FACTS: Respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but because of pending administrative complaints filed against him regarding instances when he called himself “attorney” knowing full well that he was not yet admitted to the Bar, he was not allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.  Oppositor’s evidence sufficiently show that respondent had held himself out as an attorney in the agrarian, civil and criminal cases and he was paid for his “legal services”

He then filed a petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar and to be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.  In a resolution promulgated on November 29, 1983 respondent petition was denied.  Respondent asks for forgiveness, understanding and benevolence and promises that, if given a chance to be a member of the Phil. Bar, he would always be faithful to the lawyer’s oath and conduct himself in an upright manner.

HELD: Whether or not respondent shall be admitted to the Philippine Bar rests to a great extent in the sound discretion of the Court.  An applicant must satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character, fit and proper to practice law.  Sabandal hereby allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.

TAN VS. SABANDAL, 170 SCRA 211, 2/10/89- Admission to the Bar

FACTS: Vicente Raul Almacen’s “Petition to Surrender Lawyer’s Certificate of Title,” filed on Sept. 26, 1967, in protest against what he therein asserts is “a great injustice committed against his client by Supreme Court”.  He indicts SC, in his own phrase, as a tribual “peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity.”  His client’s he continues, who was deeply aggrieved by this Court’s “unjust judgment,” has become one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy.”

He ridicules the members of the Court, saying “that justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only bline, but also deaf and dumb.”  He then vows to argue the cause of his client ”in the people’s forum,” so that “ people may know of the silent injustices committed by this court’ and that “whatever mistakes, wrongs and injustices that were committed must never be repeated.”  He ends his petition with a prayer that:

“………a resolution issue ordering the Clerk of Court to receive the certificate of the undersigned attorney 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 of the noblest profession.”

The genesis of this unfortunate incident was a civil case entitled Yaptichay v. Calero, in which Atty. Almacen was counsel for the defendant.  The trial court rencered judgment agains his client.  On June 15, 1966 atty. Almacen receive acopy of the decision.  Twenty days later on he moved for its reconsideration but did not notify the latter of the time and plce of hearing on said motion.  Meanwhile, onJuly 18, 1966, the plaintiff moved for execution of the judgment.  For lack of proof of service, ‘the trial court denied both motions.  To prove that he did serve on the adverse party a copy of his first motion for reconsideration, atty. Almacen filed on August 17, 1966 a second motion for reconsideration, however, was ordered withdrawn by the trial court on August 30, 1966, upon verbal motion of Atty. Almacen himself, who earlier, that is, on Aug. 22, 1966 had already perfected the appeal.  Motion for reconsideration was denied by Court of Appeals.

HELD: Well-recognized is the right of a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as citizen, to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges.

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 right.  No law may abridge this right.  Nor is he “professionally answerable for a scrutiny into the official conduct of the judges, which would not expose him to legal animadversion as a citizen.  Atty. Almacen is suspended from the practice of law until further orders.

IN RE: ALMACEN  (31 SCRA 562 2/18/70) - Lawyers' Duty

FACTS: The respondent Atty. Luis Tagorda, a member of the provincial board of Isabela, admits that in the last general elections he made use of a card written in Spanish and Ilocano, which in translation, read as follows:

“LUIS B. TAGORDA” Attoney; Notary Public; CANDIDATE FOR BOARD MEMBER, Province of Isabela. (NOTE.- as notaty public, he can execute for a deed of sale for the purchase of land as required by the cadastral office, can renew lost documents of your animals; can make your application and final requisites for your homestead; and can execute any kind of affidavit.  As a lawyer he can help you collect your loans although long overdue, as well as any complaint for or against you.  Come or write to him in his town Echague, Isabela.  He offers free consultation, and is willing to help and serve the poor.)

The respondent further admits that he is the author of a letter addressed to a lieutenant of barrio in his home municipality written in Ilocano, which letter reads as follow:

“ I would like you all to be informed of this matter for the reason that some people are in the belief that my residence as member of the Board will be in Iligan and that I would then be disqualified to exercise my profession as lawyer and as notary public.  Such is not the case and I would make it clear that I am free to exercise my profession as formerly and that I will have my residence here in Echague,  I would request your kind favor to transmit this information to your barrio people in any of your meeting or social gatherings so that they may be informed of my desire to live and to serve with you in my capacity as lawyer and notary public.  If the people in your locality have not as yet contracted the services of other lawyers in connection with the registration of their land titles, I would be willing to handle the work in court and would charge only three pesos for every registration.”

HELD: Application is give to se. 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act NO. 2828, providing “ The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokets, constitutes malpractice, “ and to Canon 27 and 28 of the Code of Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association in 1908 and by the Philippines Bar Association in 1917, to the case of the respondent lawyer.  The law is a profession and not a business.  The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension.

1. Respondent Tagorda is suspended from the practice of law for 1 month.
2. For advertising his services in the Sunday Tribune respondent attorney is reprimanded.

IN RE: LUIS B. TAGORDA 53 PHIL 37 3/23/29

FACTS: On Sept. 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged SImplicio Villanueva with crime of Malicious Mischiedf, before the Justice of the Peace Court of said Municipality.  Said accused was represented by counsel de oficio, but later on replaced by counsel de parte.  The complainant in the same case was representry by City Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City, having entered his appearance as private-prosecutor, having secuting the permission of the the Secretary of Justice.

Counsel for the accused presented a “Motion in inhibit Fiscal Fule from Acting as Private prosecutor in this case, “this time invoking sec. 32, Rule 127, now sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules, which bars certain attorneys from practicing.

ISSUE:  Whether of not Atty. Fule violate sec. 32 of Rule 127 now Sec. 35, Rule 138, revised Rules of Court, which bars certain attorneys from practicing.

RULING: The Court holds that the appearance of Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice, within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules.  Practice is more than isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind.  The word private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are available to the public for compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. It has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been given permission by his immediate supervisor, the Secretary of Justice, to represent the complainant in the case at bar, who is a relative.

PEOPLE V. VILLANUEVA- Disbarment

RAMON GALANG (1971 Bar Examinee) flunked in 1969, 1966-76, 1962-64 Bar exam

FACTS: 1.  Administrative proceeding against Victorio Lanuevo for disbarment.

1. Admitted having brought the five examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang back to the respective examiners for re-evalution or re-checking.
2. The five examiners admitted having re-evaluated or re-checked the notebook to him by the Bar Confidant, stating that he has the authority to do the same and that the examinee concerned failed only in his particular subject and was on the borderline of passing.
3. Ramon galang was able to pass the 1971 bar exam because of Lanuevo’s move but the exam results bears that he failed in 5 subjects namely in (Political, Civil, Mercantile, Criminal & Remedial).
4. Galang on the otherhand, denied of having charged of Slight Physical Injuries on Eufrosino de Vera, a law student of MLQU.

RULING:       

The court disbarred Lanuevo – has no authority to request the examiners to re-evaluate grades of examinees w/o prior authority from Supreme Court.

He does not possess any discretion with respect to the matter of admission of examinees to the bar.  He does not a have any business evaluating the answers of the examinees.

Consequently, Galang was also disbarred Sec. 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Curt of 1964, candidates for admission to the bar must be  of good moral character.  Galang has a pending criminal cases of Physical Injuries, he committed perjury when he declared under oath that he had no pending criminal case this resulted him to revoked his license.

IN RE: VICTORIO LANUEVO(former Bar confidant)- Disbarment