YSASI III VS.
NLRC
Jon De Ysasi and Jon De Ysasi III are father and sons respectively. The elder CASTANEDA V AGO
Ysasi owns a hacienda in Negros Occidental. De Ysasi III is employed in the
hacienda as the farm administrator. In November 1982, De Ysasi III underwent NATURE
surgery and so he missed work. He was confined and while he’s nursing from
his infections he was terminated, without due process, by his father. De Ysasi III - Petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals
filed against his father for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations
FACTS
Commission. His father invoked that his son actually abandoned his work.
- 1955 – Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit against Ago in the CFI of
ISSUE: Whether or not De Ysasi III abandoned his work.
Manila to recover certain machineries.
HELD: No. His absence from work does not constitute abandonment. To
-1957 – judgment in favor of Castaneda and Henson
constitute abandonment, there must be a.) failure to report for work or absence
without valid or justifiable reason, and b.) a clear intention to sever the - 1961 – SC affirmed the judgment; trial court issued writ of execution; Ago’s
employer-employee relationship, with the second element as the more motion denied, levy was made on Ago’s house and lots; sheriff advertised the
determinative factor and being manifested by some overt acts. No such intent sale, Ago moved to stop the auction; CA dismissed the petition; SC ffirmed
was proven in this case. dismissal
The Supreme Court, in making its decision, noted that the lawyers for both - Ago thrice attempted to obtain writ of preliminary injunction to restrain sheriff
camps failed to exert all reasonable efforts to smooth over legal conflicts, from enforcing the writ of execution; his motions were denied
preferably out of court and especially in consideration of the direct and
immediate consanguineous ties between their clients especially considering that - 1963 – sheriff sold the house and lots to Castaneda and Henson; Ago failed to
the parties involved are father and son. This case may have never reached the redeem
courts had there been an earnest effort by the lawyers to have both parties find
an off court settlement but records show that no such effort was made. The - 1964 – sheriff executed final deed of sale; CFI issued writ of possession to the
useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it properties
whenever possible by advising settlement or withholding suit. He is often called
upon less for dramatic forensic exploits than for wise counsel in every phase of - 1964 – Ago filed a complaint upon the judgment rendered against him in the
life. He should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, replevin suit saying it was his personal obligation and that his wife ½ share in
rather than a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation. their conjugal house could not legally be reached by the levy made; CFI of QC
issued writ of preliminary injunction restraining Castaneda the Registed of
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility explicitly provides that “(a) Deeds and the sheriff from registering the final deed of sale; the battle on the
lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settle the controversy if it will matter of lifting and restoring the restraining order continued
admit of a fair settlement.” Both counsel fell short of what was expected of
them, despite their avowed duties as officers of the court. In the same manner, - 1966 – Agos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin sheriff from
the labor arbiter who handled this regrettable case has been less than faithful to enforcing writ of possession; SC dismissed it; Agos filed a similar petition with
the letter and spirit of the Labor Code mandating that a labor arbiter “shall exert the CA which also dismissed the
all efforts towards the amicable settlement of a labor dispute within his
petition; Agos appealed to SC which dismissed the petition
jurisdiction.” If he ever did so, or at least entertained the thought, the copious
records of the proceedings in this controversy are barren of any reflection of the - Agos filed another petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA which
same. gave due course to the petition and granted preliminary injunction.
ISSUE
WON the Agos’ lawyer, encourage his clients to avoid controversy
HELD
- No. Despite the pendency in the trial court of the complaint for the annulment
of the sheriff’s sale, justice demands that the petitioners, long denied the fruits of
their victory in the replevin suit, must now enjoy them, for, the respondents
Agos abetted by their lawyer Atty. Luison, have misused legal remedies and
prostituted the judicial process to thwart the satisfaction of the judgment, to the
extended prejudice of the petitioners.
- Forgetting his sacred mission as a sworn public servant and his exalted position
as an officer of the court, Atty. Luison has allowed himself to become an
instigator of controversy and a predator of conflict instead of a mediator for
concord and a conciliator for compromise, a virtuoso of technicality in the
conduct of litigation instead of a true exponent of the primacy of truth and moral
justice.
- A counsel’s assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his client’s
cause must be encouraged and is to be commended; what the SC does not and
cannot countenance is a lawyer’s insistence despite the patent futility of his
client’s position.
It is the duty of the counsel to advice his client on the merit or lack of his case. If
he finds his client’s cause as defenseless, then he is his duty to advice the latter
to acquiesce and submit rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must
resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his client’s propensity to
litigate.
JONAR SANTIAGO, complainant, vs. ATTY. EDISON V. RAFANAN, RATIO DECIDENDI:
respondent
On Issue No. 1
NOTE: I can’t pinpoint where Rule 2.02 plays in so this digest will be a bit long
since I’ll tackle them all. But I do have guesses about Rule 2.02 here. I hope they The Notarial Law is explicit on the obligations and duties of notaries public.
are correct And these formalities are mandatory and cannot be simply neglected.
They are required to certify that the party to every document acknowledged
before them has presented the proper residence certificate (or exemption from
NOTE 2: I don’t know the precedent facts before all of these happened. In case the residence tax); and to enter its number, place of issue and the date as part of
they will be asked, just say the truth - they’re not mentioned in the case Basta such certification.
na lang nagreklamo si Santiago dito.
They are also required to keep a notarial register; to enter therein all instruments
notarized by them; etc.
FACTS: As to Rafanan’s defense that it’s a common practice in Nueva Ecija, SC says: It
is appalling and inexcusable that he did away with the basics of notarial
This is a disbarment case filed by BJMP employee Jonar Santiago against Atty. procedure allegedly because others were doing so. Being swayed by the bad
Edison Rafanan. example of others is not an acceptable justification for breaking the law.
Santiago, in his complaint, alleged among others that Rafanan, in notarizing
several documents on different dates failed and/or refused to:
On Issue No. 2
Make the proper notation regarding the cedula or community tax certificate of
the affiants (*one making the affidavit); A lawyer is not disqualified from being a witness, except only in certain cases
pertaining to privileged communication arising from an attorney-client
Enter the details of the notarized documents in the notarial register; relationship.
Make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the Reason: The difficulty posed upon lawyers by the task of dissociating their
documents he notarized relationship to their clients as witnesses from that as an advocate (Note: A
witness must only say what happened. Only the truth. As compared with the task
Santiago also alleged that Rafanan executed an Affidavit in favor of his client of a lawyer who will use all the available remedies and actions in his arsenal for
and offered it as evidence (Rafanan stood as counsel and as witness of his client) his client to win the case.)
and Rafanan, as alleged by Santiago, waited for him together with his “men” and
disarmed Santiago and uttered insulting words at him. It is difficult to distinguish the fairness and impartiality of a disinterested witness
from the zeal of an advocate.
ATTY. RAFANAN’S CONTENTIONS:
The preference is for lawyers to REFRAIN from testifying as witnesses, unless
Admitted having administered the oath to the affiants whose Affidavits were they absolutely have to; and should they do so, to withdraw from active
attached to the Complaint of Santiago. But Rafanan believed that the non- management of the case.
notation of their Residence Certificates in the Affidavits and Counter-Affidavits
were allowed because: In the case at bar:
Notation of residence certificates applied only to documents acknowledged by a Atty. Rafanan cannot be administratively liable because:
notary public, and
It’s a duty of the lawyer to assert every remedy and defense that is authorized by
Was not mandatory for affidavits related to cases pending before courts and law for the benefit of the client. (Remember, there is a criminal case of
other government offices (Side comment: If they were not notarized and were attempted murder against his client which will deprive his client of his life and
used for court proceedings, edi hindi sila naging public documents? Paano sila liberty, if they fail to display a good defense.)
magiging admissible sa court? Tenge lang yata si Rafanan)
He also pointed out that older practitioners in Nueva Ecija also do what he did –
they do not indicate affiants’ residence certificates on documents they notarized, On the Side Issues:
or have entries in the notarial register for these documents.
There is no harassment of the part of Rafanan against Santiago because there
As to his alleged failure to comply with Sec.3 Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal were no pieces of evidence presented.
Procedure: as counsel to the affiants, he had the option not comply or not with
the certification. Mere allegation is never equivalent to proof, and a bare charge cannot be
equated with liability.
As to his alleged violation of Rule 12.08 of CPR: lawyers could testify on behalf
of their clients “on substantial matters, in cases where [their] testimony is
essential to the ends of justice.”
RULING: Atty. Rafanan is GUILTY of violating the Notarial Law and Canon 5
Santiago charged Rafanan’s clients with attempted murder. Rafanan said that of the CPR. He is fined P3,000.00 with a warning that similar infractions will be
since his clients were in his house during the alleged crime, that’s why he said dealt more severely.
his testimony is very essential.
He also contends that the case filed by Santiago was only to harass Rafanan
since he is the counsel of the parties who filed cases against him before the
ombudsman (Brgy. Capt. Ernesto Ramos and BJMP)
ISSUES:
Whether or not Rafanan is guilty in violating the Notarial Law.
Whether or not a lawyer (in this case, Rafanan) can stand as witness in favor of
his clients.
HELDS:
Yes, he violated the Notarial Law for not making the proper notation and
entering the details of the notarized documents.
Yes, a lawyer can stand as witness of a client.
Khan v Simbillo ULEP VS. LEGAL CLINIC
Facts: In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to
Nogales was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the
Resp Atty. Rizalino Simbillo advertised in the PDI and MB his legal services for services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal
annulment cases Clinic because of the latter’s advertisements which contain the following:
SECRET MARRIAGE?
Upon investigation by the Pub Info Office, it was confirmed that Simbillo is
offering his services to interested clients. P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Ismael Khan, chief of the PIO, filed an administrative charge vs resp for Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services in violation of the
Code of Professional Responsibility THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Resp argues that advertising or solicitation is not per se a prohibited act: Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
8:30am – 6:00pm
Public interest is not served by the absolute prohibition
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
It’s time for the Court to promulgate a ruling that such advertisement is not
contrary to law, public policy and public order. GUAM DIVORCE
The IBP found the resp guilty and suspended him from the practice of law for 1 DON PARKINSON
year, writing it in a resolution
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic
Issues: beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota
W/N resp’s act was a violation of the Code of Professional
Res. & Special Retiree’s Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees.
Responsibility Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.
Ruling: Call Marivic.
Yes. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code states that a lawyer is prohibited from 7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy
performing acts designed to solicit legal business and that he is not permitted to
use self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767
legal services. It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled “Rx for Legal Problems”
in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is
Practice of Law is not a business. It is a profession with public interest as the composed of specialists that can take care of a client’s problem no matter how complicated
primary duty. It’s not a money-making venture and law advocacy is not a capital it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said
that necessarily yields profits. The duty is to public service and the that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are “specialists” in various fields, can
administration of justice. Elements that distinguish it from business: take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-
legal problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up by a battery
A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which of paralegals, counselors and attorneys.
one may attain the highest eminence without making much money;
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in
the US which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the
A relation as an “officer of the court” to the administration of justice involving
advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic
thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability; offers.
A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary; ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law;
whether such is allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and
unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such
encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients. practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The
services it offered include various legal problems wherein a client may avail of
The solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for
legal services from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate
solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal
undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond the domain of
profession. If it is made in a modest and decorous manner, it would bring no
paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice
injury to the lawyer and to the bar
of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being offered by
Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals.
Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and
regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal
services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or
statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer’s
advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his
profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant
advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to
promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions
of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The
best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome
of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the
community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention. That
publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. A
good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to
magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product
of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court
also enumerated the following as allowed forms of advertisement:
Advertisement in a reputable law list
Use of ordinary simple professional card
Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization
IN RE TAGORDA JULIETA BORROMEO SAMONTE, complainant, vs. ATTY.
ROLANDO R. GATDULA, Branch Clerk of Court, respondent.
In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a provincial board member of Isabela. Before his
election, he campaigned that he is a lawyer and a notary public; that as a notary Facts: Julieta Borromeo Samonte filed a complaint against Rolando R. Gatdula,
public he can do notarial acts such as execution of deeds of sale, etc.; that as a RTC, Branch 220, Quezon City charging him with grave misconduct consisting
lawyer, he can help clients collect debts; that he offers free consultation; that he in the alleged engaging in the private practice of law which is in conflict with his
is willing to serve the poor. official functions as Branch Clerk of Court. Complainant alleges that she is the
authorized representative of her sister Flor Borromeo de Leon, the plaintiff in a
When he won, he wrote a letter to the barrio lieutenant of Echague, Isable Civil Case filed with the MTC of QC, Branch 37. A typographical error was
advising the latter that even though he was elected as a provincial board committed in the complaint which stated that the address of defendant is No. 63-
member, he can still practice law; that he wants the lieutenant to tell the same to C instead of 63-B, P. Tuazon Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City. The mistake was
his people; that he is willing to receive works regarding preparations of sales rectified by the filing of an amended complaint which was admitted by the
contracts and affidavits etc.; that he is willing to receive land registration cases Court. A decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiff who subsequently filed a
for a charge of three pesos. motion for execution. Complainant however, was surprised to receive a
temporary restraining order signed by Judge Prudencio Castillo of Branch 220,
ISSUE: Whether or not Tagorda is guilty of malpractice. RTC, Quezon City, where Atty. Rolando Gatdula is the Branch Clerk of Court,
enjoining the execution of the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court.
HELD: Yes. Tagorda admitted doing the foregoing acts. The practice of
Complainant alleges that the issuance of the temporary restraining order was
soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid
hasty and irregular as she was never notified of the application for preliminary
agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
injunction. Complainant further alleges that when she went to Branch 220, RTC,
The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, Quezon City, to inquire about the reason for the issuance of the temporary
and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well- merited restraining order, respondent Atty. Rolando Gatdula, blamed her lawyer for
reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, writing the wrong address in the complaint for ejectment and told her that if she
but must be the outcome of character and conduct. Solicitation of business by wanted the execution to proceed, she should change her lawyer and retain the
circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interviews not law office of respondent at the same time giving his calling card. To her
warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional to consternation, the RTC Branch 220 issued an order granting the preliminary
procure business by indirection through touters of any kind, whether allied real injunction as threatened by respondent despite the fact that the MTC, Branch 37
estate firms or trust companies advertising to secure the drawing of deeds or had issued an Order directing the execution of the MTCâs Decision.
wills or offering retainers in exchange for executorships or trusteeships to be Respondents version is that sometime before the hearing of the motion for the
influenced by the lawyer. Indirect advertisement for business by furnishing or issuance of a temporary restraining order, complainant Samonte went to court
inspiring newspaper comments concerning the manner of their conduct, the "very mad" because of the issuance of the order stopping the execution of the
magnitude of the interests involved, the importance of the lawyer’s position, and decision in the ejectment case. Respondent tried to calm her down, and assured
all other like self-laudation, defy the traditions and lower the tone of our high her that the restraining order was only temporary and that the application for
calling, and are intolerable. preliminary injunction would still be heard. Later the Regional Trial Court
granted the application for a writ of preliminary injunction. The complainant
It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in went back to court "fuming mad" because of the alleged unreasonableness of the
rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust make it his duty to do so. court in issuing the injunction. Respondent Gatdula claims that thereafter
complainant returned to his office, and informed him that she wanted to change
Tagorda’s liability is however mitigated by the fact that he is a young counsel and that a friend of hers recommended the Law Firm of "Baligod,
inexperienced lawyer and that he was unaware of the impropriety of his acts. So Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig and Celera," at the same time showing a calling
instead of being disbarred, he was suspended from the practice of law for a card, and asking if he could handle her case. Respondent refused as he was not
month. connected with the law firm, although he was invited to join but he chose to
remain in the judiciary. Complainant returned to court a few days later and told
him that if he cannot convince the judge to recall the writ of preliminary
injunction, she will file an administrative case against respondent and the judge.
Dacanay vs. Baker & McKenzie [A.C. No. 2131 May 10, 1985]
Complainant and her counsel failed to appear at the hearing for the
16AUG administrative matter.
Ponente: AQUINO, J. Issue: Whether or not Respondent Atty. Gatdula was guilty of conflict in legal
practice
FACTS:
Held: YES. While respondent denied having assumed any position in said law
[R]espondent Vicente A. Torres, using the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie, firm, the fact remains that his name is included therein which may therefore tend
which contains the names of the ten lawyers, asked a certain Rosie Clurman for to show that he has dealings with said office. Thus, while he may not be actually
the release of 87 shares of Cathay Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a and directly employed with the firm, the fact that his name appears on the calling
client. Attorney Dacanay, in his reply dated December 7, 1979, denied any card as a partner in the Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon, Dimailig & Celera Law
liability of Clurman to Gabriel. He requested that he be informed whether the Offices give the impression that he is connected therein and may constitute an
lawyer of Gabriel is Baker & McKenzie “and if not, what is your purpose in act of solicitation and private practice which is declared unlawful under
using the letterhead of another law office.” Not having received any reply, he Republic Act No. 6713, otherwise known as "Code of Conduct and Ethical
filed the instant complaint. As admitted by the respondents in their Standards for Public Officials and Employees" which declares it unlawful for a
memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in public official or employee to, among others: "(2) Engage in the private practice
1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities around the of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that
world. Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine bar, practicing such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with official functions." Time
under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker and again this Court has said that the conduct and behavior of everyone
& McKenzie. connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the
presiding judge to the lowliest clerk should be circumscribed with the heavy
ISSUE: burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times must not only be characterized
by propriety and decorum but above all else must be above suspicion
Whether or not Baker & McKenzie, an alien law firm, could practice law in the
Philippines.
HELD:
NO. Respondents were enjoined from practicing law under the firm name Baker
& McKenzie.
RATIO:
Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the
Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court).
[R]espondents’ use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constituted a
representation that being associated with the firm they could “render legal
services of the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others
engaged in foreign trade and investment”. This was unethical because Baker &
McKenzie was not authorized to practice law here.
