lawyer having told her that he was quite busy with his other cases. He therefore pleads for mercy file a long time ago.
and compassion if he had somehow committed some lapses considering that this is the first time he was charged administratively in his almost
39 years of law practice and that he is too willing to take complainant's cause if not for such apparent miscommunication between a lawyer In her comment to Atty. Navarro's motion for reconsideration, Felicisima reiterated that Atty. Navarro should be held liable for negligence in
and his client.15 failing to update her of the status of the case and admitting such oversight. She claims that despite several demands, Atty. Navarro ignored
them and made himself scarce.24
On December 7, 2005, the Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and
recommendation.16 On February 28, 2012, the IBP-CBD forwarded the case to this Court for proper disposition pursuant to Section 12, Rule 139-B of the Rules of
Court. Among the records transmitted was the Resolution dated January 15, 2012 denying the motion for reconsideration filed by Atty.
On November 6, 2006, Felicisima filed a position paper17 reiterating that Atty. Mendoza clearly abused the trust and confidence she reposed in Navarro.25cralawred
him, depriving her of her material possessions by filing suit to enforce the Contract for Service. She asserted that they could not have entered
into a contract with Atty. Mendoza for the conveyance of a portion of the land to be awarded by the Bureau of Lands as his attorney's fees The Court's Ruling
because they already agreed to pay his fee per hearing plus transportation expenses and the sum of P40,000.00. She contended that Atty.
Mendoza should be held liable for deceit and misrepresentation for tricking her to sign, to her detriment, a document that she did not
understand.
The Court has consistently held that in suspension or disbarment proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of
As to Atty. Navarro, Felicisima maintained that he abandoned his responsibility to monitor and keep her updated of the status of her case innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to prove the allegations in his complaint. The evidence required in suspension
before the CA. She also alleges that Atty. Navarro made it appear to her that he had already filed the appellant's brief when, in fact, there was or disbarment proceedings is preponderance of evidence. In case the evidence of the parties are equally balanced, the equipoise doctrine
no such undertaking. She thus prayed that Atty. Navarro be held liable for negligence in the conduct and manner of handling her case before mandates a decision in favor of the respondent.26 For the Court to exercise its disciplinary powers, the case against the respondent must be
the CA. established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.27

IBP's Report and Recommendation Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the
other.28 It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.29 Under
Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the following: (a) all the facts
and circumstances of the case; (b) the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to
After two postponements, the mandatory conference was finally held on September 25, 2006 where all parties appeared except for Atty. which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony; (c) the witnesses'
Mendoza. Upon termination of the hearing, the parties were required to file their position papers but only Felicisima complied. interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of
witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number.
On March 6, 2007, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) submitted her Report and
Recommendation18 finding Atty. Mendoza guilty of taking advantage of Felicisima's ignorance just to have the Contract for Service signed. She After a thorough review of the evidence and pleadings submitted by the parties, we hold that Felicisima was able to prove her charges against
held that Atty. Mendoza violated Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) that a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his Atty. Navarro but not Atty. Mendoza.
client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him, as well as Rule 20.04, Canon 20 which exhorts lawyers to avoid
controversies with clients concerning matters of compensation and to resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.19 Contract for Service with Atty. Mendoza
a contract for contingent fees
As to Atty. Navarro, the Investigating Commissioner held that his participation in politics affected his law practice and caused him to forget
about Felicisima's case. Having failed to file the appellant's brief as ordered by the CA, Atty. Navarro even filed a Motion to Withdraw The Contract for Service dated February 20, 1993 reads:cralawlawlibrary
Appearance at a very late stage, leaving no time for Felicisima to secure the services of another lawyer. His infraction caused the eviction of
Felicisima and her children from their residence by virtue of the writ of execution and public auction of her real properties. The Investigating That the client hereby employs the Attorney as their counsel for the titling and recovery of their two parcels of land situated at Barangay
Commissioner further said that Atty. Navarro's acts showed lack of diligence in violation of Canon 18 of the CPR and his Lawyer's Oath.20 Maunong, Calamba, Laguna, [Lot] No. 2489 with an area of approximately 21,784 Square Meters and [L]ot No. 3771 with an area of more or
less 26,703 and in consideration of the services of the attorney, the client agrees to pay the following:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The Investigating Commissioner recommended that both Atty. Mendoza and Atty. Navarro be suspended for two (2) years from the practice of
law.21 1. For the prosecution of said proceedings (titling and recovery of the said parcels of land and hearing at the Land Management Bureau,
Manila, and at the Office of the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office at Los Bafios, Laguna the client will give the Attorney
On September 19, 2007, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution22 modifying the Investigating Commissioner's Report and one fifth (1/5[)] of the said two parcels of land or one fifth (1/5[)] of the selling price of the said properties if sold.
Recommendation by lowering the period of suspension from two (2) years to six (6) months.
Said Attorney hereby accepts said employment on said terms and conditions and to do his best care, skill and ability, and at all times to protect
the rights and interest of said client. contingency fee contract cannot be deduced from the fact alone that Atty. Mendoza filed suit to enforce their contract.

2. That the expenses of the proceedings, and such others as filing fees, expenses of publication, costs legally taxable and all others shall be Atty. Navarro 's Gross Negligence
for the account of the client.30chanrobleslaw
With respect to Atty. Navarro, the facts on record clearly established his failure to live up to the standards of diligence and competence of the
legal profession.
We cannot sustain the finding of the IBP that Atty. Mendoza misled Felicisima into signing the above contract which supposedly was intended
to protect her from the claims of her siblings who did not spend for the application with the CENRO and LMB. Such finding was based solely Lawyers engaged to represent a client in a case bear the responsibility of protecting the latter's interest with warmth, zeal and utmost
on the statements of Felicisima in her affidavit-complaint. While Felicisima made a reference to her testimony before the RTC, she did not diligence.36 They must constantly keep in mind that their actions or omissions would be binding on the client.37
attach the transcript of stenographic notes of the said testimony detailing the circumstances of her signing the Contract for Service. Neither is
the receipt by Atty. Mendoza of the sum of P40,000.00 after Felicisima and her siblings sold the land, by itself an indication of fraud and deceit In this case, Atty. Navarro agreed to represent Felicisima and her siblings in Civil Case No. T-1080 and as their counsel he filed the Answer
in the execution of the Contract for Service. with Counterclaim. He likewise attended the hearings of the case until the RTC rendered an adverse judgment. However, after filing the Notice
of Appeal, nothing was heard of again from him. He did not file any opposition when Atty. Mendoza moved for execution pending appeal,
Upon the other hand, Atty. Mendoza presented the RTC Decision in Civil Case No. T-1080 dated March 29, 2000, the relevant portions of which resulted in the sale of Felicisima's properties at public auction and eventual eviction of Felicisima and her children from the said
which state:cralawlawlibrary premises. Worse, he failed to file an appellant's brief despite receipt of the order from the CA directing him to do so within the period specified
therein, and to file a motion for reconsideration when the appeal was dismissed due to non-filing of such brief. His motion for extension of time
It is not disputed that Atty. Mendoza was paid PI,000.00 for every appearance and he was also given P300.00 for hiring a vehicle and driver to submit an appellant's brief was filed 93 days late and was thus denied by the CA. Barely a week after, he filed a notice of withdrawal of
for each scheduled hearing. He also received P40,000.00 from Felicisima Mendoza when defendants' one-third portion of Lot No. 3771 was appearance bearing the conformity of his clients which was granted. It is evident from the foregoing that Atty. Navarro failed to inform
sold. Felicisima of the status of the case so that the latter was surprised upon being served the eviction order of the court and eventual dismissal by
the CA of their appeal.
Atty. Mendoza filed the instant case to collect one-fifth of the sale price of defendants' land which was sold for P7,120,800.00 or the amount of
P1,424,000.00 minus the amount of P40,000.00 he received, or the amount of P1,384,000.00. Canon 18 of the CPR mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. Rule 18.03 further provides that a lawyer
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
During her testimony, Felicisima Mendoza admitted the authenticity of the Special Power of Attorney whereby her brothers and sisters
authorized her to secure the services of the plaintiff Juan Mendoza adding that it was in writing, in English and was explained to her before she Thus:cralawlawlibrary
signed it; that on the basis of the authority given her by her brothers and sisters she engaged the services of Atty. Mendoza; that the signature
in the document, entitled Contract of Service, is that of her name which she signed in "his house." Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence and champion the latter's cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and
On the basis of the evidence, the Court finds no ground to support Felicisima's claim that she did not enter into any written agreement with the devotion. Elsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his client's rights,
plaintiff, Juan Mendoza, for the latter to render legal services and the corresponding compensation therefor as set forth in the Contract of and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally
Service. However, the Court finds that the amounts received by the plaintiff Juan Mendoza from defendant Felicisima Mendoza during the applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the
course of his legal services for the twenty hearings in the amount of P1,300.00 per hearing or a total of P26,000.00 should also be deducted land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. If much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted
from his claim of P1,384,000.00 leaving an unpaid balance of PI,258,000.00 due plaintiff Juan Mendoza for legal services rendered the privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar and to the public. A lawyer
defendants.31chanrobleslaw who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to
the bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.38chanrobleslaw

Given the above finding of the RTC that Felicisima in fact entered into a contract for legal services with Atty. Mendoza, thus debunking her
defense in her Answer denying the existence and authenticity of the said document, it appears that Felicisima raised the issue of voluntariness Atty. Navarro's asseveration that he had instructed Felicisima to look for another lawyer and given them the Notice of Withdrawal of
of her signing the Contract for Service only during the hearing when she supposedly testified that, having reached only Grade IV and trusting Appearance for them to file in the CA, fails to convince. If it is true that he did not agree to continue being Felicisima's counsel before the CA,
completely her lawyer cousin, Atty. Mendoza who told her that the document will protect her from the claims of her siblings, she actually signed he should have immediately filed the Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance himself after filing the Notice of Appeal. Despite receipt of the order
the Contract for Service.32 The RTC, however, found the evidence adduced by Felicisima as insufficient to defeat Atty. Mendoza's claim for to file appellant's brief from the CA, he did not inform Felicisima about it nor did he inquire from the latter whether they already secured the
attorney's fees. Said judgment had attained finality and even pending appeal was already executed on motion by Atty. Mendoza. services of a new counsel. That such withdrawal was filed long after the expiration of the period to file appellant's brief and the denial by the
CA of the motion for extension also belatedly filed by him, clearly indicate that he never updated Felicisima on the status of their appeal, such
It bears to stress that a contingent fee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction and is generally recognized as valid and binding but must be laid information being crucial after Atty. Mendoza succeeded in having the judgment executed pending appeal.
down in an express contract.33 The validity of contingent fees depends, in large measure, upon the reasonableness of the amount fixed as
contingent fee under the circumstances of the case.34 Nevertheless, when it is shown that a contract for a contingent fee was obtained by Atty. Navarro, in fact, admitted that he forgot about Felicisima's case due to his political activities. Despite having received notices from the
undue influence exercised by the attorney upon his client or by any fraud or imposition, or that the compensation is clearly excessive, the CA, he allowed the period of filing the appellant's brief to lapse and failed to file a motion for extension before such period expired. He did file a
Court must, and will protect the aggrieved party.35 motion for extension but only three months later and when such motion was denied, he finally moved to withdraw from the case. There being
no appellant's brief filed, the CA granted Atty. Mendoza's motion to dismiss the appeal. Under the circumstances, Atty. Navarro was grossly
Apart from the allegations in her affidavit-complaint, Felicisima failed to establish by clear and satisfactory proof of the deception allegedly negligent in his duties, resulting in great prejudice to Felicisima who lost her properties to satisfy the judgment in favor of Atty. Mendoza.
committed by Atty. Mendoza when she agreed in writing for the latter's contingent fees. Fraud and irregularity in the execution of their
We have held that the failure of counsel to submit the appeal brief for his client within the reglementary period constitutes inexcusable Sabina E. Acut, Jr. and Mylene Garcia-Albano co-counsel for petitioner.
negligence39 an offense that entails disciplinary action.40 The filing of a brief within the period set by law is a duty not only to the client, but also
to the court.41 The failure to file an appellate court brief without any justifiable reason thus deserves sanction.42 PARAS, J.:

Atty. Navarro's negligent handling of Felicisima's case was exacerbated by his failure to inform her of the status of her case. There was no
We are faced here with a controversy of far-reaching proportions. While ostensibly only legal issues are involved, the Court's decision in this
mention in his pleadings of any attempt on his part to contact Felicisima at the crucial stages when Atty. Mendoza moved for execution case would indubitably have a profound effect on the political aspect of our national existence.
pending appeal and the CA sent a directive for the filing of the appellant's brief. If indeed, he had already instructed Felicisima to look for
another lawyer, he should have apprised her of these developments and explained to her the urgency of filing the notice of withdrawal of
The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1), Article IX-C:
appearance and entry of appearance of a new counsel she may have already engaged.

Atty. Navarro's failure to communicate vital information to his client violated Rule 18.04 which provides:cralawlawlibrary There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of
the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not
have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding -elections. However, a majority thereof, including the
Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. (Emphasis
for [Link] supplied)

The aforequoted provision is patterned after Section l(l), Article XII-C of the 1973 Constitution which similarly provides:
The lawyer's duty to keep his client constantly updated on the developments of his case is crucial in maintaining the client's confidence.
Indeed, the relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the lawyer to inform timely and adequately
the client of important developments affecting the client's case. The lawyer should not leave the client in the dark on how the lawyer is There shall be an independent Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and eight Commissioners who shall be natural-born
citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age and holders of a college degree. However, a
defending the client's interests.43 majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.' (Emphasis supplied)
In cases involving a lawyer's failure to file a brief or other pleading before an appellate court, this Court has imposed suspension from the
practice of law for periods ranging from three to six months, and in most serious cases, even disbarment.44
Regrettably, however, there seems to be no jurisprudence as to what constitutes practice of law as a legal qualification to an appointive office.

We find the recommendation of the IBP-Board of Governors to suspend Atty. Navarro from the practice of law for six months appropriate under
the circumstances. Considering that this is his first administrative offense, such penalty, and not disbarment as prayed for by complainant, Black defines "practice of law" as:
serves the purpose of protecting the interest of the public and the legal profession. For this Court will exercise its power to disbar only in clear
cases of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and a member of the The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique to serve the interest of
bar.45chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces
the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal
instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Atty. Eusebio P. Navarro, Jr. GUILTY of violation of Rule 18.03 and Rule 18.04 of the Code of in matters connected with the law. An attorney engages in the practice of law by maintaining an office where he is held out to be-
Professional Responsibility, and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective upon finality of this Decision, with an attorney, using a letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling clients in legal matters, negotiating with opposing
warning that a repetition of the same or similar violation shall be dealt with more severely. The charges against Atty. Juan B. Mendoza are counsel about pending litigation, and fixing and collecting fees for services rendered by his associate. (Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd
DISMISSED. ed.)

SO [Link] The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. (Land Title Abstract and Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E.
650) A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he:
Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Perez,* and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
... for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights
under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before any court,
commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies and there,
in such representative capacity performs any act or acts for the purpose of obtaining or defending the rights of their clients under
the law. Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights
under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the
G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991 practice of law. (State ex. rel. Mckittrick v..C.S. Dudley and Co., 102 S.W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852)

RENATO CAYETANO, petitioner, This Court in the case of Philippine Lawyers Association [Link], (105 Phil. 173,176-177) stated:
vs.
CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R. SALONGA, COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENT, and HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his
capacity as Secretary of Budget and Management, respondents. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other
papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before
judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected
Renato L. Cayetano for and in his own behalf. with the law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body,
 the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting MR. OPLE. Will Commissioner Foz yield to just one question.
proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the
preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the
MR. FOZ. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
legal effect of facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jr. p. 262, 263). (Emphasis supplied)

MR. OPLE. Is he, in effect, saying that service in the COA by a lawyer is equivalent to the requirement of a law practice that is set
Practice of law under modem conditions consists in no small part of work performed outside of any court and having no immediate
forth in the Article on the Commission on Audit?
relation to proceedings in court. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of subjects, and the
preparation and execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs.
Although these transactions may have no direct connection with court proceedings, they are always subject to become involved in MR. FOZ. We must consider the fact that the work of COA, although it is auditing, will necessarily involve legal work; it will involve
litigation. They require in many aspects a high degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men and affairs, and great capacity for legal work. And, therefore, lawyers who are employed in COA now would have the necessary qualifications in accordance with the
adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These customary functions of an attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate Provision on qualifications under our provisions on the Commission on Audit. And, therefore, the answer is yes.
relation to the administration of justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the question set forth in the order, can
be drawn between that part of the work of the lawyer which involves appearance in court and that part which involves advice and
drafting of instruments in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these manifold customary functions be MR. OPLE. Yes. So that the construction given to this is that this is equivalent to the practice of law.
performed by persons possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all times under the heavy
trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys. (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 3 [1953 ed.] , p. 665-666, MR. FOZ. Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
citing In re Opinion of the Justices [Mass.], 194 N.E. 313, quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile Service Assoc. [R.I.] 179
A. 139,144). (Emphasis ours)
MR. OPLE. Thank you.

The University of the Philippines Law Center in conducting orientation briefing for new lawyers (1974-1975) listed the dimensions of the
practice of law in even broader terms as advocacy, counselling and public service. ... ( Emphasis supplied)

One may be a practicing attorney in following any line of employment in the profession. If what he does exacts knowledge of the Section 1(1), Article IX-D of the 1987 Constitution, provides, among others, that the Chairman and two Commissioners of the Commission on
law and is of a kind usual for attorneys engaging in the active practice of their profession, and he follows some one or more lines Audit (COA) should either be certified public accountants with not less than ten years of auditing practice, or members of the Philippine Bar
of employment such as this he is a practicing attorney at law within the meaning of the statute. (Barr v. Cardell, 155 NW 312) who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. (emphasis supplied)

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and Corollary to this is the term "private practitioner" and which is in many ways synonymous with the word "lawyer." Today, although many
experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is lawyers do not engage in private practice, it is still a fact that the majority of lawyers are private practitioners. (Gary Munneke, Opportunities in
to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill." (111 ALR 23) Law Careers [VGM Career Horizons: Illinois], [1986], p. 15).

The following records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission show that it has adopted a liberal interpretation of the term "practice of law." At this point, it might be helpful to define private practice. The term, as commonly understood, means "an individual or organization engaged in
the business of delivering legal services." (Ibid.). Lawyers who practice alone are often called "sole practitioners." Groups of lawyers are called
"firms." The firm is usually a partnership and members of the firm are the partners. Some firms may be organized as professional corporations
MR. FOZ. Before we suspend the session, may I make a manifestation which I forgot to do during our review of the provisions on and the members called shareholders. In either case, the members of the firm are the experienced attorneys. In most firms, there are younger
the Commission on Audit. May I be allowed to make a very brief statement? or more inexperienced salaried attorneyscalled "associates." (Ibid.).

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jamir). The test that defines law practice by looking to traditional areas of law practice is essentially tautologous, unhelpful defining the practice of law
as that which lawyers do. (Charles W. Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics [West Publishing Co.: Minnesota, 1986], p. 593). The practice of law is
The Commissioner will please proceed. defined as the performance of any acts . . . in or out of court, commonly understood to be the practice of law. (State Bar Ass'n v. Connecticut
Bank & Trust Co., 145 Conn. 222, 140 A.2d 863, 870 [1958] [quoting Grievance Comm. v. Payne, 128 Conn. 325, 22 A.2d 623, 626 [1941]).
Because lawyers perform almost every function known in the commercial and governmental realm, such a definition would obviously be too
MR. FOZ. This has to do with the qualifications of the members of the Commission on Audit. Among others, the qualifications global to be workable.(Wolfram, op. cit.).
provided for by Section I is that "They must be Members of the Philippine Bar" — I am quoting from the provision — "who have
been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years".
The appearance of a lawyer in litigation in behalf of a client is at once the most publicly familiar role for lawyers as well as an uncommon role
for the average lawyer. Most lawyers spend little time in courtrooms, and a large percentage spend their entire practice without litigating a
To avoid any misunderstanding which would result in excluding members of the Bar who are now employed in the COA or Commission on case. (Ibid., p. 593). Nonetheless, many lawyers do continue to litigate and the litigating lawyer's role colors much of both the public image and
Audit, we would like to make the clarification that this provision on qualifications regarding members of the Bar does not necessarily refer or the self perception of the legal profession. (Ibid.).
involve actual practice of law outside the COA We have to interpret this to mean that as long as the lawyers who are employed in the COA are
using their legal knowledge or legal talent in their respective work within COA, then they are qualified to be considered for appointment as
members or commissioners, even chairman, of the Commission on Audit. In this regard thus, the dominance of litigation in the public mind reflects history, not reality. (Ibid.). Why is this so? Recall that the late
Alexander SyCip, a corporate lawyer, once articulated on the importance of a lawyer as a business counselor in this wise: "Even today, there
are still uninformed laymen whose concept of an attorney is one who principally tries cases before the courts. The members of the bench and
This has been discussed by the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies and we deem it important to take it up on the floor so bar and the informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in most developed societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted
that this interpretation may be made available whenever this provision on the qualifications as regards members of the Philippine Bar engaging in law offices than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do both litigation and non-litigation work also know that in most cases
in the practice of law for at least ten years is taken up. they find themselves spending more time doing what [is] loosely desccribe[d] as business counseling than in trying cases. The business lawyer
has been described as the planner, the diagnostician and the trial lawyer, the surgeon. I[t] need not [be] stress[ed] that in law, as in medicine, In our litigation-prone country, a corporate lawyer is assiduously referred to as the "abogado de campanilla." He is the "big-time"
surgery should be avoided where internal medicine can be effective." (Business Star, "Corporate Finance Law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4). lawyer, earning big money and with a clientele composed of the tycoons and magnates of business and industry.

In the course of a working day the average general practitioner wig engage in a number of legal tasks, each involving different legal doctrines, Despite the growing number of corporate lawyers, many people could not explain what it is that a corporate lawyer does. For one,
legal skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized the number of attorneys employed by a single corporation will vary with the size and type of the corporation. Many smaller and
practice wig usually perform at least some legal services outside their specialty. And even within a narrow specialty such as tax practice, a some large corporations farm out all their legal problems to private law firms. Many others have in-house counsel only for certain
lawyer will shift from one legal task or role such as advice-giving to an importantly different one such as representing a client before an matters. Other corporation have a staff large enough to handle most legal problems in-house.
administrative agency. (Wolfram, supra, p. 687).
A corporate lawyer, for all intents and purposes, is a lawyer who handles the legal affairs of a corporation. His areas of concern or
By no means will most of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is one of the relatively rare types — a litigator who specializes in this jurisdiction may include, inter alia: corporate legal research, tax laws research, acting out as corporate secretary (in board
work to the exclusion of much else. Instead, the work will require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of traditional lawyer skills of client meetings), appearances in both courts and other adjudicatory agencies (including the Securities and Exchange Commission), and
counselling, advice-giving, document drafting, and negotiation. And increasingly lawyers find that the new skills of evaluation and mediation in other capacities which require an ability to deal with the law.
are both effective for many clients and a source of employment. (Ibid.).
At any rate, a corporate lawyer may assume responsibilities other than the legal affairs of the business of the corporation he is
Most lawyers will engage in non-litigation legal work or in litigation work that is constrained in very important ways, at least theoretically, so as representing. These include such matters as determining policy and becoming involved in management. ( Emphasis supplied.)
to remove from it some of the salient features of adversarial litigation. Of these special roles, the most prominent is that of prosecutor. In some
lawyers' work the constraints are imposed both by the nature of the client and by the way in which the lawyer is organized into a social unit to
In a big company, for example, one may have a feeling of being isolated from the action, or not understanding how one's work
perform that work. The most common of these roles are those of corporate practice and government legal service. (Ibid.).
actually fits into the work of the orgarnization. This can be frustrating to someone who needs to see the results of his work first
hand. In short, a corporate lawyer is sometimes offered this fortune to be more closely involved in the running of the business.
In several issues of the Business Star, a business daily, herein below quoted are emerging trends in corporate law practice, a departure from
the traditional concept of practice of law.
Moreover, a corporate lawyer's services may sometimes be engaged by a multinational corporation (MNC). Some large MNCs
provide one of the few opportunities available to corporate lawyers to enter the international law field. After all, international law is
We are experiencing today what truly may be called a revolutionary transformation in corporate law practice. Lawyers and other practiced in a relatively small number of companies and law firms. Because working in a foreign country is perceived by many as
professional groups, in particular those members participating in various legal-policy decisional contexts, are finding that glamorous, tills is an area coveted by corporate lawyers. In most cases, however, the overseas jobs go to experienced attorneys
understanding the major emerging trends in corporation law is indispensable to intelligent decision-making. while the younger attorneys do their "international practice" in law libraries. (Business Star, "Corporate Law Practice," May
25,1990, p. 4).
Constructive adjustment to major corporate problems of today requires an accurate understanding of the nature and implications
of the corporate law research function accompanied by an accelerating rate of information accumulation. The recognition of the This brings us to the inevitable, i.e., the role of the lawyer in the realm of finance. To borrow the lines of Harvard-educated lawyer
need for such improved corporate legal policy formulation, particularly "model-making" and "contingency planning," has impressed Bruce Wassertein, to wit: "A bad lawyer is one who fails to spot problems, a good lawyer is one who perceives the difficulties, and
upon us the inadequacy of traditional procedures in many decisional contexts. the excellent lawyer is one who surmounts them." (Business Star, "Corporate Finance Law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4).

In a complex legal problem the mass of information to be processed, the sorting and weighing of significant conditional factors, the Today, the study of corporate law practice direly needs a "shot in the arm," so to speak. No longer are we talking of the traditional
appraisal of major trends, the necessity of estimating the consequences of given courses of action, and the need for fast decision law teaching method of confining the subject study to the Corporation Code and the Securities Code but an incursion as well into
and response in situations of acute danger have prompted the use of sophisticated concepts of information flow theory, the intertwining modern management issues.
operational analysis, automatic data processing, and electronic computing equipment. Understandably, an improved decisional
structure must stress the predictive component of the policy-making process, wherein a "model", of the decisional context or a
Such corporate legal management issues deal primarily with three (3) types of learning: (1) acquisition of insights into current
segment thereof is developed to test projected alternative courses of action in terms of futuristic effects flowing therefrom.
advances which are of particular significance to the corporate counsel; (2) an introduction to usable disciplinary skins applicable to
a corporate counsel's management responsibilities; and (3) a devotion to the organization and management of the legal function
Although members of the legal profession are regularly engaged in predicting and projecting the trends of the law, the subject of itself.
corporate finance law has received relatively little organized and formalized attention in the philosophy of advancing corporate
legal education. Nonetheless, a cross-disciplinary approach to legal research has become a vital necessity.
These three subject areas may be thought of as intersecting circles, with a shared area linking them. Otherwise known as
"intersecting managerial jurisprudence," it forms a unifying theme for the corporate counsel's total learning.
Certainly, the general orientation for productive contributions by those trained primarily in the law can be improved through an
early introduction to multi-variable decisional context and the various approaches for handling such problems. Lawyers,
Some current advances in behavior and policy sciences affect the counsel's role. For that matter, the corporate lawyer reviews the
particularly with either a master's or doctorate degree in business administration or management, functioning at the legal policy
globalization process, including the resulting strategic repositioning that the firms he provides counsel for are required to make,
level of decision-making now have some appreciation for the concepts and analytical techniques of other professions which are
and the need to think about a corporation's; strategy at multiple levels. The salience of the nation-state is being reduced as firms
currently engaged in similar types of complex decision-making.
deal both with global multinational entities and simultaneously with sub-national governmental units. Firms increasingly collaborate
not only with public entities but with each other — often with those who are competitors in other arenas.
Truth to tell, many situations involving corporate finance problems would require the services of an astute attorney because of the
complex legal implications that arise from each and every necessary step in securing and maintaining the business issue raised.
Also, the nature of the lawyer's participation in decision-making within the corporation is rapidly changing. The modem corporate
(Business Star, "Corporate Finance Law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4).
lawyer has gained a new role as a stakeholder — in some cases participating in the organization and operations of governance
through participation on boards and other decision-making roles. Often these new patterns develop alongside existing legal
institutions and laws are perceived as barriers. These trends are complicated as corporations organize for global operations. ( This whole exercise drives home the thesis that knowing corporate law is not enough to make one a good general corporate
Emphasis supplied) counsel nor to give him a full sense of how the legal system shapes corporate activities. And even if the corporate lawyer's aim is
not the understand all of the law's effects on corporate activities, he must, at the very least, also gain a working knowledge of the
management issues if only to be able to grasp not only the basic legal "constitution' or makeup of the modem corporation.
The practising lawyer of today is familiar as well with governmental policies toward the promotion and management of technology.
"Business Star", "The Corporate Counsel," April 10, 1991, p. 4).
New collaborative arrangements for promoting specific technologies or competitiveness more generally require approaches from
industry that differ from older, more adversarial relationships and traditional forms of seeking to influence governmental policies.
And there are lessons to be learned from other countries. In Europe, Esprit, Eureka and Race are examples of collaborative The challenge for lawyers (both of the bar and the bench) is to have more than a passing knowledge of financial law affecting
efforts between governmental and business Japan's MITI is world famous. (Emphasis supplied) each aspect of their work. Yet, many would admit to ignorance of vast tracts of the financial law territory. What transpires next is a
dilemma of professional security: Will the lawyer admit ignorance and risk opprobrium?; or will he feign understanding and risk
exposure? (Business Star, "Corporate Finance law," Jan. 11, 1989, p. 4).
Following the concept of boundary spanning, the office of the Corporate Counsel comprises a distinct group within the managerial
structure of all kinds of organizations. Effectiveness of both long-term and temporary groups within organizations has been found
to be related to indentifiable factors in the group-context interaction such as the groups actively revising their knowledge of the Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter
environment coordinating work with outsiders, promoting team achievements within the organization. In general, such external received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly
activities are better predictors of team performance than internal group processes. Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

In a crisis situation, the legal managerial capabilities of the corporate lawyer vis-a-vis the managerial mettle of corporations are On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC. On June 18, 1991,
challenged. Current research is seeking ways both to anticipate effective managerial procedures and to understand relationships he took his oath of office. On the same day, he assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC.
of financial liability and insurance considerations. (Emphasis supplied)
Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod's nomination, petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer,
Regarding the skills to apply by the corporate counsel, three factors are apropos: filed the instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of
the Commission on Elections be declared null and void.
First System Dynamics. The field of systems dynamics has been found an effective tool for new managerial thinking regarding
both planning and pressing immediate problems. An understanding of the role of feedback loops, inventory levels, and rates of Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86-55%. He has been a
flow, enable users to simulate all sorts of systematic problems — physical, economic, managerial, social, and psychological. New dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license
programming techniques now make the system dynamics principles more accessible to managers — including corporate fees as lawyer for more than ten years. (p. 124, Rollo)
counsels. (Emphasis supplied)
After graduating from the College of Law (U.P.) and having hurdled the bar, Atty. Monsod worked in the law office of his father. During his stint
Second Decision Analysis. This enables users to make better decisions involving complexity and uncertainty. In the context of a in the World Bank Group (1963-1970), Monsod worked as an operations officer for about two years in Costa Rica and Panama, which involved
law department, it can be used to appraise the settlement value of litigation, aid in negotiation settlement, and minimize the cost getting acquainted with the laws of member-countries negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic, and project work of the Bank. Upon
and risk involved in managing a portfolio of cases. (Emphasis supplied) returning to the Philippines in 1970, he worked with the Meralco Group, served as chief executive officer of an investment bank and
subsequently of a business conglomerate, and since 1986, has rendered services to various companies as a legal and economic consultant or
chief executive officer. As former Secretary-General (1986) and National Chairman (1987) of NAMFREL. Monsod's work involved being
Third Modeling for Negotiation Management. Computer-based models can be used directly by parties and mediators in all lands of
knowledgeable in election law. He appeared for NAMFREL in its accreditation hearings before the Comelec. In the field of advocacy, Monsod,
negotiations. All integrated set of such tools provide coherent and effective negotiation support, including hands-on on instruction
in his personal capacity and as former Co-Chairman of the Bishops Businessmen's Conference for Human Development, has worked with the
in these techniques. A simulation case of an international joint venture may be used to illustrate the point.
under privileged sectors, such as the farmer and urban poor groups, in initiating, lobbying for and engaging in affirmative action for the
agrarian reform law and lately the urban land reform bill. Monsod also made use of his legal knowledge as a member of the Davide
[Be this as it may,] the organization and management of the legal function, concern three pointed areas of consideration, thus: Commission, a quast judicial body, which conducted numerous hearings (1990) and as a member of the Constitutional Commission (1986-
1987), and Chairman of its Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, for which he was cited by the President of the Commission, Justice
Cecilia Muñoz-Palma for "innumerable amendments to reconcile government functions with individual freedoms and public accountability and
Preventive Lawyering. Planning by lawyers requires special skills that comprise a major part of the general counsel's the party-list system for the House of Representative. (pp. 128-129 Rollo) ( Emphasis supplied)
responsibilities. They differ from those of remedial law. Preventive lawyering is concerned with minimizing the risks of legal trouble
and maximizing legal rights for such legal entities at that time when transactional or similar facts are being considered and made.
Just a word about the work of a negotiating team of which Atty. Monsod used to be a member.
Managerial Jurisprudence. This is the framework within which are undertaken those activities of the firm to which legal
consequences attach. It needs to be directly supportive of this nation's evolving economic and organizational fabric as firms In a loan agreement, for instance, a negotiating panel acts as a team, and which is adequately constituted to meet the various
change to stay competitive in a global, interdependent environment. The practice and theory of "law" is not adequate today to contingencies that arise during a negotiation. Besides top officials of the Borrower concerned, there are the legal officer (such as
facilitate the relationships needed in trying to make a global economy work. the legal counsel), the finance manager, and an operations officer (such as an official involved in negotiating the contracts) who
comprise the members of the team. (Guillermo V. Soliven, "Loan Negotiating Strategies for Developing Country Borrowers," Staff
Paper No. 2, Central Bank of the Philippines, Manila, 1982, p. 11). (Emphasis supplied)
Organization and Functioning of the Corporate Counsel's Office. The general counsel has emerged in the last decade as one of
the most vibrant subsets of the legal profession. The corporate counsel hear responsibility for key aspects of the firm's strategic
issues, including structuring its global operations, managing improved relationships with an increasingly diversified body of After a fashion, the loan agreement is like a country's Constitution; it lays down the law as far as the loan transaction is concerned.
employees, managing expanded liability exposure, creating new and varied interactions with public decision-makers, coping Thus, the meat of any Loan Agreement can be compartmentalized into five (5) fundamental parts: (1) business terms; (2)
internally with more complex make or by decisions. borrower's representation; (3) conditions of closing; (4) covenants; and (5) events of default. (Ibid., p. 13).
 In the same vein, lawyers play an important role in any debt restructuring program. For aside from performing the tasks of The Chairman and the Commisioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments
legislative drafting and legal advising, they score national development policies as key factors in maintaining their countries' for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two
sovereignty. (Condensed from the work paper, entitled "Wanted: Development Lawyers for Developing Nations," submitted by L. Members for five years, and the last Members for three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only
Michael Hager, regional legal adviser of the United States Agency for International Development, during the Session on Law for for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting
the Development of Nations at the Abidjan World Conference in Ivory Coast, sponsored by the World Peace Through Law Center capacity.
on August 26-31, 1973). ( Emphasis supplied)
Anent Justice Teodoro Padilla's separate opinion, suffice it to say that his definition of the practice of law is the traditional or
Loan concessions and compromises, perhaps even more so than purely renegotiation policies, demand expertise in the law of stereotyped notion of law practice, as distinguished from the modern concept of the practice of law, which modern connotation is
contracts, in legislation and agreement drafting and in renegotiation. Necessarily, a sovereign lawyer may work with an exactly what was intended by the eminent framers of the 1987 Constitution. Moreover, Justice Padilla's definition would require
international business specialist or an economist in the formulation of a model loan agreement. Debt restructuring contract generally a habitual law practice, perhaps practised two or three times a week and would outlaw say, law practice once or twice a
agreements contain such a mixture of technical language that they should be carefully drafted and signed only with the advise of year for ten consecutive years. Clearly, this is far from the constitutional intent.
competent counsel in conjunction with the guidance of adequate technical support personnel. (See International Law Aspects of
the Philippine External Debts, an unpublished dissertation, U.S.T. Graduate School of Law, 1987, p. 321). ( Emphasis supplied)
Upon the other hand, the separate opinion of Justice Isagani Cruz states that in my written opinion, I made use of a definition of law practice
which really means nothing because the definition says that law practice " . . . is what people ordinarily mean by the practice of law." True I
A critical aspect of sovereign debt restructuring/contract construction is the set of terms and conditions which determines the cited the definition but only by way of sarcasm as evident from my statement that the definition of law practice by "traditional areas of law
contractual remedies for a failure to perform one or more elements of the contract. A good agreement must not only define the practice is essentially tautologous" or defining a phrase by means of the phrase itself that is being defined.
responsibilities of both parties, but must also state the recourse open to either party when the other fails to discharge an
obligation. For a compleat debt restructuring represents a devotion to that principle which in the ultimate analysis is sine qua non
Justice Cruz goes on to say in substance that since the law covers almost all situations, most individuals, in making use of the law, or in
for foreign loan agreements-an adherence to the rule of law in domestic and international affairs of whose kind U.S. Supreme
advising others on what the law means, are actually practicing law. In that sense, perhaps, but we should not lose sight of the fact that Mr.
Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once said: "They carry no banners, they beat no drums; but where they are, men learn
Monsod is a lawyer, a member of the Philippine Bar, who has been practising law for over ten years. This is different from the acts of persons
that bustle and bush are not the equal of quiet genius and serene mastery." (See Ricardo J. Romulo, "The Role of Lawyers in
practising law, without first becoming lawyers.
Foreign Investments," Integrated Bar of the Philippine Journal, Vol. 15, Nos. 3 and 4, Third and Fourth Quarters, 1977, p. 265).

Justice Cruz also says that the Supreme Court can even disqualify an elected President of the Philippines, say, on the ground that he lacks
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term Practice of law". particularly the modern concept of law practice, and taking into
one or more qualifications. This matter, I greatly doubt. For one thing, how can an action or petition be brought against the President? And
consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the Constitution, Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as a lawyer-
even assuming that he is indeed disqualified, how can the action be entertained since he is the incumbent President?
economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and
the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
We now proceed:
Besides in the leading case of Luego v. Civil Service Commission, 143 SCRA 327, the Court said:
The Commission on the basis of evidence submitted doling the public hearings on Monsod's confirmation, implicitly determined that he
possessed the necessary qualifications as required by law. The judgment rendered by the Commission in the exercise of such an
Appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in which it is vested according to his best
acknowledged power is beyond judicial interference except only upon a clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
lights, the only condition being that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law. If he does, then the
excess of jurisdiction. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1 Constitution). Thus, only where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere
appointment cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others better qualified who should have been preferred. This is a
with the Commission's judgment. In the instant case, there is no occasion for the exercise of the Court's corrective power, since no abuse,
political question involving considerations of wisdom which only the appointing authority can decide. (emphasis supplied)
much less a grave abuse of discretion, that would amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction and would warrant the issuance of the writs prayed,
for has been clearly shown.
No less emphatic was the Court in the case of (Central Bank v. Civil Service Commission, 171 SCRA 744) where it stated:
Additionally, consider the following:
It is well-settled that when the appointee is qualified, as in this case, and all the other legal requirements are satisfied, the
Commission has no alternative but to attest to the appointment in accordance with the Civil Service Law. The Commission has no
(1) If the Commission on Appointments rejects a nominee by the President, may the Supreme Court reverse the Commission, and
authority to revoke an appointment on the ground that another person is more qualified for a particular position. It also has no
thus in effect confirm the appointment? Clearly, the answer is in the negative.
authority to direct the appointment of a substitute of its choice. To do so would be an encroachment on the discretion vested upon
the appointing authority. An appointment is essentially within the discretionary power of whomsoever it is vested, subject to the
only condition that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law. ( Emphasis supplied) (2) In the same vein, may the Court reject the nominee, whom the Commission has confirmed? The answer is likewise clear.

The appointing process in a regular appointment as in the case at bar, consists of four (4) stages: (1) nomination; (2) confirmation by the (3) If the United States Senate (which is the confirming body in the U.S. Congress) decides to confirm a Presidential nominee, it
Commission on Appointments; (3) issuance of a commission (in the Philippines, upon submission by the Commission on Appointments of its would be incredible that the U.S. Supreme Court would still reverse the U.S. Senate.
certificate of confirmation, the President issues the permanent appointment; and (4) acceptance e.g., oath-taking, posting of bond, etc. . . .
(Lacson v. Romero, No. L-3081, October 14, 1949; Gonzales, Law on Public Officers, p. 200)
Finally, one significant legal maxim is:

The power of the Commission on Appointments to give its consent to the nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections
is mandated by Section 1(2) Sub-Article C, Article IX of the Constitution which provides: We must interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by the spirit that giveth life.

Take this hypothetical case of Samson and Delilah. Once, the procurator of Judea asked Delilah (who was Samson's beloved) for help in
capturing Samson. Delilah agreed on condition that —
 No blade shall touch his skin; On July 29, 1992, the Supreme Court En Banc rendered a Decision PER CURIAM, the dispositive portion of which reads:

No blood shall flow from his veins. WHEREFORE, the Court DECLARES the [sic] respondent, Atty. Ismael F. Mejia, guilty of all the charges against him and hereby imposes on
him the penalty of DISBARMENT. Pending finality of this judgment, and effective immediately, Atty. Ismael F. Mejia is hereby SUSPENDED
from the practice of law. Let a copy of this Decision be spread in his record in the Bar Confidant's Office, and notice thereof furnished the
When Samson (his long hair cut by Delilah) was captured, the procurator placed an iron rod burning white-hot two or three inches away from in
Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as the Court Administrator who is DIRECTED to inform all the Courts concerned of this Decision.
front of Samson's eyes. This blinded the man. Upon hearing of what had happened to her beloved, Delilah was beside herself with anger, and
fuming with righteous fury, accused the procurator of reneging on his word. The procurator calmly replied: "Did any blade touch his skin? Did
any blood flow from his veins?" The procurator was clearly relying on the letter, not the spirit of the agreement. SO ORDERED.

In view of the foregoing, this petition is hereby DISMISSED. On June 1, 1999, Mejia filed a Petition praying that he be allowed to reengage in the practice of law. On July 6, 1999, the Supreme Court En
Banc issued a Resolution denying the petition for reinstatement.
SO ORDERED.
On January 23, 2007, Mejia filed the present Petition for Review of Administrative Case No. 2984 with a plea for reinstatement in the practice
of law. No comment or opposition was filed against the petition.2
[Adm. Case No. 2984 : August 31, 2007]

Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great extent on the sound discretion of the Court. The action will
RODOLFO M. BERNARDO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ISMAEL F. MEJIA, Respondent.
depend on whether or not the Court decides that the public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of justice will continue to be
preserved even with the applicant's reentry as a counselor at law. The applicant must, like a candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the
RESOLUTION Court that he is a person of good moral character, a fit and proper person to practice law. The Court will take into consideration the applicant's
character and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of the charge/s for which he was disbarred, his conduct subsequent
to the disbarment, and the time that has elapsed between the disbarment and the application for reinstatement.3
NACHURA, J.:

In the petition, Mejia acknowledged his indiscretions in the law [Link] virtual law library Fifteen years had already elapsed
Before the Court is a Petition for Review of Administrative Case No. 2984 with plea for reinstatement in the practice of law filed by Ismael F. since Mejia's name was dropped from the Roll of Attorneys. At the age of seventy-one, he is begging for forgiveness and pleading for
Mejia (Mejia) who is already seventy-one years old and barred from the practice of law for fifteen years. reinstatement. According to him, he has long repented and he has suffered enough. Through his reinstatement, he wants to leave a legacy to
his children and redeem the indignity that they have suffered due to his disbarment.
The antecedent facts that led to Mejia's disbarment are as follows.
After his disbarment, he put up the Mejia Law Journal, a publication containing his religious and social writings. He also organized a religious
On January 23, 1987, Rodolfo M. Bernardo, Jr. accused his retained attorney, Ismael F. Mejia, of the following administrative offenses: organization and named it "El Cristo Movement and Crusade on Miracle of Heart and Mind."

1) misappropriating and converting to his personal use: The Court is inclined to grant the present petition. Fifteen years has passed since Mejia was punished with the severe penalty of disbarment.
Although the Court does not lightly take the bases for Mejia's disbarment, it also cannot close its eyes to the fact that Mejia is already of
advanced years. While the age of the petitioner and the length of time during which he has endured the ignominy of disbarment are not the
a) part of the sum of P27,710.00 entrusted to him for payment of real estate taxes on property belonging to Bernardo, situated in a subdivision sole measure in allowing a petition for reinstatement, the Court takes cognizance of the rehabilitation of Mejia. Since his disbarment in 1992,
known as Valle Verde I; andcralawlibrary no other transgression has been attributed to him, and he has shown remorse. Obviously, he has learned his lesson from this experience, and
his punishment has lasted long enough. Thus, while the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline its erring officers, it also knows how to
b) part of another sum of P40,000.00 entrusted to him for payment of taxes and expenses in connection with the registration of title of show compassion when the penalty imposed has already served its purpose. After all, penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to
Bernardo to another property in a subdivision known as Valle Verde V; punish but to correct offenders.

2) falsification of certain documents, to wit: We reiterate, however, and remind petitioner that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid standards
of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the continuing
requirements for enjoying the privilege to practice law.4
a) a special power of attorney dated March 16, 1985, purportedly executed in his favor by Bernardo (Annex P, par. 51, complainant's affidavit
dates October 4, 1989);
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys by Ismael F. Mejia is hereby GRANTED.
b) a deed of sale dated October 22, 1982 (Annex O, par. 48, id.); andcralawlibrary
SO ORDERED.
c) a deed of assignment purportedly executed by the spouses Tomas and Remedios Pastor, in Bernardo's favor (Annex Q, par. 52, id.);
Endnotes:
3) issuing a check, knowing that he was without funds in the bank, in payment of a loan obtained from Bernardo in the amount of P50,000.00,
and thereafter, replacing said check with others known also to be insufficiently funded.1
Adm. Case No. 2474 September 15, 2004 Luisa as to overcome her scruples and apprehensions about respondent’s courtship and advances, considering that he is a
married man with three (3) children;
EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., complainant,
vs. b. Respondent courted Maria Luisa with persistence and determination and even pursued her in her travels abroad under false
ATTY. LEO J. PALMA, respondent. pretenses that he was traveling on official business for complainant. To break down the final resistance of Maria Luisa and
assuage her pangs of guilt, he made representations that there was no legal impediment whatsoever to his marrying;
DECISION
c. With his moral ascendancy over Maria Luisa and his misrepresentation that there was no legal impediment or prohibition to his
contracting a second marriage, respondent succeeded in inducing and beguiling her into marrying him. Without complying with the
PER CURIAM:
requirements of Philippine law that he should first obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Elizabeth H. Palma and
that the "advice" of Maria Luisa’s parents should first be obtained she being only twenty-two (22) years of age, respondent
"The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to certain rigid standards of mental and moral fitness. For the succeeded in contracting marriage with her in Hongkong on June 22, 1982 by falsely representing himself before the Hongkong
admission of a candidate to the bar, the Rules of Court not only prescribe a test of academic preparation but require satisfactory testimonials authorities that he is a ‘bachelor.’ x x x."
of good moral character. These standards are neither dispensed with nor lowered after admission: the lawyer must continue to adhere to them
or else incur the risk of suspension or removal."1
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss6 on the ground of lack of cause of action. He contended that the complaint fails to allege acts constituting
deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct or violation of his lawyer’s oath. There is no allegation that he acted with "wanton recklessness, lack of
Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. filed with this Court the instant complaint for disbarment against Atty. Leo J. Palma, alleging as grounds "deceit, skill or ignorance of the law" in serving complainant’s interest. Anent the charge of grossly immoral conduct, he stressed that he married
malpractice, gross misconduct in office, violation of his oath as a lawyer and grossly immoral conduct." complainant’s daughter with "utmost sincerity and good faith" and that "it is contrary to the natural course of things for an immoral man to
marry the woman he sincerely loves."
The facts are undisputed:
In the Resolution7 dated March 2, 1983, we referred the case to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for investigation, report and
recommendation. Former Assistant Solicitor General Oswaldo D. Agcaoili conducted the investigation.
Complainant and respondent met sometime in the 70’s. Complainant was a client of Angara Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law
Offices (ACCRA) and respondent was the lawyer assigned to handle his cases. Owing to his growing business concerns,
complainant decided to hire respondent as his personal counsel. Meanwhile, on December 28, 1983, the First Division of this Court issued in G.R. No. 645388 a Resolution9 (a) setting aside the CFI Decision
dated November 2, 1982 in Civil Case No. Pq–0401-P declaring the marriage between respondent and Lisa null and void ab initio; and (b)
remanding the case to the CFI for proper proceeding and determination. To this date, the records fail to disclose the outcome of this case.
Consequently, respondent’s relationship with complainant’s family became intimate. He traveled and dined with them abroad.2 He frequented
their house and even tutored complainant’s 22-year old daughter Maria Luisa Cojuangco (Lisa), then a student of [Link]
On March 19, 1984, respondent filed with the OSG an Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings10 on the ground that the final outcome of Civil
Case No. Pq–0401-P poses a prejudicial question to the disbarment proceeding. It was denied.
Convent.

Respondent sought refuge in this Court through an Urgent Motion for Issuance of a Restraining Order.11 In the Resolution dated December 19,
On June 22, 1982, without the knowledge of complainant’s family, respondent married Lisa in Hongkong. It was only the next 1984, we enjoined the OSG from continuing the investigation of the disbarment proceedings.12

day that respondent informed complainant and assured him that "everything is legal." Complainant was shocked, knowing fully well that Thereafter, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline. On October 19, 1998, Commissioner
respondent is a married man and has three children. Upon investigation, complainant found that respondent courted Lisa during their tutoring Julio C. Elamparo issued the following order:
sessions. Immediately, complainant sent his two sons to Hongkong to convince Lisa to go home to Manila and discuss the matter with the
family. Lisa was persuaded.
"Considering the length of time that this case has remained pending and as a practical measure to ease the backlog of
this Commission, the parties shall within ten (10) days from notice, manifest whether or not they are still interested in
Complainant also came to know that: (a) on the date of the supposed marriage, respondent requested from his (complainant’s) office an prosecuting this case or supervening events have transpired which render this case moot and academic or otherwise,
airplane ticket to and from Australia, with stop-over in Hong Kong; (b) respondent misrepresented himself as "bachelor" before the Hong Kong this case shall be deemed closed and terminated."13
authorities to facilitate his marriage with Lisa; and (c) respondent was married to Elizabeth Hermosisima and has three children, namely:
Eugene Philippe, Elias Anton and Eduardo Lorenzo.
In his Manifestation,14 complainant manifested and confirmed his continuing interest in prosecuting his complaint for disbarment against
respondent.
On August 24, 1982, complainant filed with the Court of First Instance, Branch XXVII, Pasay City a petition3 for declaration of nullity of the
marriage between respondent and Lisa, docketed as Civil Case No. Pq-0401-P. In the Decision4 dated November 2, 1982, the CFI declared
the marriage null and void ab initio. On the other hand, respondent sought several postponements of hearing on the ground that he needed more time to locate vital documents in
support of his defense. The scheduled hearing of December 4, 2001 was reset for the last time on January 24, 2002, with a warning that
should he fail to appear or present deposition, the case will be deemed submitted for resolution.15 Respondent again failed to appear on
Thereafter, complainant filed with this Court the instant complaint5 for disbarment, imputing to respondent the following acts: January 24, 2002; hence, the case was considered submitted for resolution.16

"a. In grave abuse and betrayal of the trust and confidence reposed in him by complainant and his family and taking undue On March 20, 2003, Investigating Commissioner Milagros V. San Juan submitted a Report and Recommendation finding respondent guilty of
advantage of his tutoring sessions with Maria Luisa, respondent secretly courted her. The great disparity in intelligence, education, grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer. She recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a
age, experience and maturity between Maria Luisa and respondent gave the latter an overwhelming moral ascendancy over Maria period of three (3) years. Thus:
 "The main issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not respondent committed the following acts which warrant his This is not the first occasion that we censure immorality. Thus, we have somehow come up with a common definition of what constitutes
disbarment: immoral conduct, i.e., "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of
the good and respectable members of the community."24 Measured against this definition, respondent’s act is manifestly immoral. First, he
abandoned his lawful wife and three children. Second, he lured an innocent young woman into marrying him. And third, he misrepresented
a) Grave abuse and betrayal of the trust and confidence reposed in him by complainant;
himself as a "bachelor" so he could contract marriage in a foreign land.

b) His misrepresentation that there was no legal impediment or prohibition to his contracting a second marriage;
Our rulings in the following cases are relevant:

c) The acts of respondent constitute deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct and
1) In Macarrubo vs. Macarrubo,25 respondent entered into multiple marriages and then resorted to legal remedies to sever them.
violation of his oath as a lawyer.
There, we ruled that "[S]uch pattern of misconduct by respondent undermines the institutions of marriage and family, institutions
that this society looks to for the rearing of our children, for the development of values essential to the survival and well-being of
Respondent admits that he married Maria Luisa in Hongkong representing himself as a bachelor, however, he claimed that the our communities, and for the strengthening of our nation as a whole." As such, "there can be no other fate that awaits respondent
marriage certificate stated a condition no different from term "spinster" with respect to Luisa. than to be disbarred."

There is no question that respondent as a lawyer well versed in the law knew fully well that in marrying Maria Luisa he was (2) In Tucay vs. Tucay,26 respondent contracted marriage with another married woman and left complainant with whom he has
entering into a bigamous marriage defined and penalized under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. The respondent betrayed been married for thirty years. We ruled that such acts constitute "a grossly immoral conduct and only indicative of an extremely
the trust reposed in him by complainant. He was treated as part of the family and was allowed to tutor Maria Luisa. low regard for the fundamental ethics of his profession," warranting respondent’s disbarment.

For the foregoing reasons, it is submitted that respondent committed grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a (3) In Villasanta vs. Peralta,27 respondent married complainant while his first wife was still alive, their marriage still valid and
lawyer, and it is recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years. subsisting. We held that "the act of respondent of contracting the second marriage is contrary to honesty, justice, decency and
morality." Thus, lacking the good moral character required by the Rules of Court, respondent was disqualified from being admitted
to the bar.
SO ORDERED."

(4) In Cabrera vs. Agustin,28 respondent lured an innocent woman into a simulated marriage and thereafter satisfied his lust. We
The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the above Report and Recommendation, but it reduced respondent’s penalty to only one held that respondent failed to maintain that degree of morality and integrity, which at all times is expected of members of the bar.
(1) year suspension. He is, therefore, disbarred from the practice of law.

Except for the penalty, we affirm the IBP’s Report and Recommendation. (5) In Toledo vs. Toledo,29 respondent abandoned his wife, who supported him and spent for his law education, and thereafter
cohabited with another woman. We ruled that he "failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a
At the outset, it must be stressed that the law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of standards among its members. There is no member of the bar." For this, respondent was disbarred.
distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer may
not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another.17 Thus, not only his professional activities but even (6) In Obusan vs. Obusan, Jr.,30 respondent abandoned his lawful wife and child and resumed cohabitation with his former
his private life, insofar as the latter may reflect unfavorably upon the good name and prestige of the profession and the courts, may at any time paramour. Here, we ruled that "abandoning one’s wife and resuming carnal relations with a former paramour, a married woman,"
be the subject of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities.18 constitute grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment.

Respondent claims that he had served complainant to the best of his ability. In fact, the complaint does not allege that he acted with "wanton The circumstances here speak of a clear case of betrayal of trust and abuse of confidence. It was respondent’s closeness to the complainant’s
recklessness, lack of skill and ignorance of the law." family as well as the latter’s complete trust in him that made possible his intimate relationship with Lisa. When his concern was supposed to be
complainant’s legal affairs only, he sneaked at the latter’s back and courted his daughter. Like the proverbial thief in the night, he attacked
While, complainant himself admitted that respondent was a good lawyer,19 however, professional competency alone does not make a lawyer a when nobody was looking. Moreover, he availed of complainant’s resources by securing a plane ticket from complainant’s office in order to
worthy member of the Bar. Good moral character is always an indispensable requirement. marry the latter’s daughter in Hongkong. He did this without complainant’s knowledge. Afterwards, he even had the temerity to assure
complainant that "everything is legal." Clearly, respondent had crossed the limits of propriety and decency.
The ringing truth in this case is that respondent married Lisa while he has a subsisting marriage with Elizabeth Hermosisima. The
Certification20 from the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City shows that he married Elizabeth on December 19, 1971 at Cardial’s Private Chapel, Respondent justified his conduct by professing he really loved Lisa and since he married her, he cannot be charged with immorality. His
Cebu City. On the other hand, the Certificate of Marriage21 from the Deputy Registrar of Marriages, Hong Kong, proves respondent’s reasoning shows a distorted mind and a brazen regard on the sanctity of marriage. In such relationship, the man and the woman are obliged to
subsequent marriage with Lisa on July 9, 1982. That Elizabeth was alive at the time of respondent’s second marriage was confirmed on the live together, observe mutual respect and fidelity.31 How could respondent perform these obligations to Lisa when he was previously married to
witness stand by Atty. Victor P. Lazatin, Elizabeth’s classmate and family friend.22 Elizabeth? If he really loved her, then the noblest thing he could have done was to walk away.

Undoubtedly, respondent’s act constitutes grossly immoral conduct, a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Respondent’s culpability is aggravated by the fact that Lisa was just a 22-year old college student of Assumption Convent and was under
Rules of Court. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In particular, he made a psychological treatment for emotional immaturity.32 Naturally, she was an easy prey.
mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage is contrary to
honesty, justice, decency and morality.23 Anent respondent’s argument that since the validity of his marriage to Lisa has not yet been determined by the court with finality, the same
poses a prejudicial question to the present disbarment proceeding. Suffice it to say that a subsequent judgment of annulment of marriage has
no bearing to the instant disbarment proceeding. As we held in In re Almacen,33 a disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor
purely criminal but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. Thus, if the acquittal of a lawyer in a criminal action is ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Petitioner,
not determinative of an administrative case against him,34 or if an affidavit of withdrawal of a disbarment case does not affect its course,35 then vs.
the judgment of annulment of respondent’s marriage does not also exonerate him from a wrongdoing actually committed. So long as the IBP COMMISSION ON BAR DISCIPLINE and ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief,
quantum of proof --- clear preponderance of evidence --- in disciplinary proceedings against members of the bar is met, then liability Public Information Office, Respondents.
attaches.36
RESOLUTION
The interdict upon lawyers, as inscribed in Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, is that they "shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." This is founded on the lawyers’ primordial duty to society as spelled out in Canon 1 which states:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

"CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes."
This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement that appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the newspaper, Philippine Daily
Inquirer, which reads: "ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667."1
It is not by coincidence that the drafters of our Code of Professional Responsibility ranked the above responsibility first in the enumeration.
They knew then that more than anybody else, it is the lawyers -- the disciples of law -- who are most obliged to venerate the law. As stated in
Ms. Ma. Theresa B. Espeleta, a staff member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court, called up the published telephone number
Ex Parte Wall:37
and pretended to be an interested party. She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in
handling annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four to six months, provided the case will not involve separation of property
"Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all or custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband charges a fee of P48,000.00, half of which is payable at the time of filing of the
men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and to ignore the very bonds of society, argues case and the other half after a decision thereon has been rendered.
recreancy to his position and office and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body
politic."
Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public Information Office revealed that similar advertisements were published
in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star.2
Corollarily, the above responsibility is enshrined in the Attorney’s Oath which every lawyer in the country has to take before he is allowed to
practice.
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office,
filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services, in violation of
In sum, respondent committed grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer. The penalty of one (1) year suspension Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.3
recommended by the IBP is not commensurate to the gravity of his offense. The bulk of jurisprudence supports the imposition of the extreme
penalty of disbarment.
In his answer, respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but argued that advertising and solicitation per se are not prohibited acts; that the
time has come to change our views about the prohibition on advertising and solicitation; that the interest of the public is not served by the
WHEREFORE, respondent Leo J. Palma is found GUILTY of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a lawyer, and is hereby absolute prohibition on lawyer advertising; that the Court can lift the ban on lawyer advertising; and that the rationale behind the decades-old
DISBARRED from the practice of law. prohibition should be abandoned. Thus, he prayed that he be exonerated from all the charges against him and that the Court promulgate a
ruling that advertisement of legal services offered by a lawyer is not contrary to law, public policy and public order as long as it is dignified.4
Let respondent’s name be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys immediately. Furnish the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
all courts throughout the country with copies of this Decision. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation.5 On June 29, 2002, the IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline passed Resolution No. XV-2002-306,6 finding respondent guilty of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court, and suspended him from the practice of law for one (1) year with
SO ORDERED.
the warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The IBP Resolution was noted by this Court on November 11,
2002.7
Davide, Jr., Puno, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez*, Corona, Callejo, Sr., Carpio
Morales*, Tinga, Azcuna, and Chico-Nazario**, JJ., concur.
In the meantime, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration,8 which was denied by the IBP in Resolution No. XV-2002-606 dated
October 19, 20029

Hence, the instant petition for certiorari, which was docketed as G.R. No. 157053 entitled, "Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo, Petitioner versus IBP
A.C. No. 5299 August 19, 2003 Commission on Bar Discipline, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., Asst. Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office, Respondents." This
petition was consolidated with A.C. No. 5299 per the Court’s Resolution dated March 4, 2003.
ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office, Complainant,
vs. In a Resolution dated March 26, 2003, the parties were required to manifest whether or not they were willing to submit the case for resolution
ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, Respondent. on the basis of the pleadings.10 Complainant filed his Manifestation on April 25, 2003, stating that he is not submitting any additional pleading
or evidence and is submitting the case for its early resolution on the basis of pleadings and records thereof. 11 Respondent, on the other hand,
filed a Supplemental Memorandum on June 20, 2003.
x-----------------------x

We agree with the IBP’s Resolutions Nos. XV-2002-306 and XV-2002-606.

G.R. No. 157053 August 19, 2003

Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility read:

Rule 2.03. – A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business. fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the names and addresses of references; and, with their written consent, the names of
clients regularly represented.
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. The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental feature of a paper, magazine,
trade journal or periodical which is published principally for other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief
biographical and informative data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be
Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court states:
published in a law list the conduct, management, or contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to
lower dignity or standing of the profession.
SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. – A member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly
The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may contain only a statement of his name, the name of the law firm
immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
which he is connected with, address, telephone number and special branch of law practiced. The publication of a simple announcement of the
before the admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience appearing as attorney for a party without authority to do so.
opening of a law firm or of changes in the partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the profession, is
not objectionable. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not under a designation of special branch of law.
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business.12 It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the (emphasis and italics supplied)
primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily
yields profits.13 The gaining of a livelihood should be a secondary consideration.14 The duty to public service and to the administration of
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code
justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves.15 The
of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR
following elements distinguish the legal profession from a business:
effective upon receipt of this Resolution. He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with
more severely.
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may attain the highest eminence without
making much money;
Let copies of this Resolution be entered in his record as attorney and be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and all courts in the
country for their information and guidance.
2. A relation as an "officer of the court" to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;
SO ORDERED.
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
Vitug, (Acting Chairman),Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to current business methods of Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman ), abroad, on official business.
advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients.16

There is no question that respondent committed the acts complained of. He himself admits that he caused the publication of the
advertisements. While he professes repentance and begs for the Court’s indulgence, his contrition rings hollow considering the fact that he
advertised his legal services again after he pleaded for compassion and after claiming that he had no intention to violate the rules. Eight
months after filing his answer, he again advertised his legal services in the August 14, 2001 issue of the Buy & Sell Free Ads Newspaper.17
Ten months later, he caused the same advertisement to be published in the October 5, 2001 issue of Buy & Sell.18 Such acts of respondent
are a deliberate and contemptuous affront on the Court’s authority.

What adds to the gravity of respondent’s acts is that in advertising himself as a self-styled "Annulment of Marriage Specialist," he wittingly or
unwittingly erodes and undermines not only the stability but also the sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct despite the
contemporary climate of permissiveness in our society. Indeed, in assuring prospective clients that an annulment may be obtained in four to
six months from the time of the filing of the case,19 he in fact encourages people, who might have otherwise been disinclined and would have
refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.

Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the
dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.20 Thus, the
use of simple signs stating the name or names of the lawyers, the office and residence address and fields of practice, as well as advertisement
in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible. Even the use of calling cards is now acceptable.21 Publication in reputable
law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct imposed by the canon, of brief biographical and informative data is likewise
allowable. As explicitly stated in Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.:22

Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of the lawyer’s name and the names of his professional associates;
addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of law practiced; date and place of birth and admission to the bar; schools
attended with dates of graduation, degrees and other educational distinctions; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal authorships;
legal teaching positions; membership and offices in bar associations and committees thereof, in legal and scientific societies and legal
 by international human rights and humanitarian standards, including those provided for in the relevant international conventions of which the
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC March 8, 2011 Philippines is a party.4
RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED "RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE II. This Honorable Court has confused diplomatic protection with the broader, if fundamental, responsibility of states to protect the human
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE rights of its citizens – especially where the rights asserted are subject of erga omnes obligations and pertain to jus cogens norms.5
SUPREME COURT" On July 19, 2010,6 counsel for the Malaya Lolas, Attys. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr. (Atty. Roque) and Romel Regalado Bagares (Atty. Bagares),
DECISION filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration in G.R. No. 162230, where they posited for the first time their charge of plagiarism as one of
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: the grounds for reconsideration of the Vinuya decision. Among other arguments, Attys. Roque and Bagares asserted that:
For disposition of the Court are the various submissions of the 37 respondent law professors1 in response to the Resolution dated October 19, I.
2010 (the Show Cause Resolution), directing them to show cause why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for violation of IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT IS HIGHLY IMPROPER FOR THIS HONORABLE COURT’S JUDGMENT OF APRIL 28, 2010 TO PLAGIARIZE AT
specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility enumerated therein. LEAST THREE SOURCES – AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN 2009 IN THE YALE LAW JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, A BOOK
At the outset, it must be stressed that the Show Cause Resolution clearly dockets this as an administrative matter, not a special civil action for PUBLISHED BY THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS IN 2005 AND AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN 2006 IN THE CASE WESTERN
indirect contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, contrary to the dissenting opinion of Associate Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno RESERVE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW – AND MAKE IT APPEAR THAT THESE SOURCES SUPPORT THE JUDGMENT’S
(Justice Sereno) to the said October 19, 2010 Show Cause Resolution. Neither is this a disciplinary proceeding grounded on an allegedly ARGUMENTS FOR DISMISSING THE INSTANT PETITION WHEN IN TRUTH, THE PLAGIARIZED SOURCES EVEN MAKE A STRONG
irregularly concluded finding of indirect contempt as intimated by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales (Justice Morales) in her CASE FOR THE PETITION’S CLAIMS.7
dissenting opinions to both the October 19, 2010 Show Cause Resolution and the present decision. They also claimed that "[i]n this controversy, the evidence bears out the fact not only of extensive plagiarism but of (sic) also of twisting the
With the nature of this case as purely a bar disciplinary proceeding firmly in mind, the Court finds that with the exception of one respondent true intents of the plagiarized sources by the ponencia to suit the arguments of the assailed Judgment for denying the Petition."8
whose compliance was adequate and another who manifested he was not a member of the Philippine Bar, the submitted explanations, being According to Attys. Roque and Bagares, the works allegedly plagiarized in the Vinuya decision were namely: (1) Evan J. Criddle and Evan
mere denials and/or tangential to the issues at hand, are decidedly unsatisfactory. The proffered defenses even more urgently behoove this Fox-Decent’s article "A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens;"9 (2) Christian J. Tams’ book Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International
Court to call the attention of respondent law professors, who are members of the Bar, to the relationship of their duties as such under the Code Law;10 and (3) Mark Ellis’ article "Breaking the Silence: On Rape as an International Crime."11
of Professional Responsibility to their civil rights as citizens and academics in our free and democratic republic. On the same day as the filing of the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration on July 19, 2010, journalists Aries C. Rufo and Purple S.
The provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility involved in this case are as follows: Romero posted an article, entitled "SC justice plagiarized parts of ruling on comfort women," on the Newsbreak website. 12 The same article
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. appeared on the GMA News TV website also on July 19, 2010.13
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. On July 22, 2010, Atty. Roque’s column, entitled "Plagiarized and Twisted," appeared in the Manila Standard Today.14 In the said column, Atty.
CANON 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court. Roque claimed that Prof. Evan Criddle, one of the authors purportedly not properly acknowledged in the Vinuya decision, confirmed that his
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled work, co-authored with Prof. Evan Fox-Decent, had been plagiarized. Atty. Roque quoted Prof. Criddle’s response to the post by Julian Ku
by any artifice. regarding the news report15 on the alleged plagiarism in the international law blog, Opinio Juris. Prof. Criddle responded to Ku’s blog entry in
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, this wise:
or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a The newspaper’s16 [plagiarism] claims are based on a motion for reconsideration filed yesterday with the Philippine Supreme Court yesterday.
fact that which has not been proved. The motion is available here:
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. [Link]
CANON 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by The motion suggests that the Court’s decision contains thirty-four sentences and citations that are identical to sentences and citations in my
others. 2009 YJIL article (co-authored with Evan Fox-Decent). Professor Fox-Decent and I were unaware of the petitioners’ [plagiarism] allegations
RULE 11.05 A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only. until after the motion was filed today.
CANON 13 — A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the Speaking for myself, the most troubling aspect of the court’s jus cogens discussion is that it implies that the prohibitions against crimes against
appearance of influencing the court. humanity, sexual slavery, and torture are not jus cogens norms. Our article emphatically asserts the opposite. The Supreme Court’s decision is
Established jurisprudence will undeniably support our view that when lawyers speak their minds, they must ever be mindful of their sworn oath available here: [Link]
to observe ethical standards of their profession, and in particular, avoid foul and abusive language to condemn the Supreme Court, or any On even date, July 22, 2010, Justice Del Castillo wrote to his colleagues on the Court in reply to the charge of plagiarism contained in the
court for that matter, for a decision it has rendered, especially during the pendency of a motion for such decision’s reconsideration. The Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration.18
accusation of plagiarism against a member of this Court is not the real issue here but rather this plagiarism issue has been used to deflect In a letter dated July 23, 2010, another purportedly plagiarized author in the Vinuya decision, Dr. Mark Ellis, wrote the Court, to wit:
everyone’s attention from the actual concern of this Court to determine by respondents’ explanations whether or not respondent members of Your Honours:
the Bar have crossed the line of decency and acceptable professional conduct and speech and violated the Rules of Court through improper I write concerning a most delicate issue that has come to my attention in the last few days.
intervention or interference as third parties to a pending case. Preliminarily, it should be stressed that it was respondents themselves who Much as I regret to raise this matter before your esteemed Court, I am compelled, as a question of the integrity of my work as an academic
called upon the Supreme Court to act on their Statement,2 which they formally submitted, through Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen (Dean Leonen), and as an advocate of human rights and humanitarian law, to take exception to the possible unauthorized use of my law review article on rape
for the Court’s proper disposition. Considering the defenses of freedom of speech and academic freedom invoked by the respondents, it is as an international crime in your esteemed Court’s Judgment in the case of Vinuya et al. v. Executive Secretary et al. (G.R. No. 162230,
worth discussing here that the legal reasoning used in the past by this Court to rule that freedom of expression is not a defense in Judgment of 28 April 2010).
administrative cases against lawyers for using intemperate speech in open court or in court submissions can similarly be applied to My attention was called to the Judgment and the issue of possible plagiarism by the Philippine chapter of the Southeast Asia Media Legal
respondents’ invocation of academic freedom. Indeed, it is precisely because respondents are not merely lawyers but lawyers who teach law Defence Initiative (SEAMLDI),19 an affiliate of the London-based Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI), where I sit as trustee.
and mould the minds of young aspiring attorneys that respondents’ own non-observance of the Code of Professional Responsibility, even if In particular, I am concerned about a large part of the extensive discussion in footnote 65, pp. 27-28, of the said Judgment of your esteemed
purportedly motivated by the purest of intentions, cannot be ignored nor glossed over by this Court. Court. I am also concerned that your esteemed Court may have misread the arguments I made in the article and employed them for cross
To fully appreciate the grave repercussions of respondents’ actuations, it is apropos to revisit the factual antecedents of this case. purposes. This would be ironic since the article was written precisely to argue for the appropriate legal remedy for victims of war crimes,
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE genocide, and crimes against humanity.
Antecedent Facts and Proceedings I believe a full copy of my article as published in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law in 2006 has been made available to
On April 28, 2010, the ponencia of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo (Justice Del Castillo) in Vinuya, et al. v. Executive Secretary (G.R. your esteemed Court. I trust that your esteemed Court will take the time to carefully study the arguments I made in the article.
No. 162230) was promulgated. On May 31, 2010, the counsel3 for Vinuya, et al. (the "Malaya Lolas"), filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the I would appreciate receiving a response from your esteemed Court as to the issues raised by this letter.
Vinuya decision, raising solely the following grounds: With respect,
I. Our own constitutional and jurisprudential histories reject this Honorable Courts’ (sic) assertion that the Executive’s foreign policy (Sgd.)
prerogatives are virtually unlimited; precisely, under the relevant jurisprudence and constitutional provisions, such prerogatives are proscribed Dr. Mark Ellis20
In Memorandum Order No. 35-2010 issued on July 27, 2010, the Court formed the Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards (the Ethics bears the responsibility for the Decision. In the absence of any mention of the original writers’ names and the publications from which they
Committee) pursuant to Section 13, Rule 2 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court. In an En Banc Resolution also dated July 27, 2010, the came, the thing speaks for itself.
Court referred the July 22, 2010 letter of Justice Del Castillo to the Ethics Committee. The matter was subsequently docketed as A.M. No. 10- So far there have been unsatisfactory responses from the ponente of this case and the spokesman of the Court.
7-17-SC. It is argued, for example, that the inclusion of the footnotes from the original articles is a reference to the ‘primary’ sources relied upon. This
On August 2, 2010, the Ethics Committee required Attys. Roque and Bagares to comment on the letter of Justice Del Castillo.21 cursory explanation is not acceptable, because the original authors’ writings and the effort they put into finding and summarizing those primary
On August 9, 2010, a statement dated July 27, 2010, entitled "Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the sources are precisely the subject of plagiarism. The inclusion of the footnotes together with portions of their writings in fact aggravates, instead
Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court" (the Statement), was posted in of mitigates, the plagiarism since it provides additional evidence of a deliberate intention to appropriate the original authors’ work of organizing
Newsbreak’s website22 and on Atty. Roque’s blog.23 A report regarding the statement also appeared on various on-line news sites, such as the and analyzing those primary sources.
GMA News TV24 and the Sun Star25 sites, on the same date. The statement was likewise posted at the University of the Philippines College of It is also argued that the Members of the Court cannot be expected to be familiar with all legal and scholarly journals. This is also not
Law’s bulletin board allegedly on August 10, 201026 and at said college’s website.27 acceptable, because personal unfamiliarity with sources all the more demands correct and careful attribution and citation of the material relied
On August 11, 2010, Dean Leonen submitted a copy of the Statement of the University of the Philippines College of Law Faculty (UP Law upon. It is a matter of diligence and competence expected of all Magistrates of the Highest Court of the Land.
faculty) to the Court, through Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (Chief Justice Corona). The cover letter dated August 10, 2010 of Dean Leonen But a far more serious matter is the objection of the original writers, Professors Evan Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, that the High Court
read: actually misrepresents the conclusions of their work entitled "A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens," the main source of the plagiarized text. In this
The Honorable article they argue that the classification of the crimes of rape, torture, and sexual slavery as crimes against humanity have attained the status
Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines of jus cogens, making it obligatory upon the State to seek remedies on behalf of its aggrieved citizens. Yet, the Vinuya decision uses parts of
the same article to arrive at the contrary conclusion. This exacerbates the intellectual dishonesty of copying works without attribution by
Through: Hon. Renato C. Corona transforming it into an act of intellectual fraud by copying works in order to mislead and deceive.
Chief Justice The case is a potential landmark decision in International Law, because it deals with State liability and responsibility for personal injury and
damage suffered in a time of war, and the role of the injured parties’ home States in the pursuit of remedies against such injury or damage.
Subject: Statement of faculty
National courts rarely have such opportunities to make an international impact. That the petitioners were Filipino "comfort women" who
from the UP College of Law
suffered from horrific abuse during the Second World War made it incumbent on the Court of last resort to afford them every solicitude. But
on the Plagiarism in the case of
instead of acting with urgency on this case, the Court delayed its resolution for almost seven years, oblivious to the deaths of many of the
Vinuya v Executive Secretary
petitioners seeking justice from the Court. When it dismissed the Vinuya petition based on misrepresented and plagiarized materials, the Court
Your Honors: decided this case based on polluted sources. By so doing, the Supreme Court added insult to injury by failing to actually exercise its "power to
We attach for your information and proper disposition a statement signed by thirty[-]eight (38)28 members of the faculty of the UP College of urge and exhort the Executive Department to take up the claims of the Vinuya petitioners. Its callous disposition, coupled with false sympathy
Law. We hope that its points could be considered by the Supreme Court en banc. and nonchalance, belies a more alarming lack of concern for even the most basic values of decency and respect. The reputation of the
Respectfully, Philippine Supreme Court and the standing of the Philippine legal profession before other Judiciaries and legal systems are truly at stake.
(Sgd.) The High Court cannot accommodate less than absolute honesty in its decisions and cannot accept excuses for failure to attain the highest
Marvic M.V.F. Leonen standards of conduct imposed upon all members of the Bench and Bar because these undermine the very foundation of its authority and
Dean and Professor of Law power in a democratic society. Given the Court’s recent history and the controversy that surrounded it, it cannot allow the charges of such
(Emphases supplied.) clear and obvious plagiarism to pass without sanction as this would only further erode faith and confidence in the judicial system. And in light
The copy of the Statement attached to the above-quoted letter did not contain the actual signatures of the alleged signatories but only stated of the significance of this decision to the quest for justice not only of Filipino women, but of women elsewhere in the world who have suffered
the names of 37 UP Law professors with the notation (SGD.) appearing beside each name. For convenient reference, the text of the UP Law the horrors of sexual abuse and exploitation in times of war, the Court cannot coldly deny relief and justice to the petitioners on the basis of
faculty Statement is reproduced here: pilfered and misinterpreted texts.
RESTORING INTEGRITY The Court cannot regain its credibility and maintain its moral authority without ensuring that its own conduct, whether collectively or through its
A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF Members, is beyond reproach. This necessarily includes ensuring that not only the content, but also the processes of preparing and writing its
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW own decisions, are credible and beyond question. The Vinuya Decision must be conscientiously reviewed and not casually cast aside, if not for
ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION the purpose of sanction, then at least for the purpose of reflection and guidance. It is an absolutely essential step toward the establishment of
IN THE SUPREME COURT a higher standard of professional care and practical scholarship in the Bench and Bar, which are critical to improving the system of
An extraordinary act of injustice has again been committed against the brave Filipinas who had suffered abuse during a time of war. After they administration of justice in the Philippines. It is also a very crucial step in ensuring the position of the Supreme Court as the Final Arbiter of all
courageously came out with their very personal stories of abuse and suffering as "comfort women", waited for almost two decades for any controversies: a position that requires competence and integrity completely above any and all reproach, in accordance with the exacting
meaningful relief from their own government as well as from the government of Japan, got their hopes up for a semblance of judicial recourse demands of judicial and professional ethics.
in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230 (28 April 2010), they only had these hopes crushed by a singularly With these considerations, and bearing in mind the solemn duties and trust reposed upon them as teachers in the profession of Law, it is the
reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land. opinion of the Faculty of the University of the Philippine College of Law that:
It is within this frame that the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law views the charge that an Associate Justice of the (1) The plagiarism committed in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary is unacceptable, unethical and in breach of the high standards of
Supreme Court committed plagiarism and misrepresentation in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. The plagiarism and misrepresentation are not moral conduct and judicial and professional competence expected of the Supreme Court;
only affronts to the individual scholars whose work have been appropriated without correct attribution, but also a serious threat to the integrity (2) Such a fundamental breach endangers the integrity and credibility of the entire Supreme Court and undermines the foundations of the
and credibility of the Philippine Judicial System. Philippine judicial system by allowing implicitly the decision of cases and the establishment of legal precedents through dubious means;
In common parlance, ‘plagiarism’ is the appropriation and misrepresentation of another person’s work as one’s own. In the field of writing, it is (3) The same breach and consequent disposition of the Vinuya case does violence to the primordial function of the Supreme Court as the
cheating at best, and stealing at worst. It constitutes a taking of someone else’s ideas and expressions, including all the effort and creativity ultimate dispenser of justice to all those who have been left without legal or equitable recourse, such as the petitioners therein;
that went into committing such ideas and expressions into writing, and then making it appear that such ideas and expressions were originally (4) In light of the extremely serious and far-reaching nature of the dishonesty and to save the honor and dignity of the Supreme Court as an
created by the taker. It is dishonesty, pure and simple. A judicial system that allows plagiarism in any form is one that allows dishonesty. Since institution, it is necessary for the ponente of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary to resign his position, without prejudice to any other sanctions that
all judicial decisions form part of the law of the land, to allow plagiarism in the Supreme Court is to allow the production of laws by dishonest the Court may consider appropriate;
means. Evidently, this is a complete perversion and falsification of the ends of justice. (5) The Supreme Court must take this opportunity to review the manner by which it conducts research, prepares drafts, reaches and finalizes
A comparison of the Vinuya decision and the original source material shows that the ponente merely copied select portions of other legal decisions in order to prevent a recurrence of similar acts, and to provide clear and concise guidance to the Bench and Bar to ensure only the
writers’ works and interspersed them into the decision as if they were his own, original work. Under the circumstances, however, because the highest quality of legal research and writing in pleadings, practice, and adjudication.
Decision has been promulgated by the Court, the Decision now becomes the Court’s and no longer just the ponente’s. Thus the Court also Malcolm Hall, University of the Philippines College of Law, Quezon City, 27 July 2010.
(SGD.) MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN to my work in footnote 69 of the Judgment, but as this is in relation to a citation from another author (Bruno Simma) rather than with respect to
Dean and Professor of Law the substantive passages reproduced in the Judgment, I do not think it can be considered an appropriate form of referencing.
I am particularly concerned that my work should have been used to support the Judgment’s cautious approach to the erga omnes concept. In
(SGD.) FROILAN M. BACUNGAN (SGD.) PACIFICO A. AGABIN fact, a most cursory reading shows that my book’s central thesis is precisely the opposite: namely that the erga omnes concept has been
Dean (1978-1983) Dean (1989-1995) widely accepted and has a firm place in contemporary international law. Hence the introductory chapter notes that "[t]he present study
attempts to demystify aspects of the ‘very mysterious’ concept and thereby to facilitate its implementation" (p. 5). In the same vein, the
concluding section notes that "the preceding chapters show that the concept is now a part of the reality of international law, established in the
(SGD.) MERLIN M. MAGALLONA (SGD.) SALVADOR T. CARLOTA jurisprudence of courts and the practice of States" (p. 309).
Dean (1995-1999) Dean (2005-2008) and Professor of Law With due respect to your Honourable Court, I am at a loss to see how my work should have been cited to support – as it seemingly has – the
opposite approach. More generally, I am concerned at the way in which your Honourable Court’s Judgment has drawn on scholarly work
REGULAR FACULTY without properly acknowledging it.
On both aspects, I would appreciate a prompt response from your Honourable Court.
(SGD.) CARMELO V. SISON (SGD.) JAY L. BATONGBACAL I remain
Professor Assistant Professor Sincerely yours
(Sgd.)
Christian J. Tams31
(SGD.) PATRICIA R.P. SALVADOR DAWAY (SGD.) EVELYN (LEO) D. BATTAD
In the course of the submission of Atty. Roque and Atty. Bagares’ exhibits during the August 26, 2010 hearing in the ethics case against
Associate Dean and Associate Professor Assistant Professor
Justice Del Castillo, the Ethics Committee noted that Exhibit "J" (a copy of the Restoring Integrity Statement) was not signed but merely
reflected the names of certain faculty members with the letters (SGD.) beside the names. Thus, the Ethics Committee directed Atty. Roque to
(SGD.) DANTE B. GATMAYTAN (SGD.) GWEN G. DE VERA present the signed copy of the said Statement within three days from the August 26 hearing.32
Associate Professor Assistant Professor It was upon compliance with this directive that the Ethics Committee was given a copy of the signed UP Law Faculty Statement that showed
on the signature pages the names of the full roster of the UP Law Faculty, 81 faculty members in all. Indubitable from the actual signed copy of
the Statement was that only 37 of the 81 faculty members appeared to have signed the same. However, the 37 actual signatories to the
(SGD.) THEODORE O. TE (SGD.) SOLOMON F. LUMBA Statement did not include former Supreme Court Associate Justice Vicente V. Mendoza (Justice Mendoza) as represented in the previous
Assistant Professor Assistant Professor copies of the Statement submitted by Dean Leonen and Atty. Roque. It also appeared that Atty. Miguel R. Armovit (Atty. Armovit) signed the
Statement although his name was not included among the signatories in the previous copies submitted to the Court. Thus, the total number of
ostensible signatories to the Statement remained at 37.
(SGD.) FLORIN T. HILBAY (SGD.) ROMMEL J. CASIS The Ethics Committee referred this matter to the Court en banc since the same Statement, having been formally submitted by Dean Leonen
Assistant Professor Assistant Professor on August 11, 2010, was already under consideration by the Court.33
In a Resolution dated October 19, 2010, the Court en banc made the following observations regarding the UP Law Faculty Statement:
LECTURERS Notably, while the statement was meant to reflect the educators’ opinion on the allegations of plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, they
(SGD.) JOSE GERARDO A. ALAMPAY (SGD.) JOSE C. LAURETA treated such allegation not only as an established fact, but a truth. In particular, they expressed dissatisfaction over Justice Del Castillo’s
explanation on how he cited the primary sources of the quoted portions and yet arrived at a contrary conclusion to those of the authors of the
(SGD.) ARTHUR P. AUTEA (SGD.) DINA D. LUCENARIO
articles supposedly plagiarized.
(SGD.) ROSA MARIA J. BAUTISTA (SGD.) OWEN J. LYNCH Beyond this, however, the statement bore certain remarks which raise concern for the Court. The opening sentence alone is a grim preamble
(SGD.) MARK R. BOCOBO (SGD.) ANTONIO M. SANTOS to the institutional attack that lay ahead. It reads:
An extraordinary act of injustice has again been committed against the brave Filipinas who had suffered abuse during a time of war.
(SGD.) DAN P. CALICA (SGD.) VICENTE V. MENDOZA
The first paragraph concludes with a reference to the decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary as a reprehensible act of dishonesty and
(SGD.) TRISTAN A. CATINDIG (SGD.) RODOLFO NOEL S. QUIMBO misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land. x x x.
(SGD.) SANDRA MARIE O. CORONEL (SGD.) GMELEEN FAYE B. TOMBOC The insult to the members of the Court was aggravated by imputations of deliberately delaying the resolution of the said case, its dismissal on
the basis of "polluted sources," the Court’s alleged indifference to the cause of petitioners [in the Vinuya case], as well as the supposed
(SGD.) ROSARIO O. GALLO (SGD.) NICHOLAS FELIX L. TY
alarming lack of concern of the members of the Court for even the most basic values of decency and respect.34 x x x. (Underscoring ours.)
(SGD.) CONCEPCION L. JARDELEZA (SGD.) EVALYN G. URSUA In the same Resolution, the Court went on to state that:
(SGD.) ANTONIO G.M. LA VIÑA (SGD.) RAUL T. VASQUEZ While most agree that the right to criticize the judiciary is critical to maintaining a free and democratic society, there is also a general
(SGD.) SUSAN D. VILLANUEVA29 consensus that healthy criticism only goes so far. Many types of criticism leveled at the judiciary cross the line to become harmful and
(SGD.) CARINA C. LAFORTEZA irresponsible attacks. These potentially devastating attacks and unjust criticism can threaten the independence of the judiciary. The court must
(Underscoring supplied.)
"insist on being permitted to proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructive of its
Meanwhile, in a letter dated August 18, 2010, Prof. Christian J. Tams made known his sentiments on the alleged plagiarism issue to the functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice."
Court.30 We quote Prof. Tams’ letter here: The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for the faculty’s less than objective comments except to discredit the April 28, 2010
Glasgow, 18 August 2010 Decision in the Vinuya case and undermine the Court’s honesty, integrity and competence in addressing the motion for its reconsideration. As
Vinuya, et al. v. Executive Secretary et al. (G.R. No. 162230) if the case on the comfort women’s claims is not controversial enough, the UP Law faculty would fan the flames and invite resentment against
Hon. Renato C. Corona, Chief Justice a resolution that would not reverse the said decision. This runs contrary to their obligation as law professors and officers of the Court to be the
Your Excellency, first to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which they owe fidelity according to the oath they have taken as attorneys, and not to
My name is Christian J. Tams, and I am a professor of international law at the University of Glasgow. I am writing to you in relation to the use promote distrust in the administration of justice.35 x x x. (Citations omitted; emphases and underscoring supplied.)
of one of my publications in the above-mentioned judgment of your Honourable Court. Thus, the Court directed Attys. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Froilan M. Bacungan, Pacifico A. Agabin, Merlin M. Magallona, Salvador T. Carlota,
The relevant passage of the judgment is to be found on p. 30 of your Court’s Judgment, in the section addressing the concept of obligations Carmelo V. Sison, Patricia R.P. Salvador Daway, Dante B. Gatmaytan, Theodore O. Te, Florin T. Hilbay, Jay L. Batongbacal, Evelyn (Leo) D.
erga omnes. As the table annexed to this letter shows, the relevant sentences were taken almost word by word from the introductory chapter Battad, Gwen G. De Vera, Solomon F. Lumba, Rommel J. Casis, Jose Gerardo A. Alampay, Miguel R. Armovit, Arthur P. Autea, Rosa Maria J.
of my book Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2005). I note that there is a generic reference Bautista, Mark R. Bocobo, Dan P. Calica, Tristan A. Catindig, Sandra Marie O. Coronel, Rosario O. Gallo, Concepcion L. Jardeleza, Antonio
G.M. La Viña, Carina C. Laforteza, Jose C. Laureta, Owen J. Lynch, Rodolfo Noel S. Quimbo, Antonio M. Santos, Gmeleen Faye B. Tomboc, charge that Justice Del Castillo also lifted passages from said article without proper attribution, but this time, in his ponencia in Ang Ladlad
Nicholas Felix L. Ty, Evalyn G. Ursua, Raul T. Vasquez, Susan D. Villanueva and Dina D. Lucenario to show cause, within ten (10) days from LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections.54
receipt of the copy of the Resolution, why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for violation of Canons 1,36 11 and 13 and (c) Respondents’ belief that they are being "singled out" by the Court when others have likewise spoken on the "plagiarism issue"
Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.37 In the Common Compliance, respondents likewise asserted that "the plagiarism and misrepresentation allegations are legitimate public
Dean Leonen was likewise directed to show cause within the same period why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for violation of Canon issues."55 They identified various published reports and opinions, in agreement with and in opposition to the stance of respondents, on the
10, Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03 for submitting through his letter dated August 10, 2010, during the pendency of G.R. No. 162230 and of the issue of plagiarism, specifically:
investigation before the Ethics Committee, for the consideration of the Court en banc, a dummy which is not a true and faithful reproduction of (i) Newsbreak report on July 19, 2010 by Aries Rufo and Purple Romero;56
the UP Law Faculty Statement.38 (ii) Column of Ramon Tulfo which appeared in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on July 24, 2010;57
In the same Resolution, the present controversy was docketed as a regular administrative matter. (iii) Editorial of the Philippine Daily Inquirer published on July 25, 2010;58
Summaries of the Pleadings Filed by Respondents in Response to the October 19, 2010 Show Cause Resolution (iv) Letter dated July 22, 2010 of Justice Del Castillo published in the Philippine Star on July 30, 2010;59
On November 19, 2010, within the extension for filing granted by the Court, respondents filed the following pleadings: (v) Column of Former Intellectual Property Office Director General Adrian Cristobal, Jr. published in the Business Mirror on August 5, 2010;60
(1) Compliance dated November 18, 2010 by counsels for 35 of the 37 respondents, excluding Prof. Owen Lynch and Prof. Raul T. Vasquez, (vi) Column of Former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on August 8, 2010;61
in relation to the charge of violation of Canons 1, 11 and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; (vii) News report regarding Senator Francis Pangilinan’s call for the resignation of Justice Del Castillo published in the Daily Tribune and the
(2) Compliance and Reservation dated November 18, 2010 by Prof. Rosa Maria T. Juan-Bautista in relation to the same charge in par. (1); Manila Standard Today on July 31, 2010;62
(3) Compliance dated November 19, 2010 by counsel for Prof. Raul T. Vasquez in relation to the same charge in par. (1); (viii) News reports regarding the statement of Dean Cesar Villanueva of the Ateneo de Manila University School of Law on the calls for the
(4) Compliance dated November 19, 2010 by counsels for Dean Leonen, in relation to the charge of violation of Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02 resignation of Justice Del Castillo published in The Manila Bulletin, the Philippine Star and the Business Mirror on August 11, 2010;63
and 10.03; and (ix) News report on expressions of support for Justice Del Castillo from a former dean of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, the
(5) Manifestation dated November 19, 2010 by counsel for Prof. Owen Lynch. Philippine Constitutional Association, the Judges Association of Bulacan and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines – Bulacan Chapter
Common Compliance of 35 Respondents (Excluding Prof. Owen Lynch and Prof. Raul Vasquez) published in the Philippine Star on August 16, 2010;64 and
Thirty-five (35) of the respondent UP Law professors filed on November 19, 2010 a common compliance which was signed by their respective (x) Letter of the Dean of the Liceo de Cagayan University College of Law published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on August 10, 2010.65
counsels (the Common Compliance). In the "Preface" of said Common Compliance, respondents stressed that "[they] issued the Restoring In view of the foregoing, respondents alleged that this Court has singled them out for sanctions and the charge in the Show Cause Resolution
Integrity Statement in the discharge of the ‘solemn duties and trust reposed upon them as teachers in the profession of law,’ and as members dated October 19, 2010 that they may have violated specific canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility is unfair and without basis.
of the Bar to speak out on a matter of public concern and one that is of vital interest to them."39 They likewise alleged that "they acted with the (d) Freedom of expression
purest of intentions" and pointed out that "none of them was involved either as party or counsel"40 in the Vinuya case. Further, respondents In paragraphs 28 to 30 of the Common Compliance, respondents briefly discussed their position that in issuing their Statement, "they should
"note with concern" that the Show Cause Resolution’s findings and conclusions were "a prejudgment – that respondents indeed are in be seen as not only to be performing their duties as members of the Bar, officers of the court, and teachers of law, but also as citizens of a
contempt, have breached their obligations as law professors and officers of the Court, and have violated ‘Canons [1], 11 and 13 and Rules democracy who are constitutionally protected in the exercise of free speech."66 In support of this contention, they cited United States v.
1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility."41 Bustos,67 In re: Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen, 68 and In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Relief Re: Constitutionality of Republic Act 4880,
By way of explanation, the respondents emphasized the following points: Gonzales v. Commission on Elections.69
(a) Respondents’ alleged noble intentions (e) Academic freedom
In response to the charges of failure to observe due respect to legal processes42 and the courts43 and of tending to influence, or giving the In paragraphs 31 to 34 of the Common Compliance, respondents asserted that their Statement was also issued in the exercise of their
appearance of influencing the Court44 in the issuance of their Statement, respondents assert that their intention was not to malign the Court but academic freedom as teachers in an institution of higher learning. They relied on Section 5 of the University of the Philippines Charter of 2008
rather to defend its integrity and credibility and to ensure continued confidence in the legal system. Their noble motive was purportedly which provided that "[t]he national university has the right and responsibility to exercise academic freedom." They likewise adverted to Garcia
evidenced by the portion of their Statement "focusing on constructive action."45 Respondents’ call in the Statement for the Court "to provide v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology70 which they claimed recognized the extent and breadth of such freedom as
clear and concise guidance to the Bench and Bar to ensure only the highest quality of legal research and writing in adjudication," was to encourage a free and healthy discussion and communication of a faculty member’s field of study without fear of reprisal. It is respondents’
reputedly "in keeping with strictures enjoining lawyers to ‘participate in the development of the legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in view that had they remained silent on the plagiarism issue in the Vinuya decision they would have "compromised [their] integrity and credibility
law reform and in the improvement of the administration of justice’" (under Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility) and to as teachers; [their silence] would have created a culture and generation of students, professionals, even lawyers, who would lack the
"promote respect for the law and legal processes" (under Canon 1, id.).46 Furthermore, as academics, they allegedly have a "special interest competence and discipline for research and pleading; or, worse, [that] their silence would have communicated to the public that plagiarism and
and duty to vigilantly guard against plagiarism and misrepresentation because these unwelcome occurrences have a profound impact in the misrepresentation are inconsequential matters and that intellectual integrity has no bearing or relevance to one’s conduct."71
academe, especially in our law schools."47 In closing, respondents’ Common Compliance exhorted this Court to consider the following portion of the dissenting opinion of Justice George
Respondents further "[called] on this Court not to misconstrue the Restoring Integrity Statement as an ‘institutional attack’ x x x on the basis of A. Malcolm in Salcedo v. Hernandez,72 to wit:
its first and ninth paragraphs."48 They further clarified that at the time the Statement was allegedly drafted and agreed upon, it appeared to Respect for the courts can better be obtained by following a calm and impartial course from the bench than by an attempt to compel respect
them the Court "was not going to take any action on the grave and startling allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation." 49 According to for the judiciary by chastising a lawyer for a too vigorous or injudicious exposition of his side of a case. The Philippines needs lawyers of
respondents, the bases for their belief were (i) the news article published on July 21, 2010 in the Philippine Daily Inquirer wherein Court independent thought and courageous bearing, jealous of the interests of their clients and unafraid of any court, high or low, and the courts will
Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez was reported to have said that Chief Justice Corona would not order an inquiry into the matter;50 and (ii) do well tolerantly to overlook occasional intemperate language soon to be regretted by the lawyer which affects in no way the outcome of a
the July 22, 2010 letter of Justice Del Castillo which they claimed "did nothing but to downplay the gravity of the plagiarism and case.73
misrepresentation charges."51 Respondents claimed that it was their perception of the Court’s indifference to the dangers posed by the On the matter of the reliefs to which respondents believe they are entitled, the Common Compliance stated, thus:
plagiarism allegations against Justice Del Castillo that impelled them to urgently take a public stand on the issue. WHEREFORE:
(b) The "correctness" of respondents’ position that Justice Del Castillo committed plagiarism and should be held accountable in accordance A. Respondents, as citizens of a democracy, professors of law, members of the Bar and officers of the Court, respectfully pray that:
with the standards of academic writing 1. the foregoing be noted; and
A significant portion of the Common Compliance is devoted to a discussion of the merits of respondents’ charge of plagiarism against Justice 2. the Court reconsider and reverse its adverse findings in the Show Cause Resolution, including its conclusions that respondents have: [a]
Del Castillo. Relying on University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals52 and foreign materials and jurisprudence, breached their "obligation as law professors and officers of the Court to be the first to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, … and not
respondents essentially argue that their position regarding the plagiarism charge against Justice Del Castillo is the correct view and that they to promote distrust in the administration of justice;" and [b] committed "violations of Canons 10, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the
are therefore justified in issuing their Restoring Integrity Statement. Attachments to the Common Compliance included, among others: (i) the Code of Professional Responsibility."
letter dated October 28, 2010 of Peter B. Payoyo, LL.M, Ph.D.,53 sent to Chief Justice Corona through Justice Sereno, alleging that the Vinuya B. In the event the Honorable Court declines to grant the foregoing prayer, respondents respectfully pray, in the alternative, and in assertion of
decision likewise lifted without proper attribution the text from a legal article by Mariana Salazar Albornoz that appeared in the Anuario their due process rights, that before final judgment be rendered:
Mexicano De Derecho Internacional and from an International Court of Justice decision; and (ii) a 2008 Human Rights Law Review Article 1. the Show Cause Resolution be set for hearing;
entitled "Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International Human Rights Law" by Michael O’Flaherty and John Fisher, in support of their 2. respondents be given a fair and full opportunity to refute and/or address the findings and conclusions of fact in the Show Cause Resolution
(including especially the finding and conclusion of a lack of malicious intent), and in that connection, that appropriate procedures and
schedules for hearing be adopted and defined that will allow them the full and fair opportunity to require the production of and to present signatories to Restoring Integrity I above their printed names and the notation "(SGD.") and, in addition, the actual signatures of eight (8) other
testimonial, documentary, and object evidence bearing on the plagiarism and misrepresentation issues in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary (G.R. members of the faculty above their handwritten or typewritten names.87
No. 162230, April 28, 2010) and In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc. Against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo (A.M. No. For purposes of this discussion, only Restoring Integrity I and Restoring Integrity II are relevant since what Dean Leonen has been directed to
10-7-17-SC); and explain are the discrepancies in the signature pages of these two documents. Restoring Integrity III was never submitted to this Court.
3. respondents be given fair and full access to the transcripts, records, drafts, reports and submissions in or relating to, and accorded the On how Restoring Integrity I and Restoring Integrity II were prepared and came about, Dean Leonen alleged, thus:
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who were or could have been called in In The Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc. Against 2.2 On 27 July 2010, sensing the emergence of a relatively broad agreement in the faculty on a draft statement, Dean Leonen instructed his
Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC).74 staff to print the draft and circulate it among the faculty members so that those who wished to may sign. For this purpose, the staff encoded the
Compliance and Reservation of Prof. Rosa Maria T. Juan-Bautista law faculty roster to serve as the printed draft’s signing pages. Thus did the first printed draft of the Restoring Integrity Statement, Restoring
Although already included in the Common Compliance, Prof. Rosa Maria T. Juan-Bautista (Prof. Juan-Bautista) filed a separate Compliance Integrity I, come into being.
and Reservation (the Bautista Compliance), wherein she adopted the allegations in the Common Compliance with some additional averments. 2.3. As of 27 July 2010, the date of the Restoring Integrity Statement, Dean Leonen was unaware that a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Prof. Juan-Bautista reiterated that her due process rights allegedly entitled her to challenge the findings and conclusions in the Show Cause Honorable Court’s Decision in Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230, 28 April 2010) had already been filed, or that the Honorable
Resolution. Furthermore, "[i]f the Restoring Integrity Statement can be considered indirect contempt, under Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Rules Court was in the process of convening its Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC.
of Court, such may be punished only after charge and hearing."75 2.4. Dean Leonen’s staff then circulated Restoring Integrity I among the members of the faculty. Some faculty members visited the Dean’s
Prof. Juan-Bautista stressed that respondents signed the Statement "in good faith and with the best intentions to protect the Supreme Court by Office to sign the document or had it brought to their classrooms in the College of Law, or to their offices or residences. Still other faculty
asking one member to resign."76 For her part, Prof. Juan-Bautista intimated that her deep disappointment and sadness for the plight of the members who, for one reason or another, were unable to sign Restoring Integrity I at that time, nevertheless conveyed to Dean Leonen their
Malaya Lolas were what motivated her to sign the Statement. assurances that they would sign as soon as they could manage.
On the point of academic freedom, Prof. Juan-Bautista cited jurisprudence77 which in her view highlighted that academic freedom is 2.5. Sometime in the second week of August, judging that Restoring Integrity I had been circulated long enough, Dean Leonen instructed his
constitutionally guaranteed to institutions of higher learning such that schools have the freedom to determine for themselves who may teach, staff to reproduce the statement in a style and manner appropriate for posting in the College of Law. Following his own established practice in
what may be taught, how lessons shall be taught and who may be admitted to study and that courts have no authority to interfere in the relation to significant public issuances, he directed them to reformat the signing pages so that only the names of those who signed the first
schools’ exercise of discretion in these matters in the absence of grave abuse of discretion. She claims the Court has encroached on the printed draft would appear, together with the corresponding "(SGD.)" note following each name. Restoring Integrity II thus came into being.88
academic freedom of the University of the Philippines and other universities on their right to determine how lessons shall be taught. According to Dean Leonen, the "practice of eliminating blanks opposite or above the names of non-signatories in the final draft of significant
Lastly, Prof. Juan-Bautista asserted that the Statement was an exercise of respondents’ constitutional right to freedom of expression that can public issuances, is meant not so much for aesthetic considerations as to secure the integrity of such documents."89 He likewise claimed that
only be curtailed when there is grave and imminent danger to public safety, public morale, public health or other legitimate public interest.78 "[p]osting statements with blanks would be an open invitation to vandals and pranksters."90
Compliance of Prof. Raul T. Vasquez With respect to the inclusion of Justice Mendoza’s name as among the signatories in Restoring Integrity II when in fact he did not sign
On November 19, 2010, Prof. Raul T. Vasquez (Prof. Vasquez) filed a separate Compliance by registered mail (the Vasquez Compliance). In Restoring Integrity I, Dean Leonen attributed the mistake to a miscommunication involving his administrative officer. In his Compliance, he
said Compliance, Prof. Vasquez narrated the circumstances surrounding his signing of the Statement. He alleged that the Vinuya decision was narrated that:
a topic of conversation among the UP Law faculty early in the first semester (of academic year 2010-11) because it reportedly contained 2.7. Upon being presented with a draft of Restoring Integrity II with the reformatted signing pages, Dean Leonen noticed the inclusion of the
citations not properly attributed to the sources; that he was shown a copy of the Statement by a clerk of the Office of the Dean on his way to name of Justice Mendoza among the "(SGD.)" signatories. As Justice Mendoza was not among those who had physically signed Restoring
his class; and that, agreeing in principle with the main theme advanced by the Statement, he signed the same in utmost good faith.79 Integrity I when it was previously circulated, Dean Leonen called the attention of his staff to the inclusion of the Justice’s name among the
In response to the directive from this Court to explain why he should not be disciplined as a member of the Bar under the Show Cause "(SGD.)" signatories in Restoring Integrity II.
Resolution, Prof. Vasquez also took the position that a lawyer has the right, like all citizens in a democratic society, to comment on acts of 2.8. Dean Leonen was told by his administrative officer that she had spoken to Justice Mendoza over the phone on Friday, 06 August 2010.
public officers. He invited the attention of the Court to the following authorities: (a) In re: Vicente Sotto;80 (b) In re: Atty. Vicente Raul According to her, Justice Mendoza had authorized the dean to sign the Restoring Integrity Statement for him as he agreed fundamentally with
Almacen;81 and (c) a discussion appearing in American Jurisprudence (AmJur) 2d.82 He claims that he "never had any intention to unduly its contents. Also according to her, Justice Mendoza was unable at that time to sign the Restoring Integrity Statement himself as he was
influence, nor entertained any illusion that he could or should influence, [the Court] in its disposition of the Vinuya case" 83 and that "attacking leaving for the United States the following week. It would later turn out that this account was not entirely accurate.91 (Underscoring and italics
the integrity of [the Court] was the farthest thing on respondent’s mind when he signed the Statement." 84 Unlike his colleagues, who wish to supplied.)
impress upon this Court the purported homogeneity of the views on what constitutes plagiarism, Prof. Vasquez stated in his Compliance that: Dean Leonen claimed that he "had no reason to doubt his administrative officer, however, and so placed full reliance on her account"92 as
13. Before this Honorable Court rendered its Decision dated 12 October 2010, some espoused the view that willful and deliberate intent to "[t]here were indeed other faculty members who had also authorized the Dean to indicate that they were signatories, even though they were at
commit plagiarism is an essential element of the same. Others, like respondent, were of the opinion that plagiarism is committed regardless of that time unable to affix their signatures physically to the document."93
the intent of the perpetrator, the way it has always been viewed in the academe. This uncertainty made the issue a fair topic for academic However, after receiving the Show Cause Resolution, Dean Leonen and his staff reviewed the circumstances surrounding their effort to secure
discussion in the College. Now, this Honorable Court has ruled that plagiarism presupposes deliberate intent to steal another’s work and to Justice Mendoza’s signature. It would turn out that this was what actually transpired:
pass it off as one’s own.85 (Emphases supplied.) 2.22.1. On Friday, 06 August 2010, when the dean’s staff talked to Justice Mendoza on the phone, he [Justice Mendoza] indeed initially
Also in contrast to his colleagues, Prof. Vasquez was willing to concede that he "might have been remiss in correctly assessing the effects of agreed to sign the Restoring Integrity Statement as he fundamentally agreed with its contents. However, Justice Mendoza did not exactly say
such language [in the Statement] and could have been more careful."86 He ends his discussion with a respectful submission that with his that he authorized the dean to sign the Restoring Integrity Statement. Rather, he inquired if he could authorize the dean to sign it for him as he
explanation, he has faithfully complied with the Show Cause Resolution and that the Court will rule that he had not in any manner violated his was about to leave for the United States. The dean’s staff informed him that they would, at any rate, still try to bring the Restoring Integrity
oath as a lawyer and officer of the Court. Statement to him.
Separate Compliance of Dean Leonen regarding the charge of violation of Canon 10 in relation to his submission of a "dummy" of the UP Law 2.22.2. Due to some administrative difficulties, Justice Mendoza was unable to sign the Restoring Integrity Statement before he left for the U.S.
Faculty Statement to this Court the following week.
In his Compliance, Dean Leonen claimed that there were three drafts/versions of the UP Law Faculty Statement, which he described as 2.22.3. The staff was able to bring Restoring Integrity III to Justice Mendoza when he went to the College to teach on 24 September 2010, a
follows: day after his arrival from the U.S. This time, Justice Mendoza declined to sign.94
"Restoring Integrity I" which bears the entire roster of the faculty of the UP College of Law in its signing pages, and the actual signatures of According to the Dean:
the thirty-seven (37) faculty members subject of the Show Cause Resolution. A copy was filed with the Honorable Court by Roque and 2.23. It was only at this time that Dean Leonen realized the true import of the call he received from Justice Mendoza in late September.
Butuyan on 31 August 2010 in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC. Indeed, Justice Mendoza confirmed that by the time the hard copy of the Restoring Integrity Statement was brought to him shortly after his
"Restoring Integrity II" which does not bear any actual physical signature, but which reflects as signatories the names of thirty-seven (37) arrival from the U.S., he declined to sign it because it had already become controversial. At that time, he predicted that the Court would take
members of the faculty with the notation "(SGD.)". A copy of Restoring Integrity II was publicly and physically posted in the UP College of Law some form of action against the faculty. By then, and under those circumstances, he wanted to show due deference to the Honorable Court,
on 10 August 2010. Another copy of Restoring Integrity II was also officially received by the Honorable Court from the Dean of the UP College being a former Associate Justice and not wishing to unduly aggravate the situation by signing the Statement.95 (Emphases supplied.)
of Law on 11 August 2010, almost three weeks before the filing of Restoring Integrity I. With respect to the omission of Atty. Armovit’s name in the signature page of Restoring Integrity II when he was one of the signatories of
"Restoring Integrity III" which is a reprinting of Restoring Integrity II, and which presently serves as the official file copy of the Dean’s Office in Restoring Integrity I and the erroneous description in Dean Leonen’s August 10, 2010 letter that the version of the Statement submitted to the
the UP College of Law that may be signed by other faculty members who still wish to. It bears the actual signatures of the thirty- seven original Court was signed by 38 members of the UP Law Faculty, it was explained in the Compliance that:
Respondent Atty. Miguel Armovit physically signed Restoring Integrity I when it was circulated to him. However, his name was inadvertently criticism and the contumacious language by which respondents, who are not parties nor counsels in the Vinuya case, have expressed their
left out by Dean Leonen’s staff in the reformatting of the signing pages in Restoring Integrity II. The dean assumed that his name was still opinion in favor of the petitioners in the said pending case for the "proper disposition" and consideration of the Court that gave rise to said
included in the reformatted signing pages, and so mentioned in his cover note to Chief Justice Corona that 38 members of the law faculty Resolution. The Show Cause Resolution painstakingly enumerated the statements that the Court considered excessive and uncalled for under
signed (the original 37 plus Justice Mendoza.)96 the circumstances surrounding the issuance, publication, and later submission to this Court of the UP Law faculty’s Restoring Integrity
Dean Leonen argues that he should not be deemed to have submitted a dummy of the Statement that was not a true and faithful reproduction Statement.
of the same. He emphasized that the main body of the Statement was unchanged in all its three versions and only the signature pages were To reiterate, it was not the circumstance that respondents expressed a belief that Justice Del Castillo was guilty of plagiarism but rather their
not the same. This purportedly is merely "reflective of [the Statement’s] essential nature as a ‘live’ public manifesto meant to continuously draw expression of that belief as "not only as an established fact, but a truth"111 when it was "[o]f public knowledge [that there was] an ongoing
adherents to its message, its signatory portion is necessarily evolving and dynamic x x x many other printings of [the Statement] may be made investigation precisely to determine the truth of such allegations."112 It was also pointed out in the Show Cause Resolution that there was a
in the future, each one reflecting the same text but with more and more signatories."97 Adverting to criminal law by analogy, Dean Leonen pending motion for reconsideration of the Vinuya decision.113 The Show Cause Resolution made no objections to the portions of the Restoring
claims that "this is not an instance where it has been made to appear in a document that a person has participated in an act when the latter did Integrity Statement that respondents claimed to be "constructive" but only asked respondents to explain those portions of the said Statement
not in fact so participate"98 for he "did not misrepresent which members of the faculty of the UP College of Law had agreed with the Restoring that by no stretch of the imagination could be considered as fair or constructive, to wit:
Integrity Statement proper and/or had expressed their desire to be signatories thereto." 99 Beyond this, however, the statement bore certain remarks which raise concern for the Court. The opening sentence alone is a grim preamble
In this regard, Dean Leonen believes that he had not committed any violation of Canon 10 or Rules 10.01 and 10.02 for he did not mislead nor to the institutional attack that lay ahead. It reads:
misrepresent to the Court the contents of the Statement or the identities of the UP Law faculty members who agreed with, or expressed their An extraordinary act of injustice has again been committed against the brave Filipinas who had suffered abuse during a time of war.
desire to be signatories to, the Statement. He also asserts that he did not commit any violation of Rule 10.03 as he "coursed [the Statement] The first paragraph concludes with a reference to the decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary as a reprehensible act of dishonesty and
through the appropriate channels by transmitting the same to Honorable Chief Justice Corona for the latter’s information and proper disposition misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land. x x x.
with the hope that its points would be duly considered by the Honorable Court en banc." 100 Citing Rudecon Management Corporation v. The insult to the members of the Court was aggravated by imputations of deliberately delaying the resolution of the said case, its dismissal on
Camacho,101 Dean Leonen posits that the required quantum of proof has not been met in this case and that no dubious character or motivation the basis of "polluted sources," the Court’s alleged indifference to the cause of petitioners [in the Vinuya case], as well as the supposed
for the act complained of existed to warrant an administrative sanction for violation of the standard of honesty provided for by the Code of alarming lack of concern of the members of the Court for even the most basic values of decency and respect.114 x x x. (Underscoring ours.)
Professional Responsibility.102 To be sure, the Show Cause Resolution itself recognized respondents’ freedom of expression when it stated that:
Dean Leonen ends his Compliance with an enumeration of nearly identical reliefs as the Common Compliance, including the prayers for a While most agree that the right to criticize the judiciary is critical to maintaining a free and democratic society, there is also a general
hearing and for access to the records, evidence and witnesses allegedly relevant not only in this case but also in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, the consensus that healthy criticism only goes so far. Many types of criticism leveled at the judiciary cross the line to become harmful and
ethical investigation involving Justice Del Castillo. irresponsible attacks. These potentially devastating attacks and unjust criticism can threaten the independence of the judiciary. The court must
Manifestation of Prof. Owen Lynch (Lynch Manifestation) "insist on being permitted to proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructive of its
For his part, Prof. Owen Lynch (Prof. Lynch) manifests to this Court that he is not a member of the Philippine bar; but he is a member of the functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice."
bar of the State of Minnesota. He alleges that he first taught as a visiting professor at the UP College of Law in 1981 to 1988 and returned in The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for the faculty’s less than objective comments except to discredit the April 28, 2010
the same capacity in 2010. He further alleges that "[h]e subscribes to the principle, espoused by this Court and the Supreme Court of the Decision in the Vinuya case and undermine the Court’s honesty, integrity and competence in addressing the motion for its reconsideration. As
United States, that ‘…[d]ebate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open and that it may well include vehement, caustic, if the case on the comfort women’s claims is not controversial enough, the UP Law faculty would fan the flames and invite resentment against
and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials."103 In signing the Statement, he believes that "the right to speak a resolution that would not reverse the said decision. This runs contrary to their obligation as law professors and officers of the Court to be the
means the right to speak effectively."104 Citing the dissenting opinions in Manila Public School Teachers Association v. Laguio, Jr.,105 Prof. first to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which they owe fidelity according to the oath they have taken as attorneys, and not to
Lynch argued that "[f]or speech to be effective, it must be forceful enough to make the intended recipients listen" 106 and "[t]he quality of promote distrust in the administration of justice.115 x x x. (Citations omitted; emphases and underscoring supplied.)
education would deteriorate in an atmosphere of repression, when the very teachers who are supposed to provide an example of courage and Indeed, in a long line of cases, including those cited in respondents’ submissions, this Court has held that the right to criticize the courts and
self-assertiveness to their pupils can speak only in timorous whispers."107 Relying on the doctrine in In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory judicial officers must be balanced against the equally primordial concern that the independence of the Judiciary be protected from due
Relief Re: Constitutionality of Republic Act 4880, Gonzales v. Commission on Elections,108 Prof. Lynch believed that the Statement did not influence or interference. In cases where the critics are not only citizens but members of the Bar, jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the
pose any danger, clear or present, of any substantive evil so as to remove it from the protective mantle of the Bill of Rights (i.e., referring to the authority of this Court to discipline lawyers whose statements regarding the courts and fellow lawyers, whether judicial or extrajudicial, have
constitutional guarantee on free speech).109 He also stated that he "has read the Compliance of the other respondents to the Show Cause exceeded the limits of fair comment and common decency.
Resolution" and that "he signed the Restoring Integrity Statement for the same reasons they did." 110 As early as the 1935 case of Salcedo v. Hernandez,116 the Court found Atty. Vicente J. Francisco both guilty of contempt and liable
ISSUES administratively for the following paragraph in his second motion for reconsideration:
Based on the Show Cause Resolution and a perusal of the submissions of respondents, the material issues to be resolved in this case are as We should like frankly and respectfully to make it of record that the resolution of this court, denying our motion for reconsideration, is
follows: absolutely erroneous and constitutes an outrage to the rights of the petitioner Felipe Salcedo and a mockery of the popular will expressed at
1.) Does the Show Cause Resolution deny respondents their freedom of expression? the polls in the municipality of Tiaong, Tayabas. We wish to exhaust all the means within our power in order that this error may be corrected by
2.) Does the Show Cause Resolution violate respondents’ academic freedom as law professors? the very court which has committed it, because we should not want that some citizen, particularly some voter of the municipality of Tiaong,
3.) Do the submissions of respondents satisfactorily explain why they should not be disciplined as Members of the Bar under Canons 1, 11, Tayabas, resort to the press publicly to denounce, as he has a right to do, the judicial outrage of which the herein petitioner has been the
and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility? victim, and because it is our utmost desire to safeguard the prestige of this honorable court and of each and every member thereof in the eyes
4.) Does the separate Compliance of Dean Leonen satisfactorily explain why he should not be disciplined as a Member of the Bar under of the public. But, at the same time we wish to state sincerely that erroneous decisions like these, which the affected party and his thousands
Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03? of voters will necessarily consider unjust, increase the proselytes of 'sakdalism' and make the public lose confidence in the administration of
5.) Are respondents entitled to have the Show Cause Resolution set for hearing and in relation to such hearing, are respondents entitled to justice.117 (Emphases supplied.)
require the production or presentation of evidence bearing on the plagiarism and misrepresentation issues in the Vinuya case (G.R. No. The highlighted phrases were considered by the Court as neither justified nor necessary and further held that:
162230) and the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC) and to have access to the records and transcripts of, and the [I]n order to call the attention of the court in a special way to the essential points relied upon in his argument and to emphasize the force
witnesses and evidence presented, or could have been presented, in the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC)? thereof, the many reasons stated in his said motion were sufficient and the phrases in question were superfluous. In order to appeal to reason
DISCUSSION and justice, it is highly improper and amiss to make trouble and resort to threats, as Attorney Vicente J. Francisco has done, because both
The Show Cause Resolution does not deny respondents their freedom of expression. means are annoying and good practice can never sanction them by reason of their natural tendency to disturb and hinder the free exercise of
It is respondents’ collective claim that the Court, with the issuance of the Show Cause Resolution, has interfered with respondents’ a serene and impartial judgment, particularly in judicial matters, in the consideration of questions submitted for resolution.
constitutionally mandated right to free speech and expression. It appears that the underlying assumption behind respondents’ assertion is the There is no question that said paragraph of Attorney Vicente J. Francisco's motion contains a more or less veiled threat to the court because it
misconception that this Court is denying them the right to criticize the Court’s decisions and actions, and that this Court seeks to "silence" is insinuated therein, after the author shows the course which the voters of Tiaong should follow in case he fails in his attempt, that they will
respondent law professors’ dissenting view on what they characterize as a "legitimate public issue." resort to the press for the purpose of denouncing, what he claims to be a judicial outrage of which his client has been the victim; and because
This is far from the truth. A reading of the Show Cause Resolution will plainly show that it was neither the fact that respondents had criticized a he states in a threatening manner with the intention of predisposing the mind of the reader against the court, thus creating an atmosphere of
decision of the Court nor that they had charged one of its members of plagiarism that motivated the said Resolution. It was the manner of the prejudices against it in order to make it odious in the public eye, that decisions of the nature of that referred to in his motion promote distrust in
the administration of justice and increase the proselytes of sakdalism, a movement with seditious and revolutionary tendencies the activities of In his relations with the courts, a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Thus,
which, as is of public knowledge, occurred in this country a few days ago. This cannot mean otherwise than contempt of the dignity of the court statements made by an attorney in private conversations or communications or in the course of a political campaign, if couched in insulting
and disrespect of the authority thereof on the part of Attorney Vicente J. Francisco, because he presumes that the court is so devoid of the language as to bring into scorn and disrepute the administration of justice, may subject the attorney to disciplinary action.122 (Emphases and
sense of justice that, if he did not resort to intimidation, it would maintain its error notwithstanding the fact that it may be proven, with good underscoring supplied.)
reasons, that it has acted erroneously.118 (Emphases supplied.) In a similar vein, In re: Vicente Sotto,123 cited in the Vasquez Compliance, observed that:
Significantly, Salcedo is the decision from which respondents culled their quote from the minority view of Justice Malcolm. Moreover, Salcedo [T]his Court, in In re Kelly, held the following:
concerned statements made in a pleading filed by a counsel in a case, unlike the respondents here, who are neither parties nor counsels in The publication of a criticism of a party or of the court to a pending cause, respecting the same, has always been considered as misbehavior,
the Vinuya case and therefore, do not have any standing at all to interfere in the Vinuya case. Instead of supporting respondents’ theory, tending to obstruct the administration of justice, and subjects such persons to contempt proceedings. Parties have a constitutional right to have
Salcedo is authority for the following principle: their causes tried fairly in court, by an impartial tribunal, uninfluenced by publications or public clamor. Every citizen has a profound personal
As a member of the bar and an officer of this court, Attorney Vicente J. Francisco, as any attorney, is in duty bound to uphold its dignity and interest in the enforcement of the fundamental right to have justice administered by the courts, under the protection and forms of law, free from
authority and to defend its integrity, not only because it has conferred upon him the high privilege, not a right (Malcolm, Legal Ethics, 158 and outside coercion or interference. x x x.
160), of being what he now is: a priest of justice (In re Thatcher, 80 Ohio St. Rep., 492, 669), but also because in so doing, he neither Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or unsoundness of the decision of the court in a pending case made
creates nor promotes distrust in the administration of justice, and prevents anybody from harboring and encouraging discontent which, in many in good faith may be tolerated; because if well founded it may enlighten the court and contribute to the correction of an error if committed; but if
cases, is the source of disorder, thus undermining the foundation upon which rests that bulwark called judicial power to which those who are it is not well taken and obviously erroneous, it should, in no way, influence the court in reversing or modifying its decision. x x x.
aggrieved turn for protection and relief.119 (Emphases supplied.) xxxx
Thus, the lawyer in Salcedo was fined and reprimanded for his injudicious statements in his pleading, by accusing the Court of "erroneous To hurl the false charge that this Court has been for the last years committing deliberately "so many blunders and injustices," that is to say,
ruling." Here, the respondents’ Statement goes way beyond merely ascribing error to the Court. that it has been deciding in favor of one party knowing that the law and justice is on the part of the adverse party and not on the one in whose
Other cases cited by respondents likewise espouse rulings contrary to their position. In re: Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen,120 cited in the Common favor the decision was rendered, in many cases decided during the last years, would tend necessarily to undermine the confidence of the
Compliance and the Vasquez Compliance, was an instance where the Court indefinitely suspended a member of the Bar for filing and people in the honesty and integrity of the members of this Court, and consequently to lower or degrade the administration of justice by this
releasing to the press a "Petition to Surrender Lawyer’s Certificate of Title" in protest of what he claimed was a great injustice to his client Court. The Supreme Court of the Philippines is, under the Constitution, the last bulwark to which the Filipino people may repair to obtain relief
committed by the Supreme Court. In the decision, the petition was described, thus: for their grievances or protection of their rights when these are trampled upon, and if the people lose their confidence in the honesty and
He indicts this Court, in his own phrase, as a tribunal "peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons integrity of the members of this Court and believe that they cannot expect justice therefrom, they might be driven to take the law into their own
their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity." His client's he continues, who was deeply hands, and disorder and perhaps chaos might be the result. As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts Atty. Vicente Sotto, like any
aggrieved by this Court's "unjust judgment," has become "one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy." In the same breath that he other, is in duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which he owes fidelity according to the oath he has taken as such
alludes to the classic symbol of justice, he ridicules the members of this Court, saying "that justice as administered by the present members of attorney, and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. Respect to the courts guarantees the stability of other institutions, which
the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb." He then vows to argue the cause of his client "in the people's forum," so that without such guaranty would be resting on a very shaky foundation.124 (Emphases and underscoring supplied.)
"the people may know of the silent injustices committed by this Court," and that "whatever mistakes, wrongs and injustices that were That the doctrinal pronouncements in these early cases are still good law can be easily gleaned even from more recent jurisprudence.
committed must never be repeated." He ends his petition with a prayer that In Choa v. Chiongson,125 the Court administratively disciplined a lawyer, through the imposition of a fine, for making malicious and unfounded
"x x x a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate of the undersigned attorney and counsellor-at-law IN TRUST with criticisms of a judge in the guise of an administrative complaint and held, thus:
reservation that at any time in the future and in the event we regain our faith and confidence, we may retrieve our title to assume the practice As an officer of the court and its indispensable partner in the sacred task of administering justice, graver responsibility is imposed upon a
of the noblest profession."121 lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to its officers. This does not mean, however, that a lawyer
It is true that in Almacen the Court extensively discussed foreign jurisprudence on the principle that a lawyer, just like any citizen, has the right cannot criticize a judge. As we stated in Tiongco vs. Hon. Aguilar:
to criticize and comment upon actuations of public officers, including judicial authority. However, the real doctrine in Almacen is that such It does not, however, follow that just because a lawyer is an officer of the court, he cannot criticize the courts. That is his right as a citizen, and
criticism of the courts, whether done in court or outside of it, must conform to standards of fairness and propriety. This case engaged in an it is even his duty as an officer of the court to avail of such right. Thus, in In Re: Almacen (31 SCRA 562, 579-580 [1970]), this Court explicitly
even more extensive discussion of the legal authorities sustaining this view.1awphi1 To quote from that decision: declared:
But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide Hence, as a citizen and as officer of the court, a lawyer is expected not only to exercise the right, but also to consider it his duty to avail of such
chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and right. No law may abridge this right. Nor is he "professionally answerable to a scrutiny into the official conduct of the judges, which would not
unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action. expose him to legal animadversion as a citizen." (Case of Austin, 28 Am Dec. 657, 665).
For, membership in the Bar imposes upon a person obligations and duties which are not mere flux and ferment. His investiture into the legal xxxx
profession places upon his shoulders no burden more basic, more exacting and more imperative than that of respectful behavior toward the Nevertheless, such a right is not without limit. For, as this Court warned in Almacen:
courts. He vows solemnly to conduct himself "with all good fidelity x x x to the courts;" and the Rules of Court constantly remind him "to But it is a cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. A wide
observe and maintain the respect due to courts of justice and judicial officers." The first canon of legal ethics enjoins him "to maintain towards chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the other. Intemperate and
the courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a misconduct, that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action.
importance." xxxx
As Mr. Justice Field puts it: Elsewise stated, the right to criticize, which is guaranteed by the freedom of speech and of expression in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution,
"x x x the obligation which attorneys impliedly assume, if they do not by express declaration take upon themselves, when they are admitted to must be exercised responsibly, for every right carries with it a corresponding obligation. Freedom is not freedom from responsibility, but
the Bar, is not merely to be obedient to the Constitution and laws, but to maintain at all times the respect due to courts of justice and judicial freedom with responsibility. x x x.
officers. This obligation is not discharged by merely observing the rules of courteous demeanor in open court, but includes abstaining out of xxxx
court from all insulting language and offensive conduct toward judges personally for their judicial acts." (Bradley, v. Fisher, 20 Law. 4d. 647, Proscribed then are, inter alia, the use of unnecessary language which jeopardizes high esteem in courts, creates or promotes distrust in
652) judicial administration (Rheem, supra), or tends necessarily to undermine the confidence of people in the integrity of the members of this Court
The lawyer's duty to render respectful subordination to the courts is essential to the orderly administration of justice. Hence, in the assertion of and to degrade the administration of justice by this Court (In re: Sotto, 82 Phil. 595 [1949]); or of offensive and abusive language (In re: Rafael
their clients' rights, lawyers — even those gifted with superior intellect — are enjoined to rein up their tempers. Climaco, 55 SCRA 107 [1974]); or abrasive and offensive language (Yangson vs. Salandanan, 68 SCRA 42 [1975]; or of disrespectful,
"The counsel in any case may or may not be an abler or more learned lawyer than the judge, and it may tax his patience and temper to submit offensive, manifestly baseless, and malicious statements in pleadings or in a letter addressed to the judge (Baja vs. Macandog, 158 SCRA
to rulings which he regards as incorrect, but discipline and self-respect are as necessary to the orderly administration of justice as they are to [1988], citing the resolution of 19 January 1988 in Phil. Public Schools Teachers Association vs. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 76180, and Ceniza vs.
the effectiveness of an army. The decisions of the judge must be obeyed, because he is the tribunal appointed to decide, and the bar should at Sebastian, 130 SCRA 295 [1984]); or of disparaging, intemperate, and uncalled-for remarks (Sangalang vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 177
all times be the foremost in rendering respectful submission." (In Re Scouten, 40 Atl. 481) SCRA 87 [1989]).
xxxx Any criticism against a judge made in the guise of an administrative complaint which is clearly unfounded and impelled by ulterior motive will
not excuse the lawyer responsible therefor under his duty of fidelity to his client. x x x.126 (Emphases and underscoring supplied.)
In Saberon v. Larong,127 where this Court found respondent lawyer guilty of simple misconduct for using intemperate language in his pleadings Even if the Court was willing to accept respondents’ proposition in the Common Compliance that their issuance of the Statement was in
and imposed a fine upon him, we had the occasion to state: keeping with their duty to "participate in the development of the legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the
The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates: improvement of the administration of justice" under Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, we cannot agree that they have
CANON 8 - A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing fulfilled that same duty in keeping with the demands of Canons 1, 11 and 13 to give due respect to legal processes and the courts, and to
tactics against opposing counsel. avoid conduct that tends to influence the courts. Members of the Bar cannot be selective regarding which canons to abide by given particular
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. situations. With more reason that law professors are not allowed this indulgence, since they are expected to provide their students exemplars
CANON 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar of the Code of Professional Responsibility as a whole and not just their preferred portions thereof.
conduct by others. The Court’s rulings on the submissions regarding the charge of violation of Canons 1, 11 and 13.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts. Having disposed of respondents’ main arguments of freedom of expression and academic freedom, the Court considers here the other
To be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar to use strong language in pursuit of their duty to averments in their submissions.
advance the interests of their clients. With respect to good faith, respondents’ allegations presented two main ideas: (a) the validity of their position regarding the plagiarism charge
However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive against Justice Del Castillo, and (b) their pure motive to spur this Court to take the correct action on said issue.
and abusive language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not The Court has already clarified that it is not the expression of respondents’ staunch belief that Justice Del Castillo has committed a misconduct
derogatory, illuminating but not offensive. that the majority of this Court has found so unbecoming in the Show Cause Resolution. No matter how firm a lawyer’s conviction in the
On many occasions, the Court has reminded members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact righteousness of his cause there is simply no excuse for denigrating the courts and engaging in public behavior that tends to put the courts
prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. In keeping with and the legal profession into disrepute. This doctrine, which we have repeatedly upheld in such cases as Salcedo, In re Almacen and
the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer’s language even in his pleadings must be dignified.128 Saberong, should be applied in this case with more reason, as the respondents, not parties to the Vinuya case, denounced the Court and
Verily, the accusatory and vilifying nature of certain portions of the Statement exceeded the limits of fair comment and cannot be deemed as urged it to change its decision therein, in a public statement using contumacious language, which with temerity they subsequently submitted to
protected free speech. Even In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Relief Re: Constitutionality of Republic Act 4880, Gonzales v. Commission the Court for "proper disposition."
on Elections,129 relied upon by respondents in the Common Compliance, held that: That humiliating the Court into reconsidering the Vinuya Decision in favor of the Malaya Lolas was one of the objectives of the Statement could
From the language of the specific constitutional provision, it would appear that the right is not susceptible of any limitation. No law may be be seen in the following paragraphs from the same:
passed abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. The realities of life in a complex society preclude however a literal interpretation. And in light of the significance of this decision to the quest for justice not only of Filipino women, but of women elsewhere in the world who
Freedom of expression is not an absolute. It would be too much to insist that at all times and under all circumstances it should remain have suffered the horrors of sexual abuse and exploitation in times of war, the Court cannot coldly deny relief and justice to the petitioners on
unfettered and unrestrained. There are other societal values that press for recognition. x x x.130 (Emphasis supplied.) the basis of pilfered and misinterpreted texts.
One such societal value that presses for recognition in the case at bar is the threat to judicial independence and the orderly administration of xxxx
justice that immoderate, reckless and unfair attacks on judicial decisions and institutions pose. This Court held as much in Zaldivar v. (3) The same breach and consequent disposition of the Vinuya case does violence to the primordial function of the Supreme Court as the
Sandiganbayan and Gonzales,131 where we indefinitely suspended a lawyer from the practice of law for issuing to the media statements ultimate dispenser of justice to all those who have been left without legal or equitable recourse, such as the petitioners therein.135 (Emphases
grossly disrespectful towards the Court in relation to a pending case, to wit: and underscoring supplied.)
Respondent Gonzales is entitled to the constitutional guarantee of free speech. No one seeks to deny him that right, least of all this Court. Whether or not respondents’ views regarding the plagiarism issue in the Vinuya case had valid basis was wholly immaterial to their liability for
What respondent seems unaware of is that freedom of speech and of expression, like all constitutional freedoms, is not absolute and that contumacious speech and conduct. These are two separate matters to be properly threshed out in separate proceedings. The Court considers
freedom of expression needs on occasion to be adjusted to and accommodated with the requirements of equally important public interest. One it highly inappropriate, if not tantamount to dissembling, the discussion devoted in one of the compliances arguing the guilt of Justice Del
of these fundamental public interests is the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice. There is no Castillo. In the Common Compliance, respondents even go so far as to attach documentary evidence to support the plagiarism charges
antinomy between free expression and the integrity of the system of administering justice. For the protection and maintenance of freedom of against Justice Del Castillo in the present controversy. The ethics case of Justice Del Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC), with the filing of a motion
expression itself can be secured only within the context of a functioning and orderly system of dispensing justice, within the context, in other for reconsideration, was still pending at the time of the filing of respondents’ submissions in this administrative case. As respondents
words, of viable independent institutions for delivery of justice which are accepted by the general community. x x x.132 (Emphases supplied.) themselves admit, they are neither parties nor counsels in the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo. Notwithstanding their professed
For this reason, the Court cannot uphold the view of some respondents133 that the Statement presents no grave or imminent danger to a overriding interest in said ethics case, it is not proper procedure for respondents to bring up their plagiarism arguments here especially when it
legitimate public interest. has no bearing on their own administrative case.
The Show Cause Resolution does not interfere with respondents’ academic freedom. Still on motive, it is also proposed that the choice of language in the Statement was intended for effective speech; that speech must be
It is not contested that respondents herein are, by law and jurisprudence, guaranteed academic freedom and undisputably, they are free to "forceful enough to make the intended recipients listen."136 One wonders what sort of effect respondents were hoping for in branding this Court
determine what they will teach their students and how they will teach. We must point out that there is nothing in the Show Cause Resolution as, among others, callous, dishonest and lacking in concern for the basic values of decency and respect. The Court fails to see how it can
that dictates upon respondents the subject matter they can teach and the manner of their instruction. Moreover, it is not inconsistent with the ennoble the profession if we allow respondents to send a signal to their students that the only way to effectively plead their cases and
principle of academic freedom for this Court to subject lawyers who teach law to disciplinary action for contumacious conduct and speech, persuade others to their point of view is to be offensive.
coupled with undue intervention in favor of a party in a pending case, without observing proper procedure, even if purportedly done in their This brings to our mind the letters of Dr. Ellis and Prof. Tams which were deliberately quoted in full in the narration of background facts to
capacity as teachers. illustrate the sharp contrast between the civil tenor of these letters and the antagonistic irreverence of the Statement. In truth, these foreign
A novel issue involved in the present controversy, for it has not been passed upon in any previous case before this Court, is the question of authors are the ones who would expectedly be affected by any perception of misuse of their works. Notwithstanding that they are beyond the
whether lawyers who are also law professors can invoke academic freedom as a defense in an administrative proceeding for intemperate disciplinary reach of this Court, they still obviously took pains to convey their objections in a deferential and scholarly manner. It is
statements tending to pressure the Court or influence the outcome of a case or degrade the courts. unfathomable to the Court why respondents could not do the same. These foreign authors’ letters underscore the universality of the tenet that
Applying by analogy the Court’s past treatment of the "free speech" defense in other bar discipline cases, academic freedom cannot be legal professionals must deal with each other in good faith and due respect. The mark of the true intellectual is one who can express his
successfully invoked by respondents in this case. The implicit ruling in the jurisprudence discussed above is that the constitutional right to opinions logically and soberly without resort to exaggerated rhetoric and unproductive recriminations.
freedom of expression of members of the Bar may be circumscribed by their ethical duties as lawyers to give due respect to the courts and to As for the claim that the respondents’ noble intention is to spur the Court to take "constructive action" on the plagiarism issue, the Court has
uphold the public’s faith in the legal profession and the justice system. To our mind, the reason that freedom of expression may be so delimited some doubts as to its veracity. For if the Statement was primarily meant for this Court’s consideration, why was the same published and
in the case of lawyers applies with greater force to the academic freedom of law professors. reported in the media first before it was submitted to this Court? It is more plausible that the Statement was prepared for consumption by the
It would do well for the Court to remind respondents that, in view of the broad definition in Cayetano v. Monsod,134 lawyers when they teach general public and designed to capture media attention as part of the effort to generate interest in the most controversial ground in the
law are considered engaged in the practice of law. Unlike professors in other disciplines and more than lawyers who do not teach law, Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration filed in the Vinuya case by Atty. Roque, who is respondents’ colleague on the UP Law faculty.
respondents are bound by their oath to uphold the ethical standards of the legal profession. Thus, their actions as law professors must be In this regard, the Court finds that there was indeed a lack of observance of fidelity and due respect to the Court, particularly when
measured against the same canons of professional responsibility applicable to acts of members of the Bar as the fact of their being law respondents knew fully well that the matter of plagiarism in the Vinuya decision and the merits of the Vinuya decision itself, at the time of the
professors is inextricably entwined with the fact that they are lawyers. Statement’s issuance, were still both sub judice or pending final disposition of the Court. These facts have been widely publicized. On this
point, respondents allege that at the time the Statement was first drafted on July 27, 2010, they did not know of the constitution of the Ethics
Committee and they had issued the Statement under the belief that this Court intended to take no action on the ethics charge against Justice who have signed it, since the Statement’s persuasive authority mainly depends on the reputation and stature of the persons who have
Del Castillo. Still, there was a significant lapse of time from the drafting and printing of the Statement on July 27, 2010 and its publication and endorsed the same. Indeed, it is apparent from respondents’ explanations that their own belief in the "importance" of their positions as UP law
submission to this Court in early August when the Ethics Committee had already been convened. If it is true that the respondents’ outrage was professors prompted them to publicly speak out on the matter of the plagiarism issue in the Vinuya case.
fueled by their perception of indifference on the part of the Court then, when it became known that the Court did intend to take action, there Further, in our assessment, the true cause of Dean Leonen’s predicament is the fact that he did not from the beginning submit the signed
was nothing to prevent respondents from recalibrating the Statement to take this supervening event into account in the interest of fairness. copy, Restoring Integrity I, to this Court on August 11, 2010 and, instead, submitted Restoring Integrity II with its retyped or "reformatted"
Speaking of the publicity this case has generated, we likewise find no merit in the respondents’ reliance on various news reports and signature pages. It would turn out, according to Dean Leonen’s account, that there were errors in the retyping of the signature pages due to
commentaries in the print media and the internet as proof that they are being unfairly "singled out." On the contrary, these same annexes to lapses of his unnamed staff. First, an unnamed administrative officer in the dean’s office gave the dean inaccurate information that led him to
the Common Compliance show that it is not enough for one to criticize the Court to warrant the institution of disciplinary137 or contempt138 allow the inclusion of Justice Mendoza as among the signatories of Restoring Integrity II. Second, an unnamed staff also failed to type the
action. This Court takes into account the nature of the criticism and weighs the possible repercussions of the same on the Judiciary. When the name of Atty. Armovit when encoding the signature pages of Restoring Integrity II when in fact he had signed Restoring Integrity I.
criticism comes from persons outside the profession who may not have a full grasp of legal issues or from individuals whose personal or other The Court can understand why for purposes of posting on a bulletin board or a website a signed document may have to be reformatted and
interests in making the criticism are obvious, the Court may perhaps tolerate or ignore them. However, when law professors are the ones who signatures may be indicated by the notation (SGD). This is not unusual. We are willing to accept that the reformatting of documents meant for
appear to have lost sight of the boundaries of fair commentary and worse, would justify the same as an exercise of civil liberties, this Court posting to eliminate blanks is necessitated by vandalism concerns.
cannot remain silent for such silence would have a grave implication on legal education in our country. However, what is unusual is the submission to a court, especially this Court, of a signed document for the Court’s consideration that did not
With respect to the 35 respondents named in the Common Compliance, considering that this appears to be the first time these respondents contain the actual signatures of its authors. In most cases, it is the original signed document that is transmitted to the Court or at the very least
have been involved in disciplinary proceedings of this sort, the Court is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they were for the most a photocopy of the actual signed document. Dean Leonen has not offered any explanation why he deviated from this practice with his
part well-intentioned in the issuance of the Statement. However, it is established in jurisprudence that where the excessive and contumacious submission to the Court of Restoring Integrity II on August 11, 2010. There was nothing to prevent the dean from submitting Restoring Integrity
language used is plain and undeniable, then good intent can only be mitigating. As this Court expounded in Salcedo: I to this Court even with its blanks and unsigned portions. Dean Leonen cannot claim fears of vandalism with respect to court submissions for
In his defense, Attorney Vicente J. Francisco states that it was not his intention to offend the court or to be recreant to the respect thereto but, court employees are accountable for the care of documents and records that may come into their custody. Yet, Dean Leonen deliberately
unfortunately, there are his phrases which need no further comment. Furthermore, it is a well settled rule in all places where the same chose to submit to this Court the facsimile that did not contain the actual signatures and his silence on the reason therefor is in itself a display
conditions and practice as those in this jurisdiction obtain, that want of intention is no excuse from liability (13 C. J., 45). Neither is the fact that of lack of candor.
the phrases employed are justified by the facts a valid defense: Still, a careful reading of Dean Leonen’s explanations yield the answer. In the course of his explanation of his willingness to accept his
"Where the matter is abusive or insulting, evidence that the language used was justified by the facts is not admissible as a defense. Respect administrative officer’s claim that Justice Mendoza agreed to be indicated as a signatory, Dean Leonen admits in a footnote that other
for the judicial office should always be observed and enforced." (In re Stewart, 118 La., 827; 43 S., 455.) Said lack or want of intention professors had likewise only authorized him to indicate them as signatories and had not in fact signed the Statement. Thus, at around the time
constitutes at most an extenuation of liability in this case, taking into consideration Attorney Vicente J. Francisco's state of mind, according to Restoring Integrity II was printed, posted and submitted to this Court, at least one purported signatory thereto had not actually signed the
him when he prepared said motion. This court is disposed to make such concession. However, in order to avoid a recurrence thereof and to same. Contrary to Dean Leonen’s proposition, that is precisely tantamount to making it appear to this Court that a person or persons
prevent others, by following the bad example, from taking the same course, this court considers it imperative to treat the case of said attorney participated in an act when such person or persons did not.
with the justice it deserves.139 (Emphases supplied.) We are surprised that someone like Dean Leonen, with his reputation for perfection and stringent standards of intellectual honesty, could
Thus, the 35 respondents named in the Common Compliance should, notwithstanding their claim of good faith, be reminded of their lawyerly proffer the explanation that there was no misrepresentation when he allowed at least one person to be indicated as having actually signed the
duty, under Canons 1, 11 and 13, to give due respect to the courts and to refrain from intemperate and offensive language tending to influence Statement when all he had was a verbal communication of an intent to sign. In the case of Justice Mendoza, what he had was only hearsay
the Court on pending matters or to denigrate the courts and the administration of justice. information that the former intended to sign the Statement. If Dean Leonen was truly determined to observe candor and truthfulness in his
With respect to Prof. Vasquez, the Court favorably notes the differences in his Compliance compared to his colleagues. In our view, he was dealings with the Court, we see no reason why he could not have waited until all the professors who indicated their desire to sign the
the only one among the respondents who showed true candor and sincere deference to the Court. He was able to give a straightforward Statement had in fact signed before transmitting the Statement to the Court as a duly signed document. If it was truly impossible to secure
account of how he came to sign the Statement. He was candid enough to state that his agreement to the Statement was in principle and that some signatures, such as that of Justice Mendoza who had to leave for abroad, then Dean Leonen should have just resigned himself to the
the reason plagiarism was a "fair topic of discussion" among the UP Law faculty prior to the promulgation of the October 12, 2010 Decision in signatures that he was able to secure.
A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC was the uncertainty brought about by a division of opinion on whether or not willful or deliberate intent was an element of We cannot imagine what urgent concern there was that he could not wait for actual signatures before submission of the Statement to this
plagiarism. He was likewise willing to acknowledge that he may have been remiss in failing to assess the effect of the language of the Court. As respondents all asserted, they were neither parties to nor counsels in the Vinuya case and the ethics case against Justice Del
Statement and could have used more care. He did all this without having to retract his position on the plagiarism issue, without demands for Castillo. The Statement was neither a pleading with a deadline nor a required submission to the Court; rather, it was a voluntary submission
undeserved reliefs (as will be discussed below) and without baseless insinuations of deprivation of due process or of prejudgment. This is all that Dean Leonen could do at any time.
that this Court expected from respondents, not for them to sacrifice their principles but only that they recognize that they themselves may have In sum, the Court likewise finds Dean Leonen’s Compliance unsatisfactory. However, the Court is willing to ascribe these isolated lapses in
committed some ethical lapse in this affair. We commend Prof. Vaquez for showing that at least one of the respondents can grasp the true judgment of Dean Leonen to his misplaced zeal in pursuit of his objectives. In due consideration of Dean Leonen’s professed good intentions,
import of the Show Cause Resolution involving them. For these reasons, the Court finds Prof. Vasquez’s Compliance satisfactory. the Court deems it sufficient to admonish Dean Leonen for failing to observe full candor and honesty in his dealings with the Court as required
As for Prof. Lynch, in view of his Manifestation that he is a member of the Bar of the State of Minnesota and, therefore, not under the under Canon 10.
disciplinary authority of this Court, he should be excused from these proceedings. However, he should be reminded that while he is engaged Respondents’ requests for a hearing, for production/presentation of evidence bearing on the plagiarism and misrepresentation issues in G.R.
as a professor in a Philippine law school he should strive to be a model of responsible and professional conduct to his students even without No. 162230 and A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, and for access to the records of A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC are unmeritorious.
the threat of sanction from this Court. For even if one is not bound by the Code of Professional Responsibility for members of the Philippine In the Common Compliance, respondents named therein asked for alternative reliefs should the Court find their Compliance unsatisfactory,
Bar, civility and respect among legal professionals of any nationality should be aspired for under universal standards of decency and fairness. that is, that the Show Cause Resolution be set for hearing and for that purpose, they be allowed to require the production or presentation of
The Court’s ruling on Dean Leonen’s Compliance regarding the charge of violation of Canon 10. witnesses and evidence bearing on the plagiarism and misrepresentation issues in the Vinuya case (G.R. No. 162230) and the plagiarism
To recall, the Show Cause Resolution directed Dean Leonen to show cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with for violation of Canon case against Justice Del Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC) and to have access to the records of, and evidence that were presented or may be
10, Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03 and for submitting a "dummy" that was not a true and faithful reproduction of the signed Statement. presented in the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo. The prayer for a hearing and for access to the records of A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC was
In his Compliance, Dean Leonen essentially denies that Restoring Integrity II was not a true and faithful reproduction of the actual signed substantially echoed in Dean Leonen’s separate Compliance. In Prof. Juan-Bautista’s Compliance, she similarly expressed the sentiment that
copy, Restoring Integrity I, because looking at the text or the body, there were no differences between the two. He attempts to downplay the "[i]f the Restoring Integrity Statement can be considered indirect contempt, under Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, such may be
discrepancies in the signature pages of the two versions of the Statement (i.e., Restoring Integrity I and Restoring Integrity II) by claiming punished only after charge and hearing."141 It is this group of respondents’ premise that these reliefs are necessary for them to be accorded full
that it is but expected in "live" public manifestos with dynamic and evolving pages as more and more signatories add their imprimatur thereto. due process.
He likewise stresses that he is not administratively liable because he did not misrepresent the members of the UP Law faculty who "had The Court finds this contention unmeritorious.
agreed with the Restoring Integrity Statement proper and/or who had expressed their desire to be signatories thereto." 140 Firstly, it would appear that the confusion as to the necessity of a hearing in this case springs largely from its characterization as a special civil
To begin with, the Court cannot subscribe to Dean Leonen’s implied view that the signatures in the Statement are not as significant as its action for indirect contempt in the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Sereno (to the October 19, 2010 Show Cause Resolution) and her reliance
contents. Live public manifesto or not, the Statement was formally submitted to this Court at a specific point in time and it should reflect therein on the majority’s purported failure to follow the procedure in Rule 71 of the Rules of Court as her main ground for opposition to the
accurately its signatories at that point. The value of the Statement as a UP Law Faculty Statement lies precisely in the identities of the persons Show Cause Resolution.
However, once and for all, it should be clarified that this is not an indirect contempt proceeding and Rule 71 (which requires a hearing) has no no further than the four corners of the Statement itself, its various versions, news reports/columns (many of which respondents themselves
application to this case. As explicitly ordered in the Show Cause Resolution this case was docketed as an administrative matter. supplied to this Court in their Common Compliance) and internet sources that are already of public knowledge.
The rule that is relevant to this controversy is Rule 139-B, Section 13, on disciplinary proceedings initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court, Considering that what respondents are chiefly required to explain are the language of the Statement and the circumstances surrounding the
to wit: drafting, printing, signing, dissemination, etc., of its various versions, the Court does not see how any witness or evidence in the ethics case of
SEC. 13. Supreme Court Investigators.—In proceedings initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court or in other proceedings when the interest Justice Del Castillo could possibly shed light on these facts. To be sure, these facts are within the knowledge of respondents and if there is
of justice so requires, the Supreme Court may refer the case for investigation to the Solicitor General or to any officer of the Supreme Court or any evidence on these matters the same would be in their possession.
judge of a lower court, in which case the investigation shall proceed in the same manner provided in sections 6 to 11 hereof, save that the We find it significant that in Dean Leonen’s Compliance he narrated how as early as September 2010, i.e., before the Decision of this Court in
review of the report of investigation shall be conducted directly by the Supreme Court. (Emphasis supplied.) the ethics case of Justice Del Castillo on October 12, 2010 and before the October 19, 2010 Show Cause Resolution, retired Supreme Court
From the foregoing provision, it cannot be denied that a formal investigation, through a referral to the specified officers, is merely discretionary, Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, after being shown a copy of the Statement upon his return from abroad, predicted that the Court would take some
not mandatory on the Court. Furthermore, it is only if the Court deems such an investigation necessary that the procedure in Sections 6 to 11 form of action on the Statement. By simply reading a hard copy of the Statement, a reasonable person, even one who "fundamentally agreed"
of Rule 139-A will be followed. with the Statement’s principles, could foresee the possibility of court action on the same on an implicit recognition that the Statement, as
As respondents are fully aware, in general, administrative proceedings do not require a trial type hearing. We have held that: worded, is not a matter this Court should simply let pass. This belies respondents’ claim that it is necessary for them to refer to any record or
The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's evidence in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC in order to divine the bases for the Show Cause Resolution.
side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. What the law prohibits is absolute absence of the If respondents have chosen not to include certain pieces of evidence in their respective compliances or chosen not to make a full defense at
opportunity to be heard, hence, a party cannot feign denial of due process where he had been afforded the opportunity to present his side. A this time, because they were counting on being granted a hearing, that is respondents’ own look-out. Indeed, law professors of their stature
formal or trial type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process, the requirements of which are satisfied where the are supposed to be aware of the above jurisprudential doctrines regarding the non-necessity of a hearing in disciplinary cases. They should
parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy.142 (Emphases supplied.) bear the consequence of the risk they have taken.
In relation to bar discipline cases, we have had the occasion to rule in Pena v. Aparicio143 that: Thus, respondents’ requests for a hearing and for access to the records of, and evidence presented in, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC should be denied
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or a for lack of merit.
suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers. Not being intended to inflict punishment, it is in no sense a A final word
criminal prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public In a democracy, members of the legal community are hardly expected to have monolithic views on any subject, be it a legal, political or social
interest is its primary objective, and the real question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the issue. Even as lawyers passionately and vigorously propound their points of view they are bound by certain rules of conduct for the legal
privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a member of the Bar to account for his profession. This Court is certainly not claiming that it should be shielded from criticism. All the Court demands is the same respect and
actuations as an officer of the Court with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest courtesy that one lawyer owes to another under established ethical standards. All lawyers, whether they are judges, court employees,
administration of justice by purging the profession of members who by their misconduct have proved themselves no longer worthy to be professors or private practitioners, are officers of the Court and have voluntarily taken an oath, as an indispensable qualification for admission
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the office of an attorney. In such posture, there can thus be no occasion to speak of to the Bar, to conduct themselves with good fidelity towards the courts. There is no exemption from this sworn duty for law professors,
a complainant or a prosecutor.144 (Emphases supplied.) regardless of their status in the academic community or the law school to which they belong.
In Query of Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, Former Clerk of Court – Br. 81, Romblon – On the Prohibition from Engaging in the Private Practice WHEREFORE, this administrative matter is decided as follows:
of Law,145 we further observed that: (1) With respect to Prof. Vasquez, after favorably noting his submission, the Court finds his Compliance to be satisfactory.
[I]n several cases, the Court has disciplined lawyers without further inquiry or resort to any formal investigation where the facts on record (2) The Common Compliance of 35 respondents, namely, Attys. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Froilan M. Bacungan, Pacifico A. Agabin, Merlin M.
sufficiently provided the basis for the determination of their administrative liability. Magallona, Salvador T. Carlota, Carmelo V. Sison, Patricia R.P. Salvador Daway, Dante B. Gatmaytan, Theodore O. Te, Florin T. Hilbay, Jay
In Prudential Bank v. Castro, the Court disbarred a lawyer without need of any further investigation after considering his actions based on L. Batongbacal, Evelyn (Leo) D. Battad, Gwen G. De Vera, Solomon F. Lumba, Rommel J. Casis, Jose Gerardo A. Alampay, Miguel R.
records showing his unethical misconduct; the misconduct not only cast dishonor on the image of both the Bench and the Bar, but was also Armovit, Arthur P. Autea, Rosa Maria J. Bautista, Mark R. Bocobo, Dan P. Calica, Tristan A. Catindig, Sandra Marie O. Coronel, Rosario O.
inimical to public interest and welfare. In this regard, the Court took judicial notice of several cases handled by the errant lawyer and his Gallo, Concepcion L. Jardeleza, Antonio G.M. La Viña, Carina C. Laforteza, Jose C. Laureta, Rodolfo Noel S. Quimbo, Antonio M. Santos,
cohorts that revealed their modus operandi in circumventing the payment of the proper judicial fees for the astronomical sums they claimed in Gmeleen Faye B. Tomboc, Nicholas Felix L. Ty, Evalyn G. Ursua, Susan D. Villanueva and Dina D. Lucenario, is found UNSATISFACTORY.
their cases. The Court held that those cases sufficiently provided the basis for the determination of respondents' administrative liability, without These 35 respondent law professors are reminded of their lawyerly duty, under Canons 1, 11 and 13 of the Code of Professional
need for further inquiry into the matter under the principle of res ipsa loquitur. Responsibility, to give due respect to the Court and to refrain from intemperate and offensive language tending to influence the Court on
Also on the basis of this principle, we ruled in Richards v. Asoy, that no evidentiary hearing is required before the respondent may be pending matters or to denigrate the Court and the administration of justice and warned that the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt
disciplined for professional misconduct already established by the facts on record. with more severely.
xxxx (3) The separate Compliance of Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen regarding the charge of violation of Canon 10 is found UNSATISFACTORY. He is
These cases clearly show that the absence of any formal charge against and/or formal investigation of an errant lawyer do not preclude the further ADMONISHED to be more mindful of his duty, as a member of the Bar, an officer of the Court, and a Dean and professor of law, to
Court from immediately exercising its disciplining authority, as long as the errant lawyer or judge has been given the opportunity to be heard. observe full candor and honesty in his dealings with the Court and warned that the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more
As we stated earlier, Atty. Buffe has been afforded the opportunity to be heard on the present matter through her letter-query and severely.
Manifestation filed before this Court.146 (Emphases supplied.) (4) Prof. Lynch, who is not a member of the Philippine bar, is excused from these proceedings. However, he is reminded that while he is
Under the rules and jurisprudence, respondents clearly had no right to a hearing and their reservation of a right they do not have has no effect engaged as a professor in a Philippine law school he should strive to be a model of responsible and professional conduct to his students even
on these proceedings. Neither have they shown in their pleadings any justification for this Court to call for a hearing in this instance. They have without the threat of sanction from this Court.
not specifically stated what relevant evidence, documentary or testimonial, they intend to present in their defense that will necessitate a formal (5) Finally, respondents’ requests for a hearing and for access to the records of A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC are denied for lack of merit.
hearing. SO ORDERED.
Instead, it would appear that they intend to present records, evidence, and witnesses bearing on the plagiarism and misrepresentation issues TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
in the Vinuya case and in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC on the assumption that the findings of this Court which were the bases of the Show Cause Associate Justice
Resolution were made in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, or were related to the conclusions of the Court in the Decision in that case. This is the primary
reason for their request for access to the records and evidence presented in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC.
This assumption on the part of respondents is erroneous. To illustrate, the only incident in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC that is relevant to the case at
bar is the fact that the submission of the actual signed copy of the Statement (or Restoring Integrity I, as Dean Leonen referred to it) happened
there. Apart from that fact, it bears repeating that the proceedings in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo, is a
separate and independent matter from this case.
To find the bases of the statements of the Court in the Show Cause Resolution that the respondents issued a Statement with language that the
Court deems objectionable during the pendency of the Vinuya case and the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo, respondents need to go