TAJAN VS CUSI the enjoyment of the professional privilege accorded to him

may and ought to be forfeited. The law accords to the

FACTS:
Court of Appeals and the Court of First Instance the power
 The petitioner was accused by respondent judge of to investigate and suspend members of the bar.
preparing false factual averments.  It should be observed that proceedings for the disbarment
 The petitioner was required by the respondent judge to of members of the bar are not in any sense a civil action
explain within 72 hrs why the former should not be where there is a plaintiff and the respondent is a
suspended in the practice of law. defendant. Disciplinary proceedings involve no private
 The petitioner questioned the proceedings contending that interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They
the respondent judge had no jurisdiction over the person of are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public
the petitioner. Welfare.
 Procedure prescribed for the suspension of a lawyer by the
ISSUE: Court of First Instance differs from that observed by the
Supreme Court.—Sections 3 to 6 of Rule 139 are not
 W/N respondent judge had jurisdiction over the petitioner
applicable to the investigation of complaints against
since the case involves disbarment.
attorneys in the Court of Appeals and in Courts of First
RULING: Instance.

YES. Petition without merit.

DOCTRINE:

 Court of First Instance has authority to investigate and

suspend erring attorneys.—An attorney-at-law is an officer
of the court in the administration of justice and as such he
is continually accountable to the Court for the manner in
which he exercises the privilege which has been granted to
him.
 His admission to the practice of law is upon the implied
condition that his continued enjoyment of the right
conferred is dependent upon his remaining a fit and safe
person to exercise it.
 When it appears by acts of misconduct that he has
become unfit to continue with the trust reposed upon him,
his right to continue in the enjoyment of that trust and for
ALCALA VS. DE VERA pecuniary damage to his clients. For this reason, this Court
is not disposed to impose upon him what may be
FACTS:
considered in a lawyer’s career as the extreme penalty of
 The respondent Atty. De Vera was charge with gross disbarment.
negligence and malpractice for not notifying the petitioners  Court authority to impose disbarment should be exercised
over the decision in a civil case wherein the respondent with discretion and caution.—The disbarment of an
was their counsel. attorney is not intended as a punishment, but is rather
 In the civil case filed against the petitioner, the trial court intended to protect the administration of justice by
rendered a judgment rescinding the contract of sale requiring that those who exercise this important function
executed over parcels of land which allegedly did not exist. shall be competent, honorable, and reliable; men in whom
 The petitioners alleged they suffered damages because of courts and clients may repose confidence.
failure to notify them and that they have lost their right to  Failure of lawyer to notify his clients of decision rendered in
appeal. case; Liability of lawyer for negligence.—In failing to inform
his clients of the decision in the civil case handled by him,
ISSUE: the lawyer failed to exercise such skill, care, and diligence
as men of the legal profession commonly possess and
 W/N Atty. De Vera was guilty of gross negligence thus
exercise in such matters of professional employment.
should suffer disbarment.

RULING:

 No. The respondent was guilty of simple negligence.

DOCRINE:

 Disbarment not warranted where although lawyer

negligent, no material or pecuniary damage resulted to
clients.—While there is no finding of malice, deceit, or
deliberate intent to cause damage to his clients, there is,
nonetheless, proof of negligence, inattention, and
carelessness on the part of the lawyer in his failure to give
timely notice of the decision to the clients. Fortunately for
him, his negligence did not result in any material or
CANTIBUHAN VS CRUZ HYDRO RESOURCES VS. PAGALILAUAN
FACTS: FACTS:

 Two of the petitioners were senior law students in UP Law,  Private respondent ban was working as legal assistant for
as part of the law curriculum they are required to render the petitioner.
legal assistance.  Aban was terminated by the petitioner on the ground of
 The said petitioners filed separate appearances as friends failure to perform his duties.
of petitioner Catimbuhan.  Aban filed a complain for illegal dismissal in NLRC.
 Respondent fiscal opposed the appearances and the  Labor arbiter ruled in favor of Aban.
respondent judge disallowed the appearances of  Petitioner contends that Aban was not an employee and
petitioners. he was performing an acts constituting practice of law thus
NLRC has no jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
 W/N petitioners may appear as private prosecutor in this
case.  W/N private respondent Aban was an employee of the
petitioner in this case.
RULING:
RULING:
 YES. Petition is dismissed,
 YES. TRO lifted.
DOCTRINE:

 Employer-employee relationship; Lawyers; A lawyer may

DOCTRINE:
be an employee of a private corporation or even of the
 Non-lawyers, including senior law students, can appear in government.–––A lawyer, like any other professional, may
the municipal trial court as private prosecutors for accused very well be an employee of a private corporation or even
persons under the supervision and control of the fiscal; of the government. It is not unusual for a big corporation to
Permission of the fiscal not necessary for one to enter his hire a staff of lawyers as its in-house counsel, pay them
appearance as private prosecutor. regular salaries, rank them in its table of organization, and
 Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, clearly otherwise treat them like its other officers and employees.
provides that in the municipal court a party may conduct  This Court has consistently ruled that the determination of
his litigation in person with the aid of an agent appointed whether or not there is an employer-emloyee relation
by him for the purpose depends upon four standards: (1) the manner of selection
and engagement of the putative employee; (2) the mode of
 payment of wages; (3) the presence or absence of a power RAMOS VS. RADA
of dismissal; and (4) the presence or absence of a power
FACTS:
to control the putative employee’s conduct. Of the four, the
right-of-control test has been held to be the decisive  Respondent was a court messenger in CFI Cam Norte.
factor.”  He was appointed by the CAvesco Marketing as an
 In case at bar the lawyer is an employee of the petitioner administrator to manage and supervise real properties in
corporation.–––Aban was employed by the petitioner to be Cam Norte.
its Legal Assistant as evidenced by his appointment paper  The complaint against him was filed October 3 and he
(Exhibit “A”). The petitioner paid him a basic salary plus requested permission regarding his private employment
living allowance. Thereafter, Aban was dismissed on his only on October 27.
alleged failure to perform his duties well. (Exhibit “B”).  There was no showing that his duties as court messenger
Aban worked solely for the petitioner and dealt only with was affected by his employment as administrator in private
legal matters involving the said corporation and its company.
employees. He also assisted the Personnel Officer in
processing appointment papers of employees. This latter ISSUE:
duty is not an act of a lawyer in the exercise of his
 W/N a court messenger may engage in private business
profession but rather a duty for the benefit of the
without obtaining permission of court.
corporation.
RULING:

 No. Rada was guilty of technical violation and he was

reprimanded. However, he may apply for permission.
DOTRINE:

 Court messenger engaged in private business

reprimanded for failure to obtain permission of court.—
Rada has violated the civil service rule prohibiting
government employees from engaging directly in a private
business, vocation or profession or being connected with
any commercial, credit, agricultural or industrial
undertaking without a written permission from the head of
the Department. But, indubitably, also, his private business
connection has not resulted in any prejudice to the
Government service. Thus, his violation of the rule—the
lack of prior permission—is a technical one, and he should BELTRAN VS ABAD
be meted no more than the minimum imposable penalty,
FACTS:
which is reprimand.
 Respondent Abad passed the Bar. However, he failed to
take the oath and sign in roll of attorneys.
 Beltran, president of Phil. Trial Lawyers Assoc. charged
the respondent of practicing law without being a member
of the Bar.
 These were the excuse of Abad:
o He [aid bar admission fee, certification fee, and
membership dues.
o A letter of request from the clerk of court of SC
shows that he was on the list of those qualified to
take the oath as member of the bar.
o He alleged that while waiting his turn to take oath,
he was called by the chief justice regarding a
complaint against him by certain Uy (deceased)
thus his taking of oath was suspended.
o IBP of Quezon City included his name of qualified
voter for the election in IBP.
ISSUE:

 W/N the explanation given by the respondent constitutes

membership in the bar thus, taking oath and signing in the
roll of attorneys are not needed.
RULING:

 NO. Act of respondent constitutes contempt of court.

DOCTRINE:

 Successful bar candidates; Practice of Law; Essential

requisites for becoming a lawyer.—Respondent Abad
should know that the circumstances which he has narrated
 do not constitute his admission to the Philippine Bar and DIAO VS MARTINEZ
the right to practise law thereafter. He should know that
FACTS:
two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to
be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered  Diao was admitted to the bar.
by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.  He was charged by Martinez for falsely representing the
(Rule 138, Secs. 17 and 19, Rules of Court.) requisite academic qualifications for Bar exam.
 Contempt; Practicing law without having been previously  The SG submitted a report that Diao had not completed
admitted to the Philippine bar, although already successful the required pre – legal education prescribed by the
bar candidate, constitutes contempt of court; Fine of Department of Private Education:
P500.00 or 25 days imprisonment for failure to pay the o He did not complete HS
fine.—The proven charge against respondent Abad o He never attended Quisimbing College
contempt of court (Rule 71, Sec. 3(e), Rules of Court.) Mr.
 Diao admits but alleged that he passed the General
Elmo S. Abad is hereby fined Five Hundred (P500.00)
Classification Test in US army which is equivalent to HS
pesos payable to this Court within ten (10) days from
diploma.
notice failing which he shall serve twenty-five (25) days
imprisonment. ISSUE:

 W/N Diao should be removed from the roll of attorneys.

RULING:
YES.
DOCTRINE:

 Admission to bar obtained under false pretenses.—

Admission to the Bar obtained under false pretenses must
be revoked.
 Requisites to become attorney-at-law.—Before the study of
law, an applicant for admission must have completed the
prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner.