G.R. No.

L-51813-14 November 29, 1983 Hence, this petition for certiorari, mandamus and
prohibition with prayers, among others, that the Orders of
ROMULO CANTIMBUHAN, NELSON B. MALANA, and respondent judge, dated August 16, 1979 and
ROBERT V. LUCILA, petitioners, September 4, 1979, be set aside as they are in plain
violation of Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
vs.
HON. NICANOR J. CRUZ, JR., Presiding Judge of the and/or were issued with grave abuse of discretion
Municipal Court of Paraaque, Metro Manila, and amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Upon motion, the Court,
on November 8, 1979, issued a temporary restraining
FISCAL LEODEGARIO C. QUILATAN, respondents.
order "enjoining respondent judge and all persons acting
for and in his behalf from conducting any proceedings in
Froilan M. Bacungan and Alfredo F. Tadiar for Criminal Cases Nos. 58549 (People of the Philippines vs.
petitioners. Danilo San Antonio) and 58559 (People of the
Philippines vs. Rodolfo Diaz) of the Municipal Court of
The Solicitor General for respondents. Paraaque, Metro Manila on November 15, 1979 as
scheduled or on any such dates as may be fixed by said
respondent judge.

Basis of this petition is Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules

RELOVA, J.:+.wph!1 of Court which states: t.hqw

Appeal from the Order, dated August 16, 1979, of SEC. 34. By whom litigation
respondent Judge Nicanor J. Cruz, Jr., of the then conducted. In the court of a justice
Municipal Court of Paraaque, Metro Manila, disallowing of the peace a party may conduct his
the appearances of petitioners Nelson B. Malana and litigation in person, with the aid of an
Robert V. Lucila as private prosecutors in Criminal Cases agent or friend appointed by him for
Nos. 58549 and 58550, both for less serious physical that purpose, or with the aid of an
injuries, filed against Pat. Danilo San Antonio and Pat. attorney. In any other court, a party
Rodolfo Diaz, respectively, as well as the Order, dated may conduct his litigation personally
September 4, 1979, denying the motion for or by aid of an attorney, and his
reconsideration holding, among others, that "the fiscal's appearance must be either personal
claim that appearances of friends of party-litigants should or by a duly authorized member of the
be allowed only in places where there is a scarcity of bar.
legal practitioner, to be well founded. For, if we are to
allow non-members of the bar to appear in court and
prosecute cases or defend litigants in the guise of being Thus, a non-member of the Philippine Bar a party to
friends of the litigants, then the requirement of an action is authorized to appear in court and conduct his
membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and own case; and, in the inferior courts, the litigant may be
the additional requirement of paying professional taxes aided by a friend or agent or by an attorney. However, in
for a lawyer to appear in court, would be put to naught. " the Courts of First Instance, now Regional Trial Courts,
(p. 25, Rollo) he can be aided only by an attorney.

Records show that on April 6, 1979, petitioner Romulo On the other hand, it is the submission of the
Cantimbuhan filed separate criminal complaints against respondents that pursuant to Sections 4 and 15, Rule
Patrolmen Danilo San Antonio and Rodolfo Diaz for less 110 of the Rules of Court, it is the fiscal who is
serious physical injuries, respectively, and were docketed empowered to determine who shall be the private
as Criminal Cases Nos. 58549 and 58550 in the then prosecutor as was done by respondent fiscal when he
Municipal Court of Paraaque, Metro Manila. objected to the appearances of petitioners Malana and
Lucila. Sections 4 and 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court
provide: t.hqw
Petitioners Nelson B. Malana and Robert V. Lucila, in
1979, were senior law students of the U.P.assistance to
the needy clients in the Office of the Legal Aid. Thus, in SEC. 4. Who must prosecute criminal
August 1979, petitioners Malana and Lucila filed their actions. All criminal actions either
separate appearances, as friends of complainant- commenced by complaint or by
petitioner Cantimbuhan. Herein respondent Fiscal information shall be prosecuted under
Leodegario C. Quilatan opposed the appearances of said the direction and control of the fiscal.
petitioners, and respondent judge, in an Order dated
August 16, 1979, sustained the respondent fiscal and xxx xxx xxx
disallowed the appearances of petitioners Malana and
Lucila, as private prosecutors in said criminal cases.
Likewise, on September 4, 1979, respondent Judge SEC. 15. Intervention of the offended
party in criminal action. Unless the
issued an order denying petitioners' motion for
offended party has waived the civil
reconsideration.
action or expressly reserved the right
to institute it separately from the
criminal action, and subject to the
 provisions of section 4 hereof, he may Fernando, C.J., Makasiar, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero,
intervene, personally or by attorney, Abad Santos, Plana, Escolin and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ.,
in the prosecution of the offense. concur.

And, they contend that the exercise by the offended party

to intervene is subject to the direction and control of the
fiscal and that his appearance, no less than his active
conduct of the case later on, requires the prior approval
of the fiscal.
Separate Opinions
W e find merit in the petition. Section 34, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court, clearly provides that in the municipal
court a party may conduct his litigation in person with the
aid of an agent appointed by him for the purpose. Thus, AQUINO, J., dissenting:
in the case of Laput vs. Bernabe, 55 Phil. 621, a law
student was allowed to represent the accused in a case
pending before the then Municipal Court, the City Court Senior law students should study their lessons anti
of Manila, who was charged for damages to property prepare for the bar. They have no business appearing in
through reckless imprudence. "It is accordingly our view court.
that error was committed in the municipal court in not
allowing Crispiniano V. Laput to act as an agent or friend MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., dissenting:
of Catalino Salas to aid the latter in conducting his
defense." The permission of the fiscal is not necessary
for one to enter his appearance as private prosecutor. In Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court specifically
the first place, the law does not impose this condition. provides that it is "a party" who may conduct his litigation
What the fiscal can do, if he wants to handle the case in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by
personally is to disallow the private prosecutor's him for that purpose in the Court of a Justice of the
participation, whether he be a lawyer or not, in the trial of Peace. Romulo Cantimbuhan, as the complaining
the case. On the other hand, if the fiscal desires the witness in Criminal Cases Nos. 58549 and 58550 of the
active participation of the private prosecutor, he can just then Municipal Court of Paraaque, Metro Manila, is not
manifest to the court that the private prosecutor, with its a "party" within the meaning of the said Rule. The parties
approval, will conduct the prosecution of the case under in a criminal case are the accused and the People. A
his supervision and control. Further, W e may add that if a complaining witness or an offended party only intervene
non-lawyer can appear as defense counsel or as friend in a criminal action in respect of the civil liability. The
of the accused in a case before the municipal trial court, case of Laput and Salas vs. Bernabe, 55 Phil. 621, is
with more reason should he be allowed to appear as authority only in respect of the accused, as a "party", in a
private prosecutor under the supervision and control of criminal case.
the trial fiscal.
Sections 4 and 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, being
In the two criminal cases filed before the Municipal Court the more specific provisions in respect of criminal cases,
of Paraaque, petitioner Cantimbuhan, as the offended should take precedence over Section 34, Rule 138 and
party, did not expressly waive the civil action nor reserve should be controlling (Bagatsing vs. Hon. Ramirez, 74
his right to institute it separately and, therefore, the civil SCRA 306 [1976]). Section 4 provides that all criminal
action is deemed impliedly instituted in said criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the direction and
cases. Thus, said complainant Romulo Cantimbuhan has control of the Fiscal, while Section 15 specifically
personal interest in the success of the civil action and, in provides that the offended party may intervene,
the prosecution of the same, he cannot be deprived of personally or by attorney, in the prosecution of the
his right to be assisted by a friend who is not a lawyer. offense.

WHEREFORE, the Orders issued by respondent judge I vote, therefore, to uphold the Order of respondent
dated August 16, 1979 and September 4, 1979 which Municipal Judge, dated August 16, 1979, disallowing the
disallowed the appearances of petitioners Nelson B. appearances of petitioners as private prosecutors in the
Malana and Robert V. Lucila as friends of party-litigant abovementioned criminal cases. Orders set aside.
petitioner Romulo Cantimbuhan. are hereby SET ASIDE
and respondent judge is hereby ordered to ALLOW the Fernando, C.J., Makasiar, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero,
appearance and intervention of petitioners Malana and Abad Santos, Plana, Escolin and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ.,
Lucila as friends of Romulo Cantimbuhan. Accordingly, concur.
the temporary restraining order issued on November 8,
1979 is LIFTED.

SO ORDERED.1wph1.t

Separate Opinions
 witness in Criminal Cases Nos. 58549 and 58550 of the
then Municipal Court of Paraaque, Metro Manila, is not
a "party" within the meaning of the said Rule. The parties
AQUINO, J., dissenting:
in a criminal case are the accused and the People. A
complaining witness or an offended party only intervene
Senior law students should study their lessons anti in a criminal action in respect of the civil liability. The
prepare for the bar. They have no business appearing in case of Laput and Salas vs. Bernabe, 55 Phil. 621, is
court. authority only in respect of the accused, as a "party", in a
criminal case.
MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., dissenting:
Sections 4 and 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, being
Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court specifically the more specific provisions in respect of criminal cases,
provides that it is "a party" who may conduct his litigation should take precedence over Section 34, Rule 138 and
in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by should be controlling (Bagatsing vs. Hon. Ramirez, 74
him for that purpose in the Court of a Justice of the SCRA 306 [1976]). Section 4 provides that all criminal
Peace. Romulo Cantimbuhan, as the complaining actions shall be prosecuted under the direction and
witness in Criminal Cases Nos. 58549 and 58550 of the control of the Fiscal, while Section 15 specifically
then Municipal Court of Paraaque, Metro Manila, is not provides that the offended party may intervene,
a "party" within the meaning of the said Rule. The parties personally or by attorney, in the prosecution of the
in a criminal case are the accused and the People. A offense.
complaining witness or an offended party only intervene
in a criminal action in respect of the civil liability. The I vote, therefore, to uphold the Order of respondent
case of Laput and Salas vs. Bernabe, 55 Phil. 621, is Municipal Judge, dated August 16, 1979, disallowing the
authority only in respect of the accused, as a "party", in a appearances of petitioners as private prosecutors in the
criminal case. abovementioned criminal cases.

Sections 4 and 15, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, being De Castro, Teehankee, JJ., concurs with the dissent of
the more specific provisions in respect of criminal cases, Assoc. Justice Herrera.
should take precedence over Section 34, Rule 138 and
should be controlling (Bagatsing vs. Hon. Ramirez, 74
SCRA 306 [1976]). Section 4 provides that all criminal
actions shall be prosecuted under the direction and
control of the Fiscal, while Section 15 specifically
provides that the offended party may intervene,
personally or by attorney, in the prosecution of the
offense.

I vote, therefore, to uphold the Order of respondent

Municipal Judge, dated August 16, 1979, disallowing the
appearances of petitioners as private prosecutors in the
abovementioned criminal cases. Orders set aside.

De Castro, Teehankee, JJ., concur

Separate Opinions

AQUINO, J., dissenting:

Senior law students should study their lessons anti

prepare for the bar. They have no business appearing in
court.

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., dissenting:

Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court specifically

provides that it is "a party" who may conduct his litigation
in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by
him for that purpose in the Court of a Justice of the
Peace. Romulo Cantimbuhan, as the complaining
FERDI NAND A. G.R. No. 154207
CRUZ, O n S ep t e m b er 25, 2000, F er d in a n d A. Cru z
P et it i on er ,
( p et it i on er ) f i l ed b e f or e the MeTC a f or m a l
P r es en t :
E n t r y o f Ap p ea r a n c e, a s p r i va t e p r os e cu t or , in
- versus - YNARES- C r im in a l C a s e N o. 0 0 -1 7 0 5 f or G r a v e T h r ea t s ,
SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, w h er e h is fa t h er , M a r ia n o C r u z, is the
AUSTRI A-
M ARTINEZ, c om p la in in g w it n es s .
CALLEJO, SR.,
ALBERTO M I NA, CHICO-
NAZARIO, and
HON. NACHURA, JJ. T h e p et it i on er , d es cr ib in g h i m s e l f a s a t h ir d y ea r
ELEUTERI O F
GUERRERO and la w s t u d en t , ju s t i f ies h is a p p ea r a n c e a s p r i v a t e
HON.
p r os ecu t or on t h e b a s es o f S e ct i on 3 4 o f R u l e
ZENAI DA P r om u l ga t ed :
L AG UI LL E S, 1 3 8 of t h e R u l es o f C ou r t a n d t h e r u l in g o f t h e
R es p on d en t s . Apr il 27, 2007
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C ou r t E n B a n c in C a n t i m b u h a n v . Judge Cruz,
- - - - - - - - - - x
J r . [ 2 ] t h a t a n on - la w yer m a y a p p ea r b e f or e t h e

in f er i or cou r t s a s a n a g en t or fr i en d o f a p a r t y
D E C I S I O N
l it i ga n t . T h e p et it i on er fu r t h er m or e a v er s t h a t

h is a p p ea r a n c e w a s w it h t h e p r i or c on f or m it y o f
AUSTRI A-M ARTIN EZ, J.: t h e p u b l i c p r os e cu t or a n d a w r it t en a u t h or it y o f

M a r ia n o C r u z a p p o in t in g h i m t o b e h is a g en t in
B e for e the C ou r t is a P et it i on t h e p r os e cu t i on o f t h e s a id cr i m in a l ca s e.
f or C e r t i o r a r i u n d er R u l e 6 5 of t h e R u l es o f

C ou r t , gr ou n d ed on p u r e qu es t ion s o f la w , w it h H ow e v e r , in a n O r d er d a t ed F eb r u a r y 1 , 2 0 0 2 ,
P r a yer for P r e l i m in a r y In ju n ct i on a s s a i l in g t h e t h e M e T C d en ied p er m is s i on f or p et it i on er to
R es o lu t i on d a t ed M a y 3 , 2 0 0 2 p r o m u l ga t ed b y a p p ea r a s p r i v a t e p r os e cu t or on t h e gr ou n d t h a t
t h e R e g i on a l T r ia l C ou r t ( R T C ) , B r a n ch 1 1 6 , C ir cu la r N o. 1 9 g o v er n in g l i m it ed la w s t u d en t
P a s a y C it y, in C i v i l C a s e N o. 0 2 -0 1 3 7 , w h i ch p r a ct ic e in c on ju n ct i on w it h R u l e 1 3 8 - A o f t h e
d en i ed t h e is s u a n c e o f a w r it o f p r e l im in a r y R u l es o f C ou r t ( L a w S t u d en t P r a ct i c e R u l e)
in ju n ct ion a ga in s t t h e M et r op o l it a n T r ia l C ou r t s h ou ld t a k e p r e c ed en c e o v er t h e r u l in g of t h e
( M e T C ) , B r a n ch 4 5 , P a s a y C it y, in C r i m in a l C ou r t la id d o w n in C a n t i m b u h a n ; a n d s et t h e
[ 1]
C a s e N o. 0 0 -1 7 0 5 ; a n d t h e R T C s O r d er d a t ed ca s e for c on t in u a t i on o f t r ia l. [ 3 ]
Ju n e 5, 2002 d en y in g the M ot i on f or
O n F eb r u a r y 1 3 , 2 0 0 2 , p et it i on er f i l ed
R e con s id er a t i on . N o w r it of p r e l im in a r y
b e f or e t h e M e T C a M ot i on f or R e c on s id er a t i on
in ju n ct ion w a s is s u ed b y t h is C ou r t .
s e ek in g t o r e v er s e t h e F eb r u a r y 1 , 2 0 0 2 O r d er

a l l e g in g t h a t R u l e 1 3 8 - A , or t h e L a w S t u d en t
T h e a n t e c ed en t s :
P r a ct ic e R u l e, d oes n ot ha ve the e f f e ct of

s u p er s ed in g S e ct i on 3 4 o f R u l e 1 3 8 , f or t h e
a u t h or it y t o in t er p r et t h e r u l e is t h e s ou r c e it s e l f o f a p a r t y l it i ga n t , e v e n w it h ou t t h e s u p er v i s i on

o f t h e r u l e, w h i ch is t h e S u p r e m e C ou r t a l on e. o f a m e m b er o f t h e b a r .

In an O r d er d a t ed M a r ch 4, 2002, P en d in g t h e r es o lu t i on o f t h e f or eg o in g M ot i on

t h e M e T C d en ied the M ot i on f or f or R e c on s id er a t i on b e f or e the RTC, the

R e con s id er a t i on . p et it i on er f i l ed a S e c on d M ot i on f or

O n Ap r i l 2 , 2 0 0 2 , t h e p et it i on er f i l ed b e f or e t h e R e con s id er a t i on d a t ed Ju n e 7, 2002 w it h

RTC a P et it i on t h e M e T C s e ek in g t h e r e v er s a l o f t h e M a r ch 4 ,

f or C e r t i o r a r i a n d M a n d a m u s w it h P r a y er f or 2 0 0 2 D en ia l O r d er o f t h e s a id cou r t , on t h e

P r e l im in a r y In ju n ct i on and T em p or a r y s t r en gt h o f B a r M a t t er N o. 7 3 0 , a n d a M ot i on t o

R es t r a in in g O r d er a ga in s t t h e p r i va t e r es p on d en t H o ld In A b eya n c e t h e T r ia l d a t ed Ju n e 1 0 , 2 0 0 2

a n d t h e p u b l i c r es p on d en t M eT C . of C r i m in a l Case N o. 0 0 -1 7 0 5 p en d in g the

ou t c om e o f t h e ce r t i o r a r i p r o ce ed in gs b e f or e t h e

A f t er h ea r in g t h e p r a y er f or p r e l im in a r y RTC.

in ju n ct ion to r es t r a in public O n Ju n e 5 , 2002, the RTC is s u ed it s O r d er

r es p on d en t M eT C Ju d g e fr o m p r oc e ed in g w it h d en y in g the p et it i on er s M ot i on f or

C r im in a l Cas e N o. 0 0 -1 7 0 5 p en d in g R e con s id er a t i on .

t h e C e r t i o r a r i p r o c eed in gs , the RTC, in a

R es o lu t i on d a t ed M a y 3 , 2 0 0 2 , r es o l v ed t o d en y L ik ew is e, in an O r d er d a t ed Ju n e 13, 2002,

t h e is s u a n c e o f a n in ju n ct i v e w r i t on t h e gr ou n d t h e M e T C d en ied t h e p et it i on er s S e c on d M ot i on

t h a t t h e cr i m e o f G r a v e T h r ea t s , t h e s u b j ect o f f or R ec on s id er a t i on a n d h is M ot i on t o H o ld in

C r im in a l C a s e N o. 0 0 -1 7 0 5 , is on e t h a t ca n b e A b e ya n c e t h e T r ia l on t h e gr ou n d t h a t t h e R T C

p r os ecu t ed d e o f i ci o , t h er e b e in g n o c la i m f or h a d a lr ea d y d en i ed t h e E n t r y o f A p p ea r a n c e o f

civil in d e m n it y, and that t h er ef or e, the p et it i on er b e f or e t h e M e T C .

in t er v en t i on of a pr ivat e p r os e cu t or is n ot

l e ga l l y t en a b l e. O n Ju l y 3 0 , 2 0 0 2 , t h e p et it i on er d ir e ct ly f i l ed

w it h t h is C ou r t , t h e in s t a n t P et it i on a n d a s s i gn s

O n M a y 9 , 2 0 0 2 , t h e p et it ion er f i l ed b ef or e t h e t h e f o l lo w in g er r or s :

RTC a M ot i on for R e c on s id er a t ion . T h e I.

p et it i on er a r gu es that n o w h er e d oes t h e la w T HE R ESP ON D ENT R EG ION AL
TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS
p r o v id e t h a t t h e cr im e o f G r a v e T h r ea t s h a s n o
D I S C R E T IO N WHEN IT
c i v i l a s p e ct . A n d la s t , p et it i on er c it es B a r M a t t er RESO LV ED TO D ENY TH E
P R A Y E R F O R T H E W R IT O F
N o. 7 3 0 d a t ed Ju n e 1 0 , 1 9 9 7 w h ich exp r es s l y I N J U N C T IO N O F T H E H E R E I N
PETITIO NER D ESP IT E
p r o v id es f or t h e a p p ea r a n ce o f a n on - la w y er PETITIO NER HAVING
EST AB LISH ED THE
b e f or e t h e in f er i or c ou r t s , a s a n a gen t or fr i en d N ECESSITY OF GRANTING
T H E W R IT ;
 C on s id er in g that t h is ca s e in v o l v e s the
I I.
in t er p r et a t i on , c la r i f i ca t i on , a n d i m p l em en t a t i on
THE R ESPO N DEN T TRIAL o f S e ct i on 3 4 , R u l e 1 3 8 o f t h e R u l es o f C ou r t ,
COURT AB USED ITS
D I S C R E T IO N , T A N T A M O U N T B a r M a t t er N o. 7 3 0 , C ir cu la r N o. 1 9 g o v er n in g
TO IGNORANCE OF THE LAW,
WHEN IT R ESO LV ED TO la w s t u d en t p r a ct i c e a n d R u l e 1 3 8 - A o f t h e R u l es
D EN Y THE P RAY ER FO R TH E
WRIT OF P RELIM IN ARY of C ou r t , and the r u l in g of the C ou r t
I N J U N C T IO N AND THE
SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR in C a n t i m b u h a n , t h e C ou r t t a k es c o gn i za n c e o f
R E C O N S ID E R A T I O N O F T H E
H E R E I N P E T IT I O N E R O N T H E h er e in p et it i on .
BASIS THAT [ G RAV E]
THREATS HAS NO CIVIL
ASP EC T, FO R THE SAID T h e b a s i c qu es t i on is w h et h er t h e p et it i on er , a
BASIS OF DENIAL IS NOT IN
ACCORD W ITH THE LAW ; la w s t u d en t , m a y a p p ea r b e f or e a n in f er i or c ou r t

I I I. a s a n a gen t or fr i en d o f a p a r t y l it i ga n t .

THE R E S P O N D E N T M E T R O P O L IT A N
TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS
D I S C R E T IO N WHEN IT Th e c ou r t s a q u o h e ld that the La w S t u d en t
D EN IED TH E M OTIO N TO
P r a ct ic e R u le a s en ca p s u la t ed in R u l e 1 3 8 - A o f
HOLD IN ABEY ANCE TRIAL,
WH EN W H AT W AS D EN IED t h e R u l es o f C ou r t , p r oh ib it s t h e p et it i on er , a s a
BY THE R ESP O N DEN T
REG IO N AL TRIAL CO URT IS la w s t u d en t , fr o m en t er in g h is a p p ea r a n c e in
THE ISSUANCE OF TH E W RIT
OF P RELIM IN ARY b eh a lf of h is fa t h er , t h e p r i v a t e c om p la in a n t in
I N J U N C T IO N A N D W H E N T H E
R ESP O N DEN T REGIONAL t h e cr im in a l ca s e w it h ou t t h e s u p er v is i on o f a n
T R I A L C O U R T IS Y E T T O
D E C I D E O N T H E M E R IT S O F a t t or n e y d u l y a c cr ed it ed b y t h e la w s ch o o l.
THE P E T IT I O N
FOR C E R TIO R A RI ;
R u l e 1 3 8 - A or t h e L a w S t u d en t P r a ct i c e R u l e,
IV.
p r o v id es :
T HE R ESPO N D EN T C O UR T[ S] ARE
CLEARLY IGNORING THE RULE 138 -A
LAW WH EN TH EY P ATENTLY
REFUSED TO HEED LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
T O [ s i c] T H E CLEAR
M A N D A T E O F T H E L AP U T , S e ct i on 1. Cond itions
CANTIMBUH AN AND f o r S t u d e n t Pr a ct i ce . A la w
B ULAC AN C ASES, AS WELL s t u d en t w h o h a s s u cc es s fu l l y
AS BAR M ATTER NO. 730, c om p l et ed h is 3 r d yea r o f t h e
PROVIDING FO R THE r e gu la r fou r - y ea r p r es cr ib ed la w
APPEAR ANCE OF NON- cu r r i cu lu m a n d is en r o l led in a
LAW Y ERS B E FO R E THE r e c ogn i z ed la w s ch o o l ' s c l in i ca l
L OW E R CO UR T S ( M T CS).[ 4] l e ga l ed u ca t i on p r o gr a m
a p p r o v ed b y t h e S u p r e m e C ou r t ,
may a p p ea r w it h ou t
c om p en s a t i on in any civil,
T h is C ou r t , in e x c ep t i on a l ca s es , and f or
cr i m in a l or a d m in is t r a t i v e ca s e
c om p e l l in g r ea s on s , or if w a r r a n t ed by the b e f or e a n y t r ia l c ou r t , t r ib u n a l,
b oa r d or o f f ic er , t o r ep r es en t
nature of the is s u es review ed, ma y tak e in d i g en t c l i en t s a c c ep t ed b y t h e
l e ga l c l in i c o f t h e la w s ch o o l.
c o gn iza n c e o f p et it ion s f i l ed d ir e ct ly b e f or e it . [ 5 ]
 S e c. 2 . A p p e a r a n ce . T h e c o u r t a s a n a g e n t o r f r ie n d o f
a p p ea r a n c e o f t h e la w s t u d en t a party wit hout t he
a u t h or i z ed b y t h is r u l e, s h a l l b e s u p e r v is io n o f a me mb e r o f t h e
u n d er t h e d ir e ct s u p er v is i on a n d b a r . [ 7 ] ( E m p h a s is s u p p l i ed )
c on t r o l o f a m em b er o f t h e
In t e gr a t ed Bar of
t h eP h i l ip p in es d u l y a ccr ed it ed T h e p h r a s e In t h e c ou r t o f a ju s t i c e o f
b y t h e la w s ch o o l. A n y a n d a l l
p l ea d in gs , m ot i on s , b r i e fs , t h e p ea c e in B a r M a t t er N o. 7 3 0 is s u b s e qu en t l y
m em or a n d a or ot h er p a p er s t o b e
ch a n g ed t o In t h e c ou r t o f a m u n i c ip a l it y a s it
f i l ed , m u s t b e s i gn ed b y t h e
s u p er v is in g a t t or n ey f or a n d in n ow a p p ea r s in S e ct i on 3 4 o f R u l e 1 3 8 , t h u s : [ 8 ]
b eh a lf o f t h e l e ga l c l in ic.
SEC. 34. By wh o m
l i t i g a t i o n i s co n d u ct e d . I n t h e
C o u r t o f a mu n ic i p a l it y a p a r t y
H ow e v e r , in R es o lu t i on [ 6 ] d a t ed Ju n e 1 0 , 1 9 9 7 in m a y c on d u ct h is l it i ga t i on in
p er s on , w it h t h e a id o f a n a gen t
B a r M a t t er N o. 7 3 0 , t h e C ou r t E n B a n c c la r i f i ed : or fr i en d a p p o in t ed b y h i m f or
t h a t p u r p os e, or w it h t h e a id o f
T h e r u le , h o w e v e r , is a n a t t or n e y. In a n y ot h er c ou r t ,
d i f f e r e n t i f t h e la w s t u d e n t a party ma y c on d u ct h is
a p p e a r s b e f o r e a n in f e r io r l it i ga t i on p er s on a l l y or b y a id o f
c o u r t , w h e r e t h e is s u e s a n d a n a t t or n e y a n d h is a p p ea r a n c e
procedure are r e la t i v e l y m u s t b e e it h er p er s on a l or b y a
s i mp le . I n i n f e r io r c o u r t s , a d u l y a u t h or i zed m em b er o f t h e
la w s t u d e n t ma y a p p e a r i n h is b a r . ( E m p h a s is s u p p l i ed )
p e r s o n a l c a p a c it y w it h o u t t h e
s u p e r v is io n of a w h ich is t h e p r e v a i l in g r u le a t t h e t im e t h e
la w y e r . S e ct i on 3 4 , R u l e 1 3 8
p et it i on er f i l ed h is E n t r y o f Ap p ea r a n c e w it h
p r o v id es :
t h e M e T C on S ep t e m b er 25, 2000. No r ea l
S e c.
34. By wh o m d is t in ct ion e x is t s f or u n d er S e ct i on 6 , R u l e 5 o f
litigation is
co n d u ct e d . - I n t h e R u les o f C ou r t , t h e t er m " M u n i c ip a l T r ia l
the co urt o f a
j u s t ic e o f t h e C ou r t s " a s u s ed in t h es e R u les s h a l l in c lu d e
peace, a party
m a y c on d u ct h is M et r op o l it a n T r ia l C ou r t s , M u n i c ip a l T r ia l
l it i ga t i on in
p er s on , w it h t h e C ou r t s in C it i es , M u n i c ip a l T r ia l C ou r t s , a n d
a id o f a n a g en t
M u n i c ip a l C ir cu it T r ia l C ou r t s .
or fr i en d
a p p o in t ed by T h er e is r ea l l y n o p r ob l e m a s t o t h e
him f or that
p u r p os e, or w it h a p p l i ca t i on o f S e ct i on 3 4 o f R u le 1 3 8 a n d R u l e
t h e a id o f a n
a t t or n e y. In a n y 1 3 8 - A. In t h e for m er , t h e a p p ea r a n c e o f a n on -
ot h er c ou r t , a
party ma y la w y er , a s a n a g en t or fr i en d o f a p a r t y l it i ga n t ,
c on d u ct h is
l it i ga t i on is e xp r es s ly a l l ow ed , wh ile the la t t er rule
p er s on a l l y or b y
p r o v id es f or c on d it ion s w h en a la w s t u d en t , n ot
a id of an
a t t or n e y, and a s a n a g en t or a fr i en d o f a p a r t y l it i ga n t , m a y
h is a p p ea r a n c e
m u s t b e e it h er a p p ea r b e f or e t h e c ou r t s .
p er s on a l or b y a
d u l y a u t h or i z ed
m em b er o f t h e
bar. P et it i on er e xp r es s l y a n ch or ed h is a p p ea r a n c e on

T h u s , a la w s t u d e n t S e ct i on 3 4 of R u l e 1 3 8 . T h e cou r t a q u o m u s t
ma y a p p e a r b e f o r e a n in f e r io r
h a v e b e en c on fu s ed b y t h e fa ct t h a t p et it i on er
r e f er r ed t o h i m s e l f a s a la w s t u d en t in h is en t r y es p i on a g e, v i o l a t ion o f n eu t r a l it y, f l i gh t t o a n

o f a p p ea r a n c e. R u l e 1 3 8 - A s h ou ld n ot h a v e b e en en em y cou n t r y, and cr i m e a ga in s t p op u la r

u s ed b y t h e c ou r t s a q u o in d en y in g p er m is s i on r ep r es en t a t i on . [ 9 ] T h e b a s i c r u l e a p p l i es in t h e

t o a ct a s p r i v a t e p r os e cu t or a ga in s t p et it i on er f or in s t a n t ca s e, s u ch t h a t w h en a cr i m in a l a ct i on is

t h e s i m p l e r ea s on t h a t R u le 1 3 8 - A is n ot t h e in s t it u t ed , t h e c i v i l a ct i on f or t h e r e c o v e r y o f

b a s is f or t h e p et it i on er s a p p ea r a n ce. c i v i l l ia b i l it y a r is in g fr o m t h e o f f en s e ch a r g ed

s h a l l b e d e em ed in s t it u t ed w it h cr i m in a l a ct i on ,

S e ct i on 3 4 , R u l e 1 3 8 is c l ea r t h a t a p p ea r a n c e u n l es s the o f f en d ed party wa ives the civil

b e f or e t h e in f er i or c ou r t s b y a n on - la w y er is a ct i on , r es er v es the r i gh t to in s t it u t e it

a l l o w ed , ir r es p e ct i v e o f w h et h er or n ot h e is a s ep a r a t e l y or in s t it u t es t h e c i v i l a ct i on p r i or t o

la w s t u d en t . A s s u c c in c t ly c la r i f i ed in Bar t h e cr im in a l a ct i on . [ 1 0 ]

M a t t er N o. 7 3 0 , b y v ir t u e o f S e ct i on 3 4 , R u l e T h e p et it i on er is c or r e ct in s t a t in g t h a t t h er e

1 3 8 , a la w s t u d en t m a y a p p ea r , a s a n a gen t or a b e in g no r es er va t i on , wa iver, n or p r i or

fr i en d of a party l it i ga n t , w it h ou t the in s t it u t i on o f t h e c i v i l a s p e ct in C r i m in a l C a s e

s u p er v is i on o f a la w y er b e f or e in fer i or c ou r t s . N o. 0 0 -1 7 0 5 , it f o l lo w s t h a t t h e c i v i l a s p e ct

P et it i on er fu r t h er a r gu es that the RTC a r is in g fr o m G r a v e T h r ea t s is d e e m ed in s t it u t ed

er r on e ou s l y h e ld t h a t , b y it s v er y n a t u r e, n o w it h t h e cr i m in a l a ct ion , a n d , h en c e, t h e p r i v a t e

c i v i l l ia b i l it y m a y f l o w fr o m t h e cr im e o f G r a v e p r os ecu t or m a y r i gh t fu l l y in t er v en e t o p r os e cu t e

T h r ea t s , a n d , f or t h is r ea s on , t h e in t er v e n t i on o f t h e c i v i l a s p e ct .

a p r i va t e p r os e cu t or is n ot p os s ib l e.

WHEREFORE, the P et it i on

It is c l ea r fr o m t h e R T C D ec is i on t h a t is G R A N T E D . Th e a s s a i l ed R es o lu t ion and

n o s u ch c on c lu s i on h a d b e en in t en d ed b y t h e O r d er of the R e g i on a l T r ia l C ou r t , B r a n ch

R T C . In d en y in g t h e is s u a n c e o f t h e in ju n ct i v e 1 1 6 , P a s a y C it y a r e R E V E R S E D a n d S E T

c ou r t , t h e R T C s t a t ed in it s D e c is i on t h a t t h er e A S I D E . T h e M et r op o l i t a n T r ia l C ou r t , B r a n ch

w a s n o c la i m f or c i v i l l ia b i l it y b y t h e p r i v a t e 4 5 , P a s a y C it y is D I R E C T E D t o A D M I T t h e

c om p la in a n t f or d a m a g es , a n d t h a t t h e r e c or d s o f E n t r y o f Ap p ea r a n c e o f p et it i on er in C r i m in a l

the ca s e do n ot provid e f or a c la im f or C a s e N o. 0 0 -1 7 0 5 a s a p r i v a t e p r os e cu t or u n d er

in d em n it y ; and that t h er e f or e, p et it i on er s t h e d ir e ct c on t r o l a n d s u p er v i s i on o f t h e p u b l i c

a p p ea r a n c e a s p r i v a t e p r os ecu t or a p p ea r s t o b e p r os ecu t or .

l e ga l l y u n t en a b l e.

N o p r on ou n c em en t a s t o c os t s .

U n d er Ar t i c l e 1 0 0 o f t h e R e v is ed P en a l C od e,

e v e r y p er s on cr i m in a l l y l ia b l e f or a f e l on y is SO ORDERED.

a ls o c i v i l l y l ia b le e x c ep t in in s t a n c es w h en n o

a ct u a l d a m a g e r es u lt s fr o m a n o f f en s e, s u ch a s
 a s s i gn ed t o t h e w r it er o f t h e op in i on o f t h e
M A. A LI CIA A U ST RI A-M A R TIN E Z C ou r t s D i v i s i on .
A s s oc ia t e Ju s t i c e

WE CONCUR:
R EY N A TO S. P UN O

C h i e f Ju s t i c e
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
A s s oc ia t e Ju s t i c e
C h a ir p er s on

ROM EO J. CALLEJ O, SR. M INITA V. CHI CO- NAZARI O

A s s oc ia t e Ju s t i c e A s s oc ia t e Ju s t i c e

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA

A s s oc ia t e Ju s t i c e

ATTESTATI ON

I a t t es t t h a t t h e c on c lu s ion s in t h e a b o v e
D e c is i on h a d b e en r ea ch ed in c on s u lt a t i on b e f or e
t h e ca s e w a s a s s i gn ed t o t h e w r it er o f t h e
op in ion o f t h e C ou r t s D i v i s i on .

CO N SU EL O Y NA R E S- SA N TIA G O
A s s oc ia t e Ju s t i c e
C h a ir p er s on , T h ir d D i v i s i on

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

P u r s u a n t t o S e ct i on 1 3 , A r t i c l e V I I I o f
t h e C on s t it u t i on , a n d t h e D i v is i on C h a ir p er s on s
A t t es t a t i on , it is h er eb y c er t i f i ed t h a t t h e
c on c lu s i on s in t h e a b o v e D e c is i on h a d b een
r ea ch ed in c on s u lt a t i on b e for e t h e ca s e w a s
G.R. No. L-23959 November 29, 1971 Quintin Muning
............................................................
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS ............. 10%
(PAFLU), ENRIQUE ENTILA & VICTORIANO
TENAZASpetitioners, Atty. Atanacio Pacis
vs. ............................................................
BINALBAGAN ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, COURT ..... 5%
OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, & QUINTIN
MUNINGrespondents.
The award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a lawyer
according to the order, is sought to be voided in the
Cipriano Cid & Associates for petitioners. present petition.

Ceferino Magat and Manuel C. Gonzales for respondent Respondent Muning moved in this Court to dismiss the
Quintin Muning. present petition on the ground of late filing but his motion
was overruled on 20 January 1965. 1 He asked for
reconsideration, but, considering that the motion
contained averments that go into the merits of the case,
this Court admitted and considered the motion for
REYES, J.B.L., J.: reconsideration for all purposes as respondent's answer
to the petitioner for review. 2 The case was considered
May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal submitted for decision without respondent's brief.3
services rendered? This is the issue presented in this
petition for review of an order, dated 12 May 1964, and Applicable to the issue at hand is the principle
the en banc resolution, dated 8 December 1964, of the enunciated in Amalgamated Laborers' Association, et al.
Court of Industrial Relations, in its Case No. 72-ULP- vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., L-23467, 27
Iloilo, granting respondent Quintin Muning a non-lawyer, March 1968, 4 that an agreement providing for the
attorney's fees for professional services in the said case. division of attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer union
president is allowed to share in said fees with lawyers, is
The above-named petitioners were complainants in Case condemned by Canon 34 of Legal Ethics and is immoral
No. 72-ULP-Iloilo entitled, "PAFLU et al. vs. Binalbagan and cannot be justified. An award by a court of attorney's
Isabela Sugar Co., et al." After trial, the Court of fees is no less immoral in the absence of a contract, as in
Industrial Relations rendered a decision, on 29 March the present case.
1961, ordering the reinstatement with backwages of
complainants Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenazas. Said The provision in Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 875
decision became final. On 18 October 1963, Cipriano Cid that
& Associates, counsel of record for the winning
complainants, filed a notice of attorney's lien equivalent
to 30% of the total backwages. On 22 November 1963, In the proceeding before the Court or
Hearing Examiner thereof, the parties
Atty. Atanacio Pacis also filed a similar notice for a
shall not be required to be
reasonable amount. Complainants Entila and Tenazas
on 3 December 1963, filed a manifestation indicating represented by legal counsel ...
their non-objection to an award of attorney's fees for 25%
of their backwages, and, on the same day, Quentin is no justification for a ruling, that the person representing
Muning filed a "Petition for the Award of Services the party-litigant in the Court of Industrial Relations, even
Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the backwages. Munings if he is not a lawyer, is entitled to attorney's fees: for the
petition was opposed by Cipriano Cid & Associates the same section adds that
ground that he is not a lawyer.
it shall be the duty and obligation of
The records of Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo show that the the Court or Hearing Officer to
charge was filed by Cipriano Cid & Associates through examine and cross examine
Atty. Atanacio Pacis. All the hearings were held in witnesses on behalf of the parties and
Bacolod City and appearances made in behalf of the to assist in the orderly presentation of
complainants were at first by Attorney Pacis and evidence.
subsequently by respondent Quintin Muning.
thus making it clear that the representation should be
On 12 May 1964, the Court of Industrial Relations exclusively entrusted to duly qualified members of the
awarded 25% of the backwages as compensation for bar.
professional services rendered in the case, apportioned
as follows: The permission for a non-member of the bar to represent
or appear or defend in the said court on behalf of a party-
Attys. Cipriano Cid & Associates litigant does not by itself entitle the representative to
............................................. 10%
compensation for such representation. For Section 24, to recover as an "agent" and not as
Rule 138, of the Rules of Court, providing an attorney. 11

Sec. 24. Compensation of attorney's The weight of the reasons heretofore stated why a non-
agreement as to fees. An attorney lawyer may not be awarded attorney's fees should suffice
shall be entitled to have and recover to refute the possible argument that appearances by non-
from his client no more than a lawyers before the Court of Industrial Relations should be
reasonable compensation for his excepted on the ground that said court is a court of
services, ... special jurisdiction; such special jurisdiction does not
weigh the aforesaid reasons and cannot justify an
imports the existence of an attorney-client relationship as exception.
a condition to the recovery of attorney's fees. Such a
relationship cannot exist unless the client's The other issue in this case is whether or not a union
representative in court be a lawyer. Since respondent may appeal an award of attorney's fees which are
Muning is not one, he cannot establish an attorney-client deductible from the backpay of some of its members.
relationship with Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenezas or This issue arose because it was the union PAFLU, alone,
with PAFLU, and he cannot, therefore, recover attorney's that moved for an extension of time to file the present
fees. Certainly public policy demands that legal work in petition for review; union members Entila and Tenazas
representation of parties litigant should be entrusted only did not ask for extension but they were included as
to those possessing tested qualifications and who are petitioners in the present petition that was subsequently
sworn, to observe the rules and the ethics of the filed, it being contended that, as to them (Entila and
profession, as well as being subject to judicial disciplinary Tenazas), their inclusion in the petition as co-petitioners
control for the protection of courts, clients and the public. was belated.

On the present issue, the rule in American jurisdictions is W e hold that a union or legitimate labor organization may
persuasive. There, it is stated: appeal an award of attorney's fees which are deductible
from the backpay of its members because such union or
labor organization is permitted to institute an action in the
But in practically all jurisdictions
industrial court, 12 on behalf of its members; and the
statutes have now been enacted
prohibiting persons not licensed or union was organized "for the promotion of the emloyees'
moral, social and economic well-being"; 13 hence, if an
admitted to the bar from practising
award is disadvantageous to its members, the union may
law, and under statutes of this kind,
prosecute an appeal as an aggrieved party, under
the great weight of authority is to the
effect that compensation for legal Section 6, Republic Act 875, which provides:
services cannot be recovered by one
who has not been admitted to practice Sec. 6. Unfair Labor Practice
before the court or in the jurisdiction cases Appeals. Any person
the services were rendered. 5 aggrieved by any order of the Court
may appeal to the Supreme Court of
No one is entitled to recover the Philippines ...,
compensation for services as an
attorney at law unless he has been since more often than not the individual unionist is not in
duly admitted to practice ... and is an a position to bear the financial burden of litigations.
attorney in good standing at the
time. 6
Petitioners allege that respondent Muning is engaged in
the habitual practice of law before the Court of Industrial
The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession Relations, and many of them like him who are not
should not be violated; 7 that acting as an attorney with licensed to practice, registering their appearances as
authority constitutes contempt of court, which is "representatives" and appearing daily before the said
punishable by fine or imprisonment or both, 8 and the law court. If true, this is a serious situation demanding
will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit of an corrective action that respondent court should actively
act or an act done in violation of law; 9 and that if were to pursue and enforce by positive action to that purpose.
be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the public in But since this matter was not brought in issue before the
hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in case of court a quo, it may not be taken up in the present case.
necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic condition, Petitioners, however, may file proper action against the
aside from the fact that non-lawyers are not amenable to persons alleged to be illegally engaged in the practice of
disciplinary measures. 10 law.

And the general rule above-stated WHEREFORE, the orders under review are hereby set
(referring to non-recovery of aside insofar as they awarded 10% of the backwages as
attorney's fees by non-lawyers) attorney's fees for respondent Quintin Muning. Said
cannot be circumvented when the orders are affirmed in all other respects. Costs against
services were purely legal, by seeking respondent Muning.
Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, The Telecommunications Office
Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ. concur. through the undersigned, hereby
manifests that we received the CSC
resolution in CSC Case No. 393 on
November 12, 1989 and in
compliance thereto, we will convene
G.R. No. 92561 September 12, 1990 our Selection and Promotion Board to
deliberate on the position of Head
SECRETARY OSCAR ORBOS OF THE DEPARTMENT Telecommunications Engineer
OF TRANSPORTATION AND (reclassified to Engineer IV pursuant
COMMUNICATIONS,petitioner, to National Compensation Circular
vs. No. 58 effective July 1, 1989) with
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and NERIO qualified candidates including
MADARANG, respondents. appellant Nerio Madarang. 3

The Solicitor General for petitioners. In a letter dated November 27, 1989, respondent
Madarang requested the CSC to take appropriate action
by implementing its resolutions dated August 29, 1989
Jose C. Cimano for private respondent. and November 2, 1989.

In an order dated December 19, 1989, the CSC directed

the immediate implementation of its aforementioned
GANCAYCO, J: resolution insofar as it concerned the appointment of
Madarang. 4
Once again the extent of the authority of the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) to pass upon contested Agon and Magnayon filed their separate motions for
appointments is brought into focus in this petition. The reconsideration of the aforestated resolutions of the CSC
appearance of the Solicitor General on behalf of the but these were denied by the said commission in a
petitioner is also questioned. resolution dated January 19, 1990.

In the course of the reorganization of the Department of Hence, this petition for certiorari with prayer for a writ of
Transportation and Communications (DOTC), Guido C. preliminary injunction or restraining order which was filed
Agon and Alfonso Magnayon were appointed to the by the Solicitor General in behalf of petitioner. On March
positions of Head Telecommunications Engineer, range 29, 1990, the Court required the respondents to
74. comment on the petition within ten (10) days from notice
and issued a restraining order enjoining the CSC from
enforcing its questioned resolutions until further orders.
Nerio Madarang who was also appointed to the position
of Supervising Telecommunications Engineer, range 12,
questioned the appointments of Agon and Magnayon by The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CSC
filing an appeal with the Reorganization Appeals Board of acted in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
the DOTC composed of Moises S. Tolentino, Jr. of the discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it
Office of the Secretary, as Chairman and Assistant ordered the appointment of Nerio Madarang to the
Secretary Rosauro V. Sibal and Graciano L. Sitchon of contested position.
the Office of the Secretary, as members. In a resolution
dated January 9, 1989 the said Reorganization Appeals While petitioner does not question the aforestated
Board dismissed Madarang's appeal for lack of merit. resolutions of the CSC insofar as it disapproved the
Hence, he appealed to the public respondent Civil appointments of Agon and Magnayon to the positions of
Service Commission (CSC) Head Telecommunications Engineer, petitioner maintains
that as the appointing authority, he has the right of choice
In its resolution dated August 29, 1989, respondent CSC and discretion to appoint the persons whom he deems fit
revoked the appointments of Agon and Magnayon for the to the position to be filled. 5 Petitioner emphasizes that
contested positions and directed the appointment of when the CSC denied his motion for reconsideration in a
Madarang to the said position of Heads resolution dated November 2, 1989, Assistant Secretary
Telecommunications Engineer. 1 DOTC Assistant Sibal informed the CSC through a manifestation that the
Secretary Sibal sought a reconsideration of the said DOTC Selection and Promotions Board will be convened
resolution of the CSC but this was denied in a resolution to deliberate on the position of Head
dated November 2, 1989. 2 Telecommunications Engineer, taking into consideration
qualified candidates including Nerio Madarang.
Nevertheless, the CSC stood pat on its resolution
On November 21, 1989, Assistant Secretary Sibal filed a directing the appointment of Nerio Madarang to the
manifestation with the CSC stating: contested position.
On the other hand, the CSC contends that it was properly The Court finds the petition to be impressed with merit.
exercising a constitutional and legal duty to enforce the
merit and fitness principle in the appointment of civil
Paragraph H, Section 9 of Presidential Decree No. 807,
servants and to uphold their equally guaranteed right to
otherwise known as the 'Civil Service Decree of the
be appointed to similar or comparable positions in the
Philippines," provides:
reorganized agency consistent with applicable law and
issuances of competent authorities. 6
Section 9. Powers and Function of the
Commission. The Commission shall
Invoking the following provisions of the Constitution: administer the Civil Service and shall
have the following powers and
Section 3 (Article IX [B]). The Civil functions:
Service Commission, as the central
personnel agency of the
xxx xxx xxx
Government, shall establish a career
service and adopt measures to
promote morale, efficiency, integrity, (h) Approve all appointments, whether
responsiveness, progressiveness, original or promotional, to positions in
and courtesy in the civil service. It the civil service, except those of
shall strengthen the writ and reward presidential appointees, members of
system, integrate all human resources the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
development programs for all levels police forces, firemen, and jailguards,
and ranks, and institutionalize a and disapprove those where the
management climate conducive to appointees do not possess the
public accountability. It shall submit to appropriate eligibility or required
the President and the Congress an qualifications. An appointment shall
annual report on its personnel take effect immediately upon issue by
programs.' (Emphasis supplied.); the appointing authority if the
appointee assumes his duties
immediately and shall remain
Section 19, Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (The
effective until it is disapproved by the
Administrative Code of 1987) which provides: Commission, if this should take place,
without prejudice to the liability of the
Section 19. Recruitment and appointing authority for appointments
Selection of Employees (l) issued in violation of existing laws or
Opportunity for government rules: Provided, finally, That the
employment shall be open to all Commission shall keep a record of
qualified citizens, and positive efforts appointments of all officers and
shall be exerted to attract the best employees in the civil service. All
qualified to enter the service. appointments requiring the approval
Employees shall be selected on the of the Commission as herein
basis of the fitness to perform the provided, shall be submitted to it by
duties and assume the responsibilities the appointing authority within thirty
of the position.; days from issuance, otherwise the
appointment becomes ineffective
thirty days thereafter. (Emphasis
and Section 12 of the same Executive Order:
supplied)

Sec. 12. The Commission shall

From the foregoing provision it is clear that the CSC has
administer the Civil Service and shall
the power to approve or disapprove an appointment and
have the following powers and
functions: (a) Administer and enforce not the power to make the appointment itself or to direct
the constitutional and statutory that such appointment be made by the appointing
authority. The CSC can only inquire into the eligibility of
provision of the said merit systems...
the person chosen to fill a vacant position and it finds the
(Emphasis supplied.)
person qualified it must so attest. The duty of the CSC is
to attest appointments. 8 That function being discharged,
respondent CSC argues that the primary objective of the its participation in the appointment process ceases. 9
CSC system is to promote and establish professionalism
by ensuring a high level of morale among the employees
By the same token, should the CSC find that the
and officers in the career civil service. Pursuant to this
appointee is not qualified for the position, it has the duty
constitutional mandate, the CSC contends it should see
to it that the merit system is applied, enforced and to disapprove the appointment. Thereafter, the
responsibility of appointing the qualified person in lieu of
implemented in personnel actions involving appointments
the disqualified appointee rests upon the discretion of the
affecting all levels and ranks in the civil service at all
appointing authority. The CSC cannot encroach upon
times. 7
such discretion vested solely in the appointing authority.
This Court has pronounced in no uncertain terms that the disqualified from appearing for the petitioner even if in so
CSC has no authority to revoke an appointment on the doing his representation runs against the interests of the
ground that another person is more qualified for a CSC.
particular position. The Court likewise held that the CSC
does not have the authority to direct the appointment of a
This is not the first time that the Office of the Solicitor
substitute of its choice. 10 General has taken a position adverse to his clients like
the CSC, the National Labor Relations Commission,
Petitioner demonstrated his deference to the resolutions among others, and even the People of the Philippines. In
of the CSC disapproving the appointments of Agon and such instances, the Solicitor General nevertheless
Magnayon. However, in the implementation of said manifests his opinion and recommendation to the Court
resolutions he decided to convene the DOTC Selection which is an invaluable aid in the disposition of the case.
and Promotions Board to deliberate on the person who On some occasions he begs leave to be excused from
should be appointed as Head Telecommunications intervening in the case, more so, when the client had
Engineer among qualified candidates including already filed its own comment different from the stand of
respondent Nerio Madarang. Instead of acknowledging the Solicitor General or in a situation when he finds the
the authority of petitioner to exercise its discretion in the contention of a private party tenable as against that of
appointment of a replacement, the CSC, in excess of its the government or any of its agencies. The Solicitor
jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion amounting General has recommended the acquittal of the accused
to lack of jurisdiction, directed the appointment of in appealed criminal cases.
Madarang as the substitute of its choice. This act of the
CSC must be struck down. There are cases where a government agency declines
the services of the Solicitor General or otherwise fails or
Private respondent Madarang, besides his comment, refuses to forward the papers of the case to him for
filed a motion to disqualify the Office of the Solicitor appropriate action. The Court finds and so holds that this
General from appearing for petitioner and to cite practice should be stopped. To repeat, the Solicitor
petitioner in contempt of court for the filing of the petition. General is the lawyer of the government, any of its
agents and officials in any litigation, proceeding,
The Solicitor General is the lawyer of the government, its investigation or matter requiring the services of a lawyer.
agencies and instrumentalities, and its officials or agents The exception is when such officials or agents are being
charged criminally or are being civilly sued for damages
including petitioner and public respondent. This is so
arising from a felony. 12 His services cannot be lightly
provided under Presidential Decree No. 478:
rejected, much less ignored by the office or officials
concerned.
SECTION 1. Functions and
Organization. (1) The Office of the
Indeed, the assistance of the Solicitor General should be
Solicitor General shall represent the
welcomed by the parties. He should be given full support
Government of the Philippines, its
and cooperation by any agency or official involved in
agencies and instrumentalities and its
officials and agents in any litigation, litigation. He should be enabled to faithfully discharge his
duties and responsibilities as the government advocate.
proceeding, investigation or matter
And he should do no less for his clients. His burden of
requiring the services of a lawyer. ....
(Emphasis supplied.) 10-A assisting in the fair and just administration of justice is
clear.

In the discharge of this task the Solicitor General must

see to it that the best interest of the government is This Court does not expect the Solicitor General to waver
in the performance of his duty. As a matter of fact, the
upheld within the limits set by law. W hen confronted with
Court appreciates the participation of the Solicitor
a situation where one government office takes an
adverse position against another government agency, as General in many proceedings and his continued fealty to
in this case, the Solicitor General should not refrain from his assigned task. He should not therefore desist from
appearing before this Court even in those cases he finds
performing his duty as the lawyer of the government. It is
his opinion inconsistent with the Government or any of its
incumbent upon him to present to the court what he
considers would legally uphold the best interest of the agents he is expected to represent. The Court must be
government although it may run counter to a client's advised of his position just as well.
position. 11 In such an instance the government office
adversely affected by the position taken by the Solicitor Private respondent Madarang also seeks to hold
General, if it still believes in the merit of its case, may petitioner in contempt of court on the ground that the
appear in its own behalf through its legal personnel or petition was filed in order to circumvent or obviate the
representative. dismissal of a similar petition in this Court filed by Guido
Agon and Alfonso Magnayon. The legal personality of the
petitioner to file the petition is also questioned on the
In the present case, it appears that after the Solicitor
General studied the issues he found merit in the cause of ground it was Assistant Secretary Sibal and not the
the petitioner based on the applicable law and petitioner who issued the contested appointments.
jurisprudence. Thus, it is his duty to represent the
petitioner as he did by filing this petition. He cannot be
The petitioner denies this contention. He asserts that the In the instant petition for mandamus and prohibition with
petition was properly brought in his name as head of the prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order,
DOTC as what is in issue is the reorganization of the said petitioner submits for the Court's adjudication the twin
department. The petitioner does not dispute the issues of whether or not the Solicitor General neglected
disapproval of the appointments of Agon and Magnayon; his public duty by withdrawing as counsel for the
he only disagrees with the order of the CSC directing the Republic of the Philippines and the Presidential
appointment of Madarang to the contested position. The Commission on Good Government (PCGG) in cases he
petitioner also alleges that he was not aware of the had filed in court and whether or not the PCGG acted
existence of a separate petition filed in this Court by without or in excess of jurisdiction in hiring private
Agon and Magnayon. lawyers as a result of such withdrawal of appearance.

The Court finds the arguments and assertions of Petitioner Ramon A. Gonzales, as a citizen taxpayer,
petitioner to be well taken. filed the petition as a class suit under Section 12, Rule 3
of the Rules of Court on the ground that the subject
It is true that the records of this Court show that there is matters involved are of common and general interest to
all Filipino citizens and taxpayers as they pertain to the
such a case docketed as G.R. No. 92064 entitled "Guido
enforcement of a public duty and the prevention of
Agon, et al., vs. CSC et al." which is a special civil action
for certiorari with a prayer for a writ of preliminary unlawful expenditure of public funds.
injunction. The petition was dismissed for late filing in a
resolution dated February 27, 1990. According to the petitioner, the Solicitor General is the
counsel for the Republic and the PCGG in thirty-three
(33) cases before this Court, one hundred nine (109)
On March 29, 1990 this Court denied with finality the
cases in the Sandiganbayan, one (1) case in the National
motion for reconsideration filed by the said petitioners
Labor Relations Commission and another case in the
there being no compelling reason to warrant the reversal
Municipal Trial Court or a total of one hundred forty-four
of the questioned resolution.
(144) cases. 1 In December 1990, the Solicitor General
withdrew as counsel in said cases through a pleading
Apparently, the disapproval of the appointments of Agon entitled "W ithdrawal of Appearance with
and Magnayon was the issue in said petition. In the Reservation." 2 The pleading states:
present petition as aforestated, petitioner yields to the
disapproval of the appointment of the two, but questions
the authority of the CSC to direct the appointment of The SOLICITOR GENERAL, to this
Honorable Court, hereby respectfully
Madarang to the contested position.
withdraws as counsel for plaintiff
Presidential Commission on Good
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the Government (PCGG) in the above-
questioned resolutions of the respondent CSC dated captioned case, with the reservation,
August 29, 1989, November 2, 1989 and January 19, however, conformably with
1990 are hereby annulled insofar as they direct the Presidential Decree No. 478, the
appointment of Nerio Madarang to the contested provisions of Executive Order No. 292
position. The petitioner is hereby authorized to convene as well as the decisional law of
the DOTC Selection and Promotion Board to determine "Orbos v. Civil Service Commission,
who shall replace Guido Agon and Alfonso Magnayon to et al.," (G.R. No. 92561, September
the contested position by considering all qualified 12, 1990), to submit his
candidates including Nerio Madarang. The restraining comment/observation on
order dated March 29, 1990 is hereby made permanent. incidents/matters pending with this
No costs. Honorable Court, if called for by
circumstances in the interest of the
SO ORDERED. government or if he is so required by
the court.
G.R. No. 97351 February 4, 1992
Makati, Metro Manila, December 3,
1990.
RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner,
vs.
HON. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, in his capacity as
Solicitor General, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON
GOOD GOVERNMENT, and COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, respondents.

ROMERO, J.:
 Applying the ruling of this Court with respect toC a fiscal
in Sta. Rosa Mining Co. v. Zabala, 4 the petitioner
I further
states that: "Similarly, it is the duty of theS Solicitor
General to appear for the Republic and theC PCGG,
hence regardless of his personal convictions or O opinions,
he must proceed to discharge his duty (not withdraw,
which is equivalent to refusal to prosecute), andI let the
court decide the merits of the case." 5 .

Moreover, petitioner avers that the Solicitor CGeneral

H
cannot withdraw his appearance "with reservation" nor
A
can he file his "comment/observation on the
incident/matters" after such withdrawal because V by
E
ceasing to appear as counsel, he loses his standing in
Z
court. Unless a case involves the constitutionality of a
treaty, law, ordinance or executive order for which Rule 3
Section 23 of the Rules of Court 6 mandates I his
B
appearance, the Solicitor General is not authorized to
P
appear therein after his withdrawal as counsel inasmuch
as he himself is not a party-litigant.
O
.
Furthermore, under Section 26, of Rule R 138, 7 the
Solicitor General may not unilaterally withdraw . his
appearance without the consent of the Republic or the
PCGG unless the court authorizes his withdrawal. N Since
there was no such court authority, the Solicitor General's
o
withdrawal of appearance in said several cases . is null
and void, as it constitutes an act against a mandatory law
and hence, it may be attacked collaterally. Neither2 may
the Solicitor General withdraw on the authority8of Orbos
v. Civil Service Commission 8 wherein this Court9 held:
4
In the discharge of this 1task the
Solicitor General must see 7to it that
-
the best interest of the government is
upheld within the limits set by2law. . .
.
0
xxx xxx xxx 6
.
9
There are cases where a government
agency declines the services 0 of the
Solicitor General or otherwise fails or
The Solicitor General filed a substantially refuses to forward the papers of the
similar pleading in the cases where the case to him for appropriate action. . .
Republic is a party.
The Court finds and so holds that this
As a result of such withdrawal of appearance, the PCGG practice should be stopped. To
hired forty (40) private lawyers, nineteen (19) of whom repeat, the Solicitor General is the
are trial lawyers. They would receive a monthly lawyer of the government, any of its
compensation of at least P10,000.00 plus appearance agents and officials in any litigation,
fee of P1,700.00 in actual trial and/or P500.00 if trial is proceeding, investigation or matter
postponed. 3 requiring the services of a lawyer.
The exception is when such officials
or agents are being charged
Petitioner contends that since the Solicitor General's criminally or are being civilly sued for
withdrawal of appearance was made without any reason, damages arising from a felony. His
it implied that it was "within the absolute discretion" of services cannot be lightly
said public official. Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. rejected, much less ignored by the
478 and Section 35 of the Administrative Code of 1987, officer or officials concerned.
however, mandatorily require the Solicitor General to
stand in the place of, and act for the Republic and the
PCGG in court. Therefore, the Solicitor General has "no Indeed, the assistance of the Solicitor
discretion to reject by withdrawing" as counsel for said General should be welcomed by the
entities. parties. He should be given full
 support and cooperation by any may be challenged in a collateral proceeding such as an
agency or official involved in litigation. action for prohibition.
He should be enabled to faithfully
discharge his duties and
Similarly, petitioner asserts, prohibition will lie against the
responsibilities as the government
Commission on Audit considering that any payment for
advocate. And he should do no less the services of the PCGG-hired lawyers would result in
for his clients. His burden of assisting
an unlawful expenditure of public funds. Stressing the
in the fair and just administration of
need to preserve the status quo until the determination of
justice is clear. his rights as a citizen and taxpayer, petitioner prays for
the issuance of temporary restraining order.
This Court does not expect the
Solicitor General to waver in the Acting on the petition, however, the Court required the
performance of his duty. As a matter
respondent to file their respective comments on the
of fact, the Court appreciates the
petition without granting the prayer for a temporary
participation of the Solicitor General in restraining order. 10
many proceedings and his continued
fealty to his assigned task. He should
not therefore desist from appearing In its comment, the Commission on Audit (COA) alleges
before this Court even in those cases that it has not allowed the disbursement of funds to pay
he finds his opinion inconsistent with for the services of PCGG-hired private lawyers. It points
the government or any of its agents out the fact that under COA Circular No. 89-299 dated
he is expected to represent. The March 21, 1989, the COA has withdrawn the pre-audit of
Court must be advised of his position transactions entered into by national government
just as well. (Emphasis supplied) agencies pursuant to the constitutional provision that the
COA has the exclusive authority to "define the scope of
its audit and examination, to establish the techniques and
The petitioner adds the following observations: 9 methods required therefor." 11 Neither has the COA
allowed in post-audit the disbursements of funds in
Therefore, this case militates more payment of the services of the hired private lawyers.
against the Solicitor General than in Moreover, under COA Circular No. 86-255 dated April 2,
his favor. For if the government and 1986, the hiring of private lawyers by government
its officials cannot reject the services agencies and instrumentalities is prohibited unless there
of the Solicitor General, neither may is prior written conformity of the Solicitor General or the
the latter select the case he would Government Corporate Counsel, as the case may be, as
represent by withdrawing in some and well as the written concurrence of COA.
retaining others. For unlike private
lawyers who are bound to their clients
For its part, the PCGG, through Commissioner Maximo
by contract and, therefore, can reject
A. Maceren and lawyer Eliseo B. Alampay, asserts in its
cases offered to them, the Solicitor comment that the scope of its authority under Executive
General and PCGG are wedded to
Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14 is broad enough to include the
each other by statute for better and
authority to engage the services of private lawyers, if
for worse. And only a divorce, through necessary, for the fulfillment of its mandate. W hile such
the abolition of PCGG or resignation authority is not expressly stated in said executive orders,
of the Solicitor General, can untie the
"it must be deemed necessarily implied in and subsumed
marital knot. Otherwise, the
under the expressly enumerated powers of the
relationship should continue sans Commission." 12
PCGG demurring, and the Solicitor
General withdrawing. Absent such
resignation or abolition, the Solicitor The PCGG contends that its power under Section 1 of
General has to prosecute or defend Executive Order No. 14 to "file and prosecute all cases
the said cases to the best of his investigated by it" includes "the grant of discretion to the
ability. Commission in determining the manner of filing and
prosecuting its cases including the matter of who, in
particular, will control and supervise the prosecution of
Hence, petitioner contends, the PCGG acted without or
said cases." The phrase "with the assistance of the
in excess of jurisdiction in hiring private lawyers as
Office of the Solicitor General and other government
substitutes for the Solicitor General. Nowhere in agencies" simply means that the Solicitor General is
Executive Order Nos. 1, 2 and 14 does it appear that the
called upon to render assistance to the PCGG and
PCGG is authorized to hire said lawyers. Since the
whether or not such discretion is required by the
Solicitor General is named by law as the lawyer for all Commission is a matter of discretion on its part. Such
government agencies, the hiring of private lawyers by provision does not preclude the PCGG from engaging
such agencies is impliedly excluded. Thus, by employing
the services of private lawyers in the same way that it is
private lawyers, the PCGG is creating a public office and
"clearly authorized to hire accountants, appraisers,
naming a public officer. However, in the absence of a law researchers and other professionals as it performs its
providing for the creation of the office of PCGG counsel,
functions." Since, upon the dictates of legal and practical
said hired lawyers are usurpers or intruders whose acts
necessity, it has hired lawyers in the United States and in
Switzerland, "it may similarly hire Filipino lawyers in the prosecution and progress not only of the original 39
prosecuting its Philippine cases." 13 civil cases, but also of all kinds of "incidents."

The PCGG further asserts that the hiring of private Nonetheless, the OSG lawyers faced the challenge and
lawyers is "not an ultra vires" act but a "means by which the odds if only to live up to their task as "the best
(it) can effectively exercise its powers." It emphasizes the lawyers there are in the country." The OSG further
fact that it hired private lawyers "only after the Officer of explains: 18
the Solicitor General had unilaterally withdrawn its
appearance" for the PCGG in the various pending
On many a time, however a time,
PCGG-instituted cases. Its own Litigation Division, which
however, the lack of the above-
was constituted after the Solicitor General's withdrawal, mentioned consultation or information
is "sorely undermanned" but it has to contend with resulted in situations that rendered
"affluent and influential individuals and entities" who can
the OSG unavoidably incapable of
"afford to hire skilled lawyers and organize vast litigation
performing its functions and duties as
networks." The PCGG tried to seek the assistance of the Lawyer of the Government, not only
Department of Justice and the Office of the Government
as mandated upon it by law and as
Corporate Counsel but only the former sent two
spelled out in Orbos v. CSC, G.R. No.
additional prosecutors to handle its cases. 14
92561, September 12, 1990, but also
in consonance with its office motto:
The PCGG clarifies that its powers are circumscribed not "Integrity In Advocacy."
only by the executive orders aforementioned but also by
the inherent police power of the State. By hiring private
Once the OSG argued before the
lawyers, it was merely trying to assist the President of the
Sandiganbayan that an asset was
Philippines in protecting the interest of the State. As
under sequestration, only to be
such, it was acting as an alter ego of the President and informed by the adverse party waving
therefore, it was the Executive which determined the
a document before the
necessity of engaging the services of private
Sandiganbayan Justices that the
prosecutors. Contending that "overwhelming necessity" sequestration had earlier been lifted,
impelled it to hire private lawyers, the PCGG avers that with a PCGG resolution, the
inasmuch as the Central Bank of the Philippines or the
document, to boot (Razon case).
Philippine National Bank may engage the services of
Then, again, OSG argued, even
private lawyers, with more reason may it be allowed to before this Honorable Court, that an
hire private prosecutors after it was abandoned by the
ill-gotten asset had "mysteriously"
Solicitor General in the prosecution of the ill-gotten
disappeared, only to be informed by
wealth cases. Consequently, "the Solicitor General's the Honorable Court, that a PCGG
withdrawal of assistance is tantamount to his tacit Commissioner had earlier by
approval of the PCGG's hiring of private prosecutors in
resolution authorized the disposition
replacement of the solicitors handling the said civil
of the asset (COCOFED case). All the
cases." 15 instances need not be enumerated
here, as they are not meat and
The PCGG concludes that the reasonableness of the substance, even as OSG is rendered
compensation for its hired lawyers can hardly be thereby a laughing stock in its
questioned considering the expertise of said lawyers and professionalism.
the complexity of the cases they would be handling for
the PCGG. Thus, the prayer for a preliminary injunction As to matters that are of great pith
must be denied otherwise "the harm that would be done
and moment, suffice it to say that the
would be far greater than the perceived mischief
recent Benedicto "compromise"
petitioner seeks to prevent." 16
agreement, not to mention the SMC-
UCPB Compromise settlement, is sub
Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez inhibits himself judice or under advisement not only of
from appearing in this case "considering that as far as the Sandiganbayan but also of this
the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG for brevity) is Honorable Court in separate
concerned, the subject is a closed matter among the "incidents," and suffice it to state that
OSG, the PCGG and the Courts." 17 In the comment filed the relationship, obtaining between
by Assistant Solicitor General Edgardo L. Kilayko and the Government offices/agencies and
Solicitor Iderlina P. Pagunuran, the OSG sets out at the Office of the Solicitor General as
length the history of the PCGG from its creation until the counsel, is not at all like one that
filing in the Sandiganbayan of thirty-nine (39) " prima simply would obtain between private
facie cases" for ill-gotten wealth against former President client and private lawyer in private
Marcos and his cronies. As suits and countersuits practice, although constant
stemmed from the original thirty-nine (39) civil cases, consultation and advice are sine qua
"the OSG had been put to a tremendous task and thus non in both types of relationship. The
invariably in urgent need of being consulted or informed relationship is rather one, created as
by the PCGG of the facts and circumstances material to it is by law, where imposed upon
 OSG is the responsibility to present to In his reply to the comments of the PCGG and the OSG,
the courts the position that will uphold the petitioner insists that although as between the
the best interests of the People, the Solicitor General and the PCGG, this case may have
Government and the State, albeit the been rendered moot and academic, as between him on
same may run counter to its client's the one hand and the Solicitor General and the PCGG on
position or route of action. At any rate, the other hand, a "real controversy" still exists and the
the PCGG through nationwide TV issues raised herein have not ceased to exist either.
broadcast and print media, publicly Moreover, a judgment of prohibition
announced that PCGG had disposed and mandamus would have a "practical legal effect and
22
with or otherwise did not need the can be enforced."
legal services of the Lawyer of the
Government, and thus OSG Citing Miguel v. Zulueta, 23 and Taada
descended, not the unmerited remark 24
v. Tuvera, petitioner asserts that he has a standing in
of having "abandoned" the ill-gotten
court because where a question of public right is involved
wealth cases, but the time-honored
and the object of the mandamus is the enforcement of a
principle of impossibilium nulla public duty, the relator need not show any legal or
obligatio est, i.e., there is no special interest in the result of the proceeding. It is
obligation to do impossible things
sufficient that, as a citizen, he is interested in having the
(Lim Co Chui v. Paredes, 47 Phil.
laws executed and the duty in question enforced.
463), without in any way casting any
aspersion on the moral integrity of
any Commissioner or PCGG official, The petitioner rebuts the PCGG's contention that its
as made clear by the Solicitor power to hire private lawyers may be implied from its
General to the President in a meeting expressly enumerated powers. He asserts that since
with PCGG. P.D. No. 478 mandates that "the Solicitor General as law
office of the government with the duty to appear for the
PCGG," no implication from the express powers of (the)
Hence, in the light of all the foregoing
PCGG can stand against the language of P.D. No. 478.
circumstances, at rock-bottom
On the other hand, the law regarding the PCGG and that
precisely so as not to prejudice "the
regarding the Solicitor General should be harmonized. 25
interest of the Government" (Orbos),
the Solicitor General withdrew as
counsel for PCGG in all said cases by The Court considers these pleadings sufficient bases for
filing a notice of "W ithdrawal of resolving this petition and, on account of the importance
Appearance with Reservation." and imperativeness of the issues raised herein, the filing
of memoranda by the parties is dispensed with.
In arguing that the instant petition should be dismissed,
the OSG contends that this case has become moot and W e shall, first of all, confront a preliminary issue
academic as this very Court had resolved to allow the interposed by the OSG whether or not this case has
withdrawal of appearance of the Solicitor General in all been rendered moot and academic by this Court's
the cases pending before it "with reservation, resolution granting the Solicitor General's motion to
conformably with PD No. 478, Executive Order No. 292, withdraw appearance as counsel in the several cases
as well as the doctrine laid down in 'Orbos v. Civil pending herein. It should be clarified that the
Service Commission, et al.,' G.R. No. 92561, September resolution had to be issued with the national interest in
12, 1990, . . ." 19 For its part, the Sandiganbayan had mind. Time was of the essence and any hedging on the
also resolved that "the appearance of the Solicitor part of the PCGG and/or its counsel could, not merely set
General is deemed withdrawn to be substituted by the back but prejudice, the government's all-out efforts to
PCGG's legal panel." 20 recover ill-gotten wealth.

The OSG maintains further that the instant petition does Notwithstanding the ostensible mootness of the issues
not present a case and controversy as the petitioner raised in a case, this Court has never shirked from its
himself does not even have a "court standing" and a symbolic function of educating bench and bar by
"litigable interest." All the petitioner seeks is an "advisory formulating guiding and controlling principles, precepts,
opinion." The OSG asserts that the "incident" (referring to doctrines and rules. 26 More so, if the case is of such
the Solicitor General's withdrawal of appearance) should magnitude that certain legal ambiguities must be
be distinguished from that in JPC Enterprise, unravelled for the protection of the national interest. 27
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, et al., 21 wherein the Assets
Privatization Trust (APT) decided to appear for itself To allow the transcendental issue of whether the OSG
because the law names the Minister of Justice only as may withdraw its appearance in a cluster of cases of
its ex oficio legal adviser while by itself it can file suits national import to pass into legal limbo simply because it
and institute proceedings and engage external expertise has been "mooted" would be a clear case of misguided
in the fulfillment of its tasks. However, since the APT has judicial self-restraint. This Court has assiduously taken
no personality of its own, it should have appeared every opportunity to lay down brick by brick the doctrinal
through the Solicitor General. The OSG argues that said infrastructure of our legal system. Certainly, this is no
"adversarial incident" is not present in this case.
time for a display of judicial timorousness of the kind direct the Solicitor General to do so.
which the Solicitor General is untimely exhibiting now. (Emphasis supplied)

Accordingly, we confront the issue conscious of their far- Six months later, a law was passed reorganizing the
reaching implications, not alone on the instant case but Office of the Attorney-General and providing for the
on future ones as well, which the OSG will surely be appointment of the said official and the Solicitor General
called upon to handle again and again. by the Civil Governor and for an increase in their
salaries. Their duties remained basically the same. 30
The resolution of the first issue laid down at the
beginning of this ponencia hinges on whether or not the In the meantime, Act No. 222 was passed on September
Solicitor General may be compelled by mandamus to 5, 1901 providing for the organization of, among others,
appear for the Republic and the PCGG. This issue is the Department of Finance and Justice which embraced
best resolved by a close scrutiny of the nature and extent within its executive control the Bureau of Justice. 31
of the power and authority lodged by law on the Solicitor
General. Under Act No. 2711, otherwise known as the
Administrative Code of 1917, the Bureau of Justice is
At this juncture, a flashback on the statutory origins of the specifically constituted "the law office of the Government
Office of the Solicitor General is in order. Incorporated in of the Philippine Islands and by it shall be performed
Act No. 136 dated June 11, duties requiring the services of a law officer." 32 Its chief
1901 28 providing for the organization of courts in the officials are the Attorney-General and his assistant, the
Philippine Islands was Chapter III entitled "The Attorney Solicitor General. 33
General." Section 40 states:
As principal law officer of the
There shall be an Attorney-General Government, the Attorney-General
for the Philippine Islands, to be shall have authority to act for and
appointed by the Philippine represent the Government of the
Commission . . . Philippine Islands, its officers, and
agents in any official investigation,
proceeding, or matter requiring the
The catalog of his duties includes the following:
services of a lawyer. 34

He shall prosecute or defend therein

all causes, civil and criminal, to which In 1932, the office of the Attorney-General was phased
out and his functions were assumed by the Secretary of
the Government of the Philippine
Justice. 35 Subsequently, the Bureau of Justice came to
Islands, or any officer thereof, in his
official capacity, is a party . . . 29 be known as the Office of the Solicitor
General, 36 headed by the Solicitor General. 37

Section 41 further provides:

Parenthetically, these institutions were patterned after
the Office of Attorney-General, created by the First U.S.
There shall be an officer learned in Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789 which called for a
the law to assist the Attorney-General "meet person, learned in the law, to act as Attorney-
in the performance of all his duties, General for the U.S." 38 W hen the Department of Justice
called the Solicitor-General who shall was established in 1870, the position of Solicitor-General
be appointed by the Commission . . . was created as an assistant to the Attorney-
In case of a vacancy in the office of General. 39 Over a century later, their respective
Attorney-General, or of his absence positions and functions remain the same. The Attorney-
or disability, the Solicitor-General General of the United States, appointed by the President
shall have power to exercise the with the advice and consent of the Senate, is now the
duties of that office. Under the head of the Department of Justice. 40 In the same
supervision of the Attorney-General, it manner, a Solicitor General, learned in the law, is
shall be the especial duty of the appointed to assist the Attorney-General in the
Solicitor-General to conduct and performance of his duties. 41
argue suits and appeals in the
Supreme Court, in which the
Philippine Government is interested, In contrast, the Solicitor-General of the Philippines,
emerging from the shadow of the Attorney-General and
and the Attorney-General may,
later, of the Secretary of Justice, has come to his own.
whenever he deems it for the interest
On July 20, 1948, Republic Act. No. 335, amending
of the Philippine Government, either
in person conduct and argue any Section 1659 of the Administrative Code, bestowed on
him the rank of Undersecretary of a Department.
case in any court of the Philippine
Subsequently, a series of amendatory laws designed to
Islands in which the Philippine
Government is interested or may enlarge the complement of the Office of the Solicitor
General was enacted 42 until on June 4, 1974, by virtue
of Presidential Decree No. 478, its pivotal role in the its officers in the
government became clearly defined and delineated. Supreme Court,
the Court of
Appeals, and all
During the martial law years, President Ferdinand E.
other courts or
Marcos leaned heavily on his Solicitor General to provide
legal underpinnings of his official acts. Reflective of the tribunals in all civil
actions and
tremendously enhanced power of the official and the
special
position was Executive Order No. 454 enacted on
September 23, 1975, conferring upon the Solicitor proceedings in
General the rank of a member of the Cabinet "with all the which the
Government or
rights, honors and privileges pertaining to the position."
any officer thereof
Said executive order was superseded by Executive
Order No. 473 dated August 12, 1976 "making the in his official
Solicitor Generala member of the Cabinet." These capacity is a party.
executive orders were capped by Executive Order No.
552 dated August 14, 1979 elevating the OSG into a (2) Investigate,
Ministry with the same powers and functions defined in initiate court
P.D. Nos. 478 and 1347. action, or in any
manner proceed
against any
P.D. 478 became, as it were, the Magna Carta of the
person,
Office of the Solicitor General. After the change of
administration, or on July 25, 1987, President Corazon C. corporation or firm
Aquino signed into law Executive Order No. 292 for the
enforcement of
instituting the Administrative Code of 1987. Under Book
any contract,
IV, Title III, Chapter 12 thereof, the Office of the Solicitor
General is described as an "independent and bond, guarantee,
mortgage, pledge
autonomous office attached to the Department of
or other collateral
Justice." Headed by the Solicitor General, "who is the
executed in favor
principal law officer and legal defender of the
Government," the Office shall have a Legal Staff of the
Government.
composed of fifteen (15) Assistant Solicitors General and
Where
such number of Solicitors and Trial Attorneys "as may be
necessary to operate the Office which shall divided into proceedings are to
fifteen (15) divisions. 43 Among its powers and functions be conducted
outside of the
are the following which are relevant to the issues:
Philippines, the
Solicitor General
Sec. 35. Powers and Functions. may employ
The office of the Solicitor General counsel to assist in
shall represent the Government of the the discharge of
Philippines, its agencies and the
instrumentalities and its officials and aforementioned
agents in any litigation, proceeding, responsibilities.
investigation or matter requiring the
services of a lawyer. W hen authorized
by the President or head of the office xxx xxx xxx
concerned, it shall also represent
government owned or controlled (8) Deputize
corporations. The Office of the legal officers of
Solicitor General shall constitute the government
law office of the Government, and, as departments,
such, shall discharge duties requiring bureaus, agencies
the services of a lawyer. (Emphasis and offices to
supplied.) It shall have the following assist the Solicitor
specific powers and functions: General and
appear or
(1) Represent the represent the
Government in
Government in the
cases involving
Supreme Court
their respective
and the Court of
Appeals in all offices, brought
before the courts
criminal
and exercise
proceedings;
represent the supervision and
Government and control over such
legal Officers with
respect to such conferences where
cases. the legal position
of the Republic
must be defended
(9) Call on any
department, or presented.
bureau, office,
agency or (11) Act for the
instrumentality of Republic and/or
the Government the people before
for such service, any court, tribunal,
assistance and body or
cooperation as commission in any
may be necessary matter, action or
in fulfilling its proceeding which,
function and in his opinion ,
responsibilities affects the welfare
and for this of the people as
purpose enlist the the ends of justice
services of any may require; and
government official
or employees in
(12) Perform such
the pursuit of his other functions as
tasks. may be provided
by law. 44
Departments,
bureaus, agencies,
In thus tracing the origins of the Office of the Solicitor
offices,
General to gain a clear understanding of the nature of the
instrumentalities functions and extent of the powers of the Solicitor
and corporations General himself, it is evident that a policy decision was
to whom the Office
made in the early beginnings to consolidate in one official
of the Solicitor
the discharge of legal functions and services in the
General renders government. These took the form mostly of representing
legal services are
the Government in various legal proceedings.
authorized to
disburse funds
from their sundry The rationale behind this step is not difficult to
operating and comprehend. Sound government operations require
other funds for the consistency in legal policies and practices among the
latter Office. For instrumentalities of the State. Moreover, an official
this purpose, the learned in the law and skilled in advocacy could best plan
Solicitor General and coordinate the strategies and moves of the legal
and his staff are battles of the different arms of the government. Surely,
specifically the economy factor, too, must have weighed heavily in
authorized to arriving at such a decision.
receive allowances
as may be It is patent that the intent of the lawmaker was to give the
provided by the designated official, the Solicitor General, in this case, the
Government unequivocal mandate to appear for the government in
offices, legal proceedings. Spread out in the laws creating the
instrumentalities office is the discernible intent which may be gathered
and corporations from the term "shall," which is invariably employed, from
concerned, in Act No. 136 (1901) to the more recent Executive Order
addition to their No. 292 (1987).
regular
compensation.
Under the principles of statutory construction, so familiar
even to law students, the term "shall" is nothing if not
(10) Represent, mandatory.
upon the
instructions of the
President of the In common or ordinary parlance and
Republic of the in its ordinary significance, the term
Philippines in "shall" is a word of command, and
international one which has always and which
litigations, must be given a compulsory meaning,
negotiations or and it is generally imperative or
 mandatory. It has the invariable for mandamusto compel him to prosecute the case. W e
significance of operating to impose a declared:
duty which may be enforced,
particularly if public policy is in favor
Notwithstanding his personal
of this meaning or when public
convictions or opinions, the fiscal
interest is involved, or where the must proceed with his duty of
public or persons have rights which
presenting evidence to the Court to
ought to be exercised or enforced,
enable the court to arrive at its own
unless a contrary intent appears. 45 independent judgment as to the
culpability of the accused. The fiscal
The presumption is that the word should not shirk from his responsibility
"shall" in a statute is used in an much less leave the prosecution of
imperative, and not in a directory, the case at the hands of a private
sense. If a different interpretations if prosecutor . . . In the trial of criminal
sought, it must rest upon something in cases, it is the duty of the public
the character of the legislation or in prosecutor to appear for the
the context which will justify a government since an offense is an
different meaning. 46 outrage to the sovereignty of the
State . . . This is so because "the
prosecuting officer is the
Exactly what is the signification of the mandate for the
representative not of an ordinary party
OSG "to represent the Government of the Philippines, its
agencies and instrumentalities and its officials and to a controversy but of a sovereignty
agents in any litigation, proceeding, investigations or where obligation to govern impartially
is as compelling as its obligations to
matter requiring the services of the lawyer?"
govern at all; and whose interest,
therefore, in criminal prosecution is
To "represent" is standing in place, not that it shall win a case, but that
supplying the place, or performing the justice shall be done. As such, he is in
duties or exercising the rights, of the a peculiar and very definite sense the
party represented; to speak or act servant of the law, the two-fold aim of
with authority on behalf of another; to which is that guilt shall not escape or
conduct and control proceedings in innocence suffer. 51
court on behalf of another. 47
Undoubtedly, the above arguments apply equally well to
The decision of this Court as early as 1910 with respect the Solicitor General who is sought to be compelled to
to the duties of Attorney-General well applies to the appear before the different courts to ensure that the case
Solicitor General under the facts of the present case. The of the Republic of the Philippines against those who
Court then declared: illegally amassed wealth at the expense the people
maybe made to account for their misdeeds and return
In this jurisdiction, it is the duty of the said wealth.
Attorney General "to perform the
duties imposed upon him by law" and Like the Attorney-General of the United States who has
"he shall prosecute all causes, civil absolute discretion in choosing whether to prosecute or
and criminal, to which the not to prosecute or to abandon a prosecution already
Government of the Philippines started, 52 our own Solicitor General may even dismiss,
Islands, or any officer thereof, in his abandon, discontinue or compromise suit either with or
official capacity, is a party . . ." 48 without stipulations with other party. 53 Abandonment of a
case, however, does not mean that the Solicitor General
Being a public officer, the Solicitor General is "invested may just drop it without any legal and valid reason for the
with some portion of the sovereign functions of the discretion given him is not unlimited. 54 Its exercise must
government, to be exercised by him for the benefit of the be, not only within the parameters set by law but with the
public." 49 Another role of the Solicitor General is an best interest of the State as the ultimate goal. Such are
officer of the Court, in which case he is called upon "to reflected in its policies, thus:
share in the task and responsibility of dispensing justice
and resolving disputes;" therefore, he may be enjoined in The discretionary power of the
the same manner that a special prosecutor was sought attorney for the United States in
enjoined by this Court from committing any act which determining whether a prosecution
may tend to "obstruct, pervert or impede and degrade the shall be commenced or maintained
administration of justice." 50 may well depend upon matters of
policy wholly apart from any question
In one case where a fiscal manifested before the trial of probable cause. Although as
court that he would not prosecute the case in court for member of the bar, the Attorney for
insufficiency of evidence after his motion to dismiss had the United States is an officer of the
been denied, this Court granted a petition court, he is nevertheless an executive
 official of the Government, and it is as February 28, 1986, and Executive
an officer of the executive department Order No. 2, dated March 12, 1986,
that he exercises a discretion as to as may be warranted by its finding.
whether or not there shall be a
prosecution in a particular case. . . . 55
Sec. 2. The Presidential Commission
on Good Government shall file all
The first executive order ever issued by President Aquino such cases, whether civil or criminal,
on February 28, 1986, created the PCGG. It announced with the Sandiganbayan, which shall
the government's policy of recovering all ill-gotten wealth have exclusive and original
amassed by former President Marcos, his immediate jurisdiction thereof.
family, relatives and close associates. It charged the
PCGG with the "task of assisting the President" in regard Sec. 3. Civil suits for restitution,
to the recovery of all ill-gotten wealth, investigation of
reparation of damages, or
"such cases of graft and corruption as the President may
indemnification for consequential
assign" to it, and the adoption of safeguards to ensure damages, forfeiture proceedings
that corruption may not be again committed with
provided for under Republic Act No.
impunity. 1379, or any other civil actions under
the Civil Code or other existing laws,
This issuance was followed by Executive Order No. 2 in connection with Executive Order
dated March 12, 1986 freezing all assets and properties No. 2 dated March 12, 1986, may be
of Marcos, his family and cronies; prohibiting their filed separately from and proceed
transfer, conveyance, encumbrance or concealment, and independently of any criminal
requiring all persons in and outside of the Philippines proceedings and may be proved by a
who are in possession of said properties to make full preponderance of evidence.
disclosure of the same to the PCGG. (Emphasis supplied).

On April 11, 1986, the PCGG promulgated its Rules and All these legal provisions ineluctably lead to no other
Regulations. A pertinent provision states: conclusion but that under the law of its creation and the
complementary Rules, the law office of the PCGG, as it
Sec. 10. Findings of the is for the rest of the Government, is the Office of the
Commission. Based on the Solicitor General. Although the PCGG is "empowered to
file and prosecute all cases investigated by it" under
evidence adduced, the Commission
Executive Orders No. 1 and 2, it does not thereby oust
shall determine whether there is
reasonable ground to believe that the the Office of the Solicitor General from its lawful mandate
to represent the Government and its agencies in any
asset, property or business enterprise
litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the
in question constitute ill-gotten wealth
services of a lawyer. Moreover, such express grant of
as described in Executive Orders
Nos. 1 and 2. In the event of an power to PCGG does not imply that it may abdicate such
power and turn over the prosecution of the cases to
affirmative finding, the Commission
private lawyers whom it may decide to employ. In those
shall certify the case to the Solicitor
General for appropriate action in instances where proceedings are to be conducted
accordance with law. Business, outside of the Philippines, the Solicitor General,
continuing to discharge his duties, may employ counsel
properties, funds, and other assets
to assist him, 56 particularly because he may not be
found to be lawfully acquired shall be
immediately released and the writ of licensed to appear before the courts in a foreign
sequestration, hold or freeze orders jurisdiction.
lifted accordingly. (Emphasis
supplied) Under its own Rules and Regulations, specifically the
provision aforequoted, the PCGG certifies to the Solicitor
General the cases for which it had found reasonable
Thereafter, or on May 7, 1986, Executive Order No. 14
defining the jurisdiction over cases involving such ill- ground to believe that certain assets and properties are
ill-gotten under Executive Order Nos. 1 and 2. The
gotten wealth was issued, it contains the following
Solicitor General shall then proceed "in accordance with
provisions:
law."

Sec. 1. Any provision of law to the

Upon receipt of a case certified to him, the Solicitor
contrary notwithstanding, the
Presidential Commission on Good General exercises his discretion in the management of
the case. He may start the prosecution of the case by
Government, with the assistance of
filing the appropriate action in court or he may opt not to
the Solicitor General and other
government agencies, is hereby file the case at all. He may do everything within his legal
empowered to file and prosecute all authority but always conformably with the national
interest and the policy of the government on the matter at
cases investigated by it under
Executive Order No. 1, dated hand.
After filing a case, he may even move for its dismissal in same token, the Solicitor General should not decline to
the event that, along the way, he realizes that appear in court to represent a government agency
prosecuting the case would not serve the government's without just and valid reason, especially the PCGG which
purposes. In other words, because he was appointed to is under the Office of the President, he being a part of the
the position on account of his qualification as a man Executive Department.
"learned in the law," the Solicitor General is obligated to
perform his functions and to perform them well. He
In the case at bar, the reason advanced by the Solicitor
may not, however, abdicate his function through an
General for his motion to withdraw his appearance as
arbitrary exercise of his discretion. W e find that a lawyer for the PCGG is that he has been, more than
withdrawal of appearance on flimsy or petty grounds is once embarrassed in court and thereby made "a
tantamount to withdrawing on no grounds at all and to a
laughing stock in its (his) professionalism." Examples are
dereliction of duty. when the OSG lawyers betrayed ignorance in open court
of certain moves taken by the PCGG, such as the lifting
The Office of the Solicitor General repeatedly invoked the of a sequestration of an asset or when it was under the
ruling in Orbos v. Civil Service Commission, 57 which impression that an asset had mysteriously disappeared
hardly constitutes authority to uphold its position with only to be informed that "a PCGG Commissioner had
respect to the withdrawal of the Solicitor General in the earlier by resolution authorized the disposition of said
instant case. On the contrary, in said case, this Court asset."
struck down private respondent's motion to disqualify the
OSG from appearing for petitioner Department of
The last straw, as it were, was the public announcement
Transportation and Communications Secretary Orbos. At
through media made by the PCGG that it had "dispensed
the risk of being repetitious, the parties were reminded with or otherwise did not need the legal services of the
that under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 478 lawyer of the government." 60 It is evident that the
withdrawal of the Solicitor General was precipitated by
The Office of the Solicitor institutional pique, the lawyers concerned having allowed
General shall represent the their collective pride to prevail over their sense of duty in
Government of the Philippines, its protecting and upholding the public interest.
agencies and instrumentalities and its
officials and agents in any litigation, One wistfully wishes that the OSG could have been as
proceeding, investigation, or matter
zealous in representing the PCGG as it was in appearing
requiring the services of a lawyer.
for the head of their office, the Solicitor General, in a civil
(Emphasis supplied) suit for damages filed against him in a Regional Trial
Court arising from allegedly defamatory remarks uttered
This Court clarified that even when "confronted with a by him.
situation where one government office takes an adverse
position against another government agency, as in this
Such enthusiasm, according to this Court, was
case, the Solicitor General should not refrain from
misplaced. For Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 478
performing his duty as the lawyer of the government. It is which authorizes the OSG to represent the Government
incumbent upon him to present to the court what he
of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities and
considers would legally uphold the best interest of the
its officials and agents in any litigation, admits of an
government although it may run counter to a client's exception, and that it is, it stops short of representing "a
position. In such an instance, the government office public official at any stage of a criminal case or in a civil
adversely affected by the position taken by the Solicitor
suit for damages arising from a felony." 61
General, if it still believes in the merit of its case may
appear in its own behalf through its legal personnel or
representative." In instances such as the above, the OSG can, with
reason, withdraw its representation even if it has already
entered its appearance. But the Solicitor General, as the
The Court further pointed out that it is not entirely officially-mandated lawyer of the government, is not
impossible that the Office of the Solicitor General may
empowered to take a similar step on the basis of a petty
take a position adverse to his clients like the Civil Service
reason like embarrassment, as that to which the
Commission and the National Labor Relations individual lawyers assigned to appear for their office were
Commission, among others, and even the People of the
subjected. Had they not been too preoccupied with their
Philippines. In such instances, however, it is not proper
personal feelings, they could have checked themselves
for the Solicitor General to simply decline to handle the
in time. For a sense of professional responsibility and
case or arbitrarily withdraw therefrom. The Court enjoins proper decorum would dictate that they distinguish
him to "nevertheless manifest his opinion and
between the institution which, from the very beginning,
recommendations to the Court which is an invaluable aid
had been constituted as the law office of the Government
in the disposition of the case." 58 and the individuals through whom its powers and duties
are exercised. No emotions, of whatever kind and
However, in those cases where a government agency degree, should be allowed to becloud their high sense of
declines the services of the Solicitor General or duty and commitment to country and people.
otherwise fails or refuses to forward the papers of the
case to him for appropriate action, the Court categorically
held that ". . . this practice should be estopped." 59 By the
The OSG itself admitted refraining from citing other In the face of such express refusal on the part of the
incidents as additional bases for the Solicitor General's Solicitor General to continue his appearance as counsel
withdrawal "as they are not of meat and substance" but of the PCGG in the cases to recover the ill-gotten wealth
apparently, their overwhelming sense of shame of the Filipino people from the Marcoses and their
overcame them as the OSG was "rendered thereby a cronies, the PCGG has had to employ the service of a
laughing stock in its professionalism." 62 group of private attorneys lest the national interest be
prejudiced. W ere this Court to allow such action to
remain unchallenged, this could well signal the laying
Now a word on the incidents that allegedly caused
humiliation to the OSG lawyers, thus provoking the down of the novel and unprecedented doctrine that the
Solicitor General into withdrawing his appearance as representation by the Solicitor General of the
Government enunciated by law is, after all, not
counsel for the PCGG. No litigation can be assured of
mandatory but merely directory. W orse, that this option
success if counsel does not enjoy the confidence of his
client. This is manifested by, among other things, holding may be exercised on less than meritorious grounds; not
on substance but on whimsy, depending on the all too
regular, constant and untrammeled consultation with
human frailties of the lawyers in the OSG assigned to a
each other. W ho can say but that if the communication
lines had been kept open between the OSG and PCGG, particular case. Under such circumstances, it were better
no surprises would have been sprung on the former by to repeal the law than leave the various government
agencies, all dependent on the OSG for legal
the latter in open court?
representation, in a condition of suspenseful uncertainty.
With every looming legal battle, they will be speculating
Petitioner's claim that the Solicitor General could not whether they can rely on the Solicitor General to defend
withdraw his appearance as lawyer of PCGG inasmuch the Government's interest or whether they shall have to
as he had neither the consent of his client nor the depend on their own "in-house" resources for legal
authority from the court, applying the pertinent provision assistance.
of the Rules of Court, is not well-taken. Here is no
ordinary lawyer-client relationship. Let it be remembered
that the client is no less than the Republic of the The Court is firmly convinced that, considering the spirit
and the letter of the law, there can be no other logical
Philippines in whom the plenum of sovereignty resides.
interpretation of Sec. 35 of the Administrative Code than
Whether regarded as an abstract entity or an ideal
that it is, indeed, mandatory upon the OSG to "represent
person, it is to state the obvious that it can only act
through the instrumentality of the government which, the Government of the Philippines, its agencies and
instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any
according to the Administrative Code of 1987, refers to
litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter requiring the
the "corporate governmental entity through which the
functions of government are exercised throughout the services of a lawyer."
Philippines . . ." 63 And the OSG is, by law, constituted
the law office of the Government whose specific powers Sound management policies require that the
and functions include that of representing the Republic government's approach to legal problems and policies
and/or the people before any court in any action which formulated on legal issues be harmonized and
affects the welfare of the people as the ends of justice coordinated by a specific agency. The government owes
may require. it to its officials and their respective offices, the political
units at different levels, the public and the various
sectors, local and international, that have dealings with it,
Indeed, in the final analysis, it is the Filipino people as a
to assure them of a degree of certitude and predictability
collectivity that constitutes the Republic of the
Philippines. Thus, the distinguished client of the OSG is in matters of legal import.
the people themselves of which the individual lawyers in
said office are a part. From the historical and statutory perspectives detailed
earlier in this ponencia, it is beyond cavil that it is the
Solicitor General who has been conferred the singular
In order to cushion the impact of his untimely withdrawal
honor and privilege of being the "principal law officer and
of appearance which might adversely affect the case, the
Solicitor General has offered "to submit his legal defender of the Government." One would be hard
put to name a single legal group or law firm that can
comment/observation on incidents/matters pending with
match the expertise, experience, resources, staff and
this Honorable Court, if called for by circumstances in the
interest of the government or if he is so required by the prestige of the OSG which were painstakingly built up for
court." However, as correctly pointed out by the almost a century.
petitioner, while the Solicitor General may be free to
express his views and comments before the Court in Moreover, endowed with a broad perspective that spans
connection with a case he is handling, he may not do so the legal interests of virtually the entire government
anymore after he has formally expressed his refusal to officialdom, the OSG may be expected to transcend the
appear therein. For by then, he has lost his standing in parochial concerns of a particular client agency and
court. Unless his views are sought by the court, the instead, promote and protect the public weal. Given such
Solicitor General may not voluntarily appear in behalf of objectivity, it can discern, metaphorically speaking, the
his client after his withdrawal from the case; otherwise, panoply that is the forest and not just the individual trees.
such reappearance would constitute a blatant disregard Not merely will it strive for a legal victory circumscribed
for court rules and procedure, and that, on the part of one by the narrow interests of the client office or official, but
who is presumed to be "learned in the law."
as well, the vast concerns of the sovereign which it is IN THE MATTER OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE BAR
committed to serve. OF THE PHILIPPINES.

In light of the foregoing, the Solicitor General's RESOLUTION

withdrawal of his appearance on behalf of the PCGG was
beyond the scope of his authority in the management of
a case. As a public official, it is his sworn duty to provide
legal services to the Government, particularly to
represent it in litigations. And such duty may be enjoined PER CURIAM:
upon him by the writ of mandamus. And such duty may
be enjoined upon him by the writ of mandamus. Such On December 1, 1972, the Commission on Bar
order, however, should not be construed to mean that his Integration 1 submitted its Report dated November 30,
discretion in the handling of his cases may be interfered 1972, with the "earnest recommendation" on the basis
with. The Court is not compelling him to act in a particular of the said Report and the proceedings had in
way. 64 Rather, the Court is directing him to prevent a Administrative Case No. 526 2 of the Court, and
failure of justice 65resulting from his abandonment in "consistently with the views and counsel received from its
midstream of the cause of the PCGG and the Republic [the Commission's] Board of Consultants, as well as the
and ultimately, of the Filipino people. overwhelming nationwide sentiment of the Philippine
Bench and Bar" that "this Honorable Court ordain the
In view of the foregoing, there need be no proof adduced integration of the Philippine Bar as soon as possible
that the petitioner has a personal interest in the case, as through the adoption and promulgation of an appropriate
his petition is anchored on the right of the people, Court Rule."
through the PCGG and the Republic, to be represented
in court by the public officer duly authorized by law. The The petition in Adm. Case No. 526 formally prays the
requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere Court to order the integration of the Philippine Bar, after
fact that the petitioner is a citizen and hence, part of the due hearing, giving recognition as far as possible and
public which possesses the right. 66 practicable to existing provincial and other local Bar
associations. On August 16, 1962, arguments in favor of
The writ of prohibition, however, may not be similarly as well as in opposition to the petition were orally
treated and granted in this petition. The said writ, being expounded before the Court. W ritten oppositions were
intended to prevent the doing of some act that is about to admitted, 3 and all parties were thereafter granted leave
be done, it may not provide a remedy for acts which are to file written memoranda. 4
already fait accompli. 67 Having been placed in a situation
where it was constrained to hire private lawyers if the Since then, the Court has closely observed and followed
Republic's campaign to legally recover the wealth significant developments relative to the matter of the
amassed by the Marcoses, their friends and relatives integration of the Bar in this jurisdiction.
was to prosper, the PCGG's action is justified. However,
it was not entirely blameless. Its failure to coordinate
closely with the Solicitor General has spawned the In 1970, convinced from preliminary surveys that there
incidents which culminated in the withdrawal of the latter had grown a strong nationwide sentiment in favor of Bar
from appearing as counsel in its cases. integration, the Court created the Commission on Bar
Integration for the purpose of ascertaining the advisability
of unifying the Philippine Bar.
WHEREFORE, the petition for a writ of mandamus is
hereby GRANTED. The Solicitor General is DIRECTED
to immediately re-enter his appearance in the cases In September, 1971, Congress passed House Bill No.
wherein he had filed a motion to withdraw appearance 3277 entitled "An Act Providing for the Integration of the
and the PCGG shall terminate the services of the lawyers Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds Therefor." The
it had employed but not before paying them the measure was signed by President Ferdinand E. Marcos
reasonable fees due them in accordance with rules and on September 17, 1971 and took effect on the same day
regulations of the Commission on Audit. as Rep. Act 6397. This law provides as follows:

This decision is immediately executory. SECTION 1. W ithin two years from

the approval of this Act, the Supreme
Court may adopt rules of court to
SO ORDERED. effect the integration of the Philippine
Bar under such conditions as it shall
Narvasa, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, see fit in order to raise the standards
Paras, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Medialdea, of the legal profession, improve the
Regalado, Davide, Jr. and Nocon, JJ., concur. administration of justice, and enable
the Bar to discharge its public
responsibility more effectively.
Feliciano, J., concurs in the result.

anuary 9, 1973
 SEC. 2. The sum of five hundred Complete unification is not possible
thousand pesos is hereby unless it is decreed by an entity with
appropriated, out of any funds in the power to do so: the State. Bar
National Treasury not otherwise integration, therefore, signifies the
appropriated, to carry out the setting up by Government authority of
purposes of this Act. Thereafter, such a national organization of the legal
sums as may be necessary for the profession based on the recognition
same purpose shall be included in the of the lawyer as an officer of the
annual appropriations for the court.
Supreme Court.
Designed to improve the position of
SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect the Bar as an instrumentality of justice
upon its approval. and the Rule of Law, integration
fosters cohesion among lawyers, and
The Report of the Commission abounds with argument ensures, through their own organized
action and participation, the
on the constitutionality of Bar integration and contains all
promotion of the objectives of the
necessary factual data bearing on the advisability
legal profession, pursuant to the
(practicability and necessity) of Bar integration. Also
embodied therein are the views, opinions, sentiments, principle of maximum Bar autonomy
with minimum supervision and
comments and observations of the rank and file of the
Philippine lawyer population relative to Bar integration, as regulation by the Supreme Court.
well as a proposed integration Court Rule drafted by the
Commission and presented to them by that body in a The purposes of an integrated Bar, in
national Bar plebiscite. There is thus sufficient basis as general, are:
well as ample material upon which the Court may decide
whether or not to integrate the Philippine Bar at this time. (1) Assist in the administration of
justice;
The following are the pertinent issues:
(2) Foster and maintain on the part of
(1) Does the Court have the power to its members high ideals of integrity,
integrate the Philippine Bar? learning, professional competence,
public service and conduct;
(2) W ould the integration of the Bar
be constitutional? (3) Safeguard the professional
interests of its members;
(3) Should the Court ordain the
integration of the Bar at this time? (4) Cultivate among its members a
spirit of cordiality and brotherhood;
A resolution of these issues requires, at the outset, a
statement of the meaning of Bar integration. It will suffice, (5) Provide a forum for the discussion
for this purpose, to adopt the concept given by the of law, jurisprudence, law reform,
Commission on Bar Integration on pages 3 to 5 of pleading, practice and procedure, and
its Report, thus: the relations of the Bar to the Bench
and to the public, and publish
Integration of the Philippine Bar information relating thereto;
means the official unification of the
entire lawyer population of the (6) Encourage and foster legal
Philippines. This education;
requires membership and financial
support (in reasonable amount) of
(7) Promote a continuing program of
every attorney as conditions sine qua
legal research in substantive and
non to the practice of law and the adjective law, and make reports and
retention of his name in the Roll of
recommendations thereon; and
Attorneys of the Supreme Court.

(8) Enable the Bar to discharge its

The term "Bar" refers to the
public responsibility effectively.
collectivity of all persons whose
names appear in the Roll of
Attorneys. An Integrated Bar (or Integration of the Bar will, among
Unified Bar) perforce must include all other things, make it possible for the
lawyers. legal profession to:
(1) Render more effective assistance functions and duties of the Filipino
in maintaining the Rule of Law; lawyer; and

(2) Protect lawyers and litigants (14) Generate and maintain pervasive
against the abuse of tyrannical judges and meaningful country-wide
and prosecuting officers; involvement of the lawyer population
in the solution of the multifarious
(3) Discharge, fully and properly, its problems that afflict the nation.
responsibility in the disciplining and/or
removal of incompetent and unworthy Anent the first issue, the Court is of the view that it may
judges and prosecuting officers; integrate the Philippine Bar in the exercise of its power,
under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, "to
promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and
(4) Shield the judiciary, which
traditionally cannot defend itself procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice
of law." Indeed, the power to integrate is an inherent part
except within its own forum, from the
of the Court's constitutional authority over the Bar. In
assaults that politics and self-interest
may level at it, and assist it to providing that "the Supreme Court may adopt rules of
maintain its integrity, impartiality and court to effect the integration of the Philippine Bar,"
Republic Act 6397 neither confers a new power nor
independence;
restricts the Court's inherent power, but is a mere
legislative declaration that the integration of the Bar will
(5) Have an effective voice in the promote public interest or, more specifically, will "raise
selection of judges and prosecuting the standards of the legal profession, improve the
officers; administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge
its public responsibility more effectively."
(6) Prevent the unauthorized practice
of law, and break up any monopoly of Resolution of the second issue whether the unification
local practice maintained through of the Bar would be constitutional hinges on the
influence or position; effects of Bar integration on the lawyer's constitutional
rights of freedom of association and freedom of speech,
(7) Establish welfare funds for families and on the nature of the dues exacted from him.
of disabled and deceased lawyers;
The Court approvingly quotes the following pertinent
(8) Provide placement services, and discussion made by the Commission on Bar Integration
establish legal aid offices and set up pages 44 to 49 of its Report:
lawyer reference services throughout
the country so that the poor may not Constitutionality of Bar Integration
lack competent legal service;
Judicial Pronouncements.
(9) Distribute educational and
informational materials that are
In all cases where the validity of Bar
difficult to obtain in many of our
integration measures has been put in
provinces;
issue, the Courts have upheld their
constitutionality.
(10) Devise and maintain a program
of continuing legal education for
practising attorneys in order to The judicial pronouncements support
elevate the standards of the this reasoning:
profession throughout the country;
Courts have inherent power to
supervise and regulate the practice of
(11) Enforce rigid ethical standards,
and promulgate minimum fees law.
schedules;
The practice of law is not a vested
(12) Create law centers and establish right but a privilege; a privilege,
moreover, clothed with public interest,
law libraries for legal research;
because a lawyer owes duties not
only to his client, but also to his
(13) Conduct campaigns to educate brethren in the profession, to the
the people on their legal rights and courts, and to the nation; and takes
obligations, on the importance of part in one of the most important
preventive legal advice, and on the functions of the State, the
administration of justice, as an officer The greater part of Unified Bar
of the court. activities serves the function of
elevating the educational and ethical
standards of the Bar to the end of
Because the practice of law is
improving the quality of the legal
privilege clothed with public interest, it
is far and just that the exercise of that service available to the people. The
Supreme Court, in order to further the
privilege be regulated to assure
State's legitimate interest in elevating
compliance with the lawyer's public
the quality of professional services,
responsibilities.
may require that the cost of improving
the profession in this fashion be
These public responsibilities can shared by the subjects and
best be discharged through collective beneficiaries of the regulatory
action; but there can be no collective program the lawyers.
action without an organized body; no
organized body can operate
Assuming that Bar integration does
effectively without incurring expenses;
compel a lawyer to be a member of
therefore, it is fair and just that all
the Integrated Bar, such compulsion
attorneys be required to contribute to
the support of such organized body; is justified as an exercise of the police
power of the State. The legal
and, given existing Bar conditions, the
profession has long been regarded as
most efficient means of doing so is by
integrating the Bar through a rule of a proper subject of legislative
court that requires all lawyers to pay regulation and control. Moreover, the
inherent power of the Supreme Court
annual dues to the Integrated Bar.
to regulate the Bar includes the
authority to integrate the Bar.
1. Freedom of Association.
2. Regulatory Fee.
To compel a lawyer to be a member
of an integrated Bar is not violative of
his constitutional freedom to For the Court to prescribe dues to be
associate (or the corollary right not to paid by the members does not mean
that the Court levies a tax.
associate).

A membership fee in the Integrated

Integration does not make a lawyer a
Bar is an exaction for regulation, while
member of any group of which he is
not already a member. He became a the purpose of a tax is revenue. If the
member of the Bar when he passed Court has inherent power to regulate
the Bar, it follows that as an incident
the Bar examinations. All that
to regulation, it may impose a
integration actually does is to provide
an official national organization for the membership fee for that purpose. It
would not be possible to push through
well-defined but unorganized and
an Integrated Bar program without
incohesive group of which every
means to defray the concomitant
lawyer is already a member.
expenses. The doctrine of implied
powers necessarily includes the
Bar integration does not compel the power to impose such an exaction.
lawyer to associate with anyone. He
is free to attend or not attend the
The only limitation upon the State's
meetings of his Integrated Bar
Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its power to regulate the Bar is that the
elections as he chooses. The body regulation does not impose an
unconstitutional burden. The public
compulsion to which he is subjected
interest promoted by the integration of
is the payment of annual dues.
the Bar far outweighs the
inconsequential inconvenience to a
Otherwise stated, membership in the member that might result from his
Unified Bar imposes only the duty to required payment of annual dues.
pay dues in reasonable amount. The
issue therefore, is a question of
compelled financial support of group 3. Freedom of Speech.
activities, not involuntary membership
in any other aspect. A lawyer is free, as he has always
been, to voice his views on any
subject in any manner he wishes,
 even though such views be opposed necessity as well as the advantages and disadvantages
to positions taken by the Unified Bar. of Bar integration.

For the Integrated Bar to use a In many other jurisdictions, notably in England, Canada
member's due to promote measures and the United States, Bar integration has yielded the
to which said member is opposed, following benefits: (1) improved discipline among the
would not nullify or adversely affect members of the Bar; (2) greater influence and
his freedom of speech. ascendancy of the Bar; (3) better and more meaningful
participation of the individual lawyer in the activities of the
Integrated Bar; (4) greater Bar facilities and services; (5)
Since a State may constitutionally
condition the right to practice law elimination of unauthorized practice; (6) avoidance of
upon membership in the Integrated costly membership campaigns; (7) establishment of an
official status for the Bar; (8) more cohesive profession;
Bar, it is difficult to understand why it
and (9) better and more effective discharge by the Bar of
should become unconstitutional for
the Bar to use the member's dues to its obligations and responsibilities to its members, to the
courts, and to the public. No less than these salutary
fulfill the very purposes for which it
consequences are envisioned and in fact expected from
was established.
the unification of the Philippine Bar.

The objection would make every

Upon the other hand, it has been variously argued that in
Governmental exaction the material of
a "free speech" issue. Even the the event of integration, Government authority will
dominate the Bar; local Bar associations will be
income tax would be suspect. The
weakened; cliquism will be the inevitable result; effective
objection would carry us to lengths
lobbying will not be possible; the Bar will become an
that have never been dreamed of.
The conscientious objector, if his impersonal Bar; and politics will intrude into its affairs.
liberties were to be thus extended,
might refuse to contribute taxes in It is noteworthy, however, that these and other evils
furtherance of war or of any other end prophesied by opponents of Bar integration have failed to
condemned by his conscience as materialize in over fifty years of Bar integration
irreligious or immoral. The right of experience in England, Canada and the United States. In
private judgment has never yet been all the jurisdictions where the Integrated Bar has been
exalted above the powers and the tried, none of the abuses or evils feared has arisen; on
compulsion of the agencies of the other hand, it has restored public confidence in the
Government. Bar, enlarged professional consciousness, energized the
Bar's responsibilities to the public, and vastly improved
the administration of justice.
4. Fair to All Lawyers.

How do the Filipino lawyers themselves regard Bar

Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers
integration? The official statistics compiled by the
already practising because although
the requirement to pay annual dues is Commission on Bar integration show that in the national
poll recently conducted by the Commission in the matter
a new regulation, it will give the
of the integration of the Philippine Bar, of a total of
members of the Bar a new system
15,090 lawyers from all over the archipelago who have
which they hitherto have not had and
through which, by proper work, they turned in their individual responses, 14,555 (or 96.45 per
cent) voted in favor of Bar integration, while only 378 (or
will receive benefits they have not
2.51 per cent) voted against it, and 157 (or 1.04 per cent)
heretofore enjoyed, and discharge
their public responsibilities in a more are non-commital. In addition, a total of eighty (80) local
effective manner than they have been Bar association and lawyers' groups all over the
Philippines have submitted resolutions and other
able to do in the past. Because the
expressions of unqualified endorsement and/or support
requirement to pay dues is a valid
exercise of regulatory power by the for Bar integration, while not a single local Bar
association or lawyers' group has expressed opposed
Court, because it will apply equally to
position thereto. Finally, of the 13,802 individual lawyers
all lawyers, young and old, at the time
who cast their plebiscite ballots on the proposed
Bar integration takes effect, and
because it is a new regulation in integration Court Rule drafted by the Commission,
12,855 (or 93.14 per cent) voted in favor thereof, 662 (or
exchange for new benefits, it is not
4.80 per cent) vote against it, and 285 (or 2.06 per cent)
retroactive, it is not unequal, it is not
are non-committal. 5 All these clearly indicate an
unfair.
overwhelming nationwide demand for Bar integration at
this time.
To resolve the third and final issue whether the Court
should ordain the integration of the Bar at this time
The Court is fully convinced, after a thoroughgoing
requires a careful overview of the practicability and
conscientious study of all the arguments adduced in
Adm. Case No. 526 and the authoritative materials and
the mass of factual data contained in the IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRY INTO THE 1989
exhaustive Report of the Commission on Bar Integration, ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
that the integration of the Philippine Bar is "perfectly PHILIPPINES.
constitutional and legally unobjectionable," within the
context of contemporary conditions in the Philippines,
has become an imperative means to raise the standards
of the legal profession, improve the administration of
justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public PER CURIAM:
responsibility fully and effectively.
In the election of the national officers of the Integrated
ACCORDINGLY, the Court, by virtue of the power vested Bar of the Philippines (hereafter "IBP") held on June 3,
in it by Section 13 of Article VIII of the Constitution, 1989 at the Philippine International Convention Center
hereby ordains the integration of the Bar of the (or PICC), the following were elected by the House of
Philippines in accordance with the attached COURT Delegates (composed of 120 chapter presidents or their
RULE, effective on January 16, 1973. alternates) and proclaimed as officers:

Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castillo, NAME POSITION

Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and
Esguerra, JJ., concur.
Atty. Violeta Drilon President

Footnotes Atty. Bella Tiro Executive Vice-President

1 Created by Supreme Court Resolution of October Atty. Salvador Lao Chairman, House of Delegates
5, 1970 "for the purpose of ascertaining the
advisability of the integration of the Bar in this Atty. Renato F. Ronquillo Secretary, House of Delegates
jurisdiction," the Commission is composed of
Supreme Court Associate Justice Fred Ruiz Castro Atty. Teodoro Quicoy Treasurer, House of Delegates
(Chairman), Senator Jose J. Roy, retired Supreme
Court Associate Justice Conrado V. Sanchez, Atty. Oscar Badelles Sergeant at Arms, House of Delegates
Supreme Court Associate Justice (then Court of
Appeals Presiding Justice) Salvador V. Esguerra, U. Atty. Justiniano Cortes Governor & Vice-President for Norther
P. Law Center Director Crisolito Pascual, Ex-Senator
Tecla San Andres Ziga, and San Beda Law Dean and Atty. Ciriaco Atienza Governor & Vice-President for Central
Constitutional Convention Delegate Feliciano Jover
Ledesma (Members). Atty. Mario Jalandoni Governor & Vice-President for Metro M

2 Filed on July 11, 1962 (by a Committee composed Atty. Jose Aguilar Grapilon Governor & Vice-President for Souther
of Jose W. Diokno, Roman Ozaeta, Jose P. Carag,
Eugenio Villanueva, Jr. and Leo A. Panuncialman), Atty. Teodoro Almine Governor & Vice-President for Bicolan
the petition represented the unanimous consensus of
53 Bar Associations (from all over the Philippines) Atty. Porfirio Siyangco Governor & Vice-President for Eastern
reached in convention at the Far Eastern University
Auditorium in Manila on June 23, 1962. Atty. Ricardo Teruel Governor & Vice-President for W estern

3 W ritten oppositions were submitted by Attys. Cesar Atty. Gladys Tiongco Governor & Vice-President for Eastern
Fajardo and Vicente L. Arcega, the Camarines Norte
Lawyers League, Atty. Fructuoso S. Villarin, the Atty. Simeon Datumanong Governor & Vice-President for W estern
Camarines Sur Bar Association and the Manila Bar
Association.
The newly-elected officers were set to take the their oath
of office on July 4,1989, before the Supreme Court en
4 The Petitioners and the Negros Occidental Bar banc. However,disturbed by the widespread reports
Association submitted memoranda in favor of Bar received by some members of the Court from lawyers
integration, while the Manila Bar Association who had witnessed or participated in the proceedings
submitted a memoranda opposing Bar integration. and the adverse comments published in the columns of
some newspapers about the intensive electioneering and
5 All figures are as of January 8, 1973. overspending by the candidates, led by the main
protagonists for the office of president of the association,
namely, Attorneys Nereo Paculdo, Ramon Nisce, and
A.M. No. 491 October 6, 1989
Violeta C. Drilon, the alleged use of government planes,
and the officious intervention of certain public officials to
influence the voting, all of which were done in violation of
the IBP By-Laws which prohibit such activities. The
Supreme Courten banc, exercising its power of twenty votes which were believed crucial, appreciated to
supervision over the Integrated Bar, resolved to suspend P50,000."
the oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect and to inquire
into the veracity of the reports. In his second column, Mr. Mauricio mentioned "how a top
official of the judiciary allegedly involved himself in IBP
It should be stated at the outset that the election process politics on election day by closeting himself with
itself (i.e. the voting and the canvassing of votes on June campaigners as they plotted their election strategy in a
3, 1989) which was conducted by the "IBP Comelec," room of the PICC (the Philippine International
headed by Justice Reynato Puno of the Court of Convention Center where the convention/election were
Appeals, was unanimously adjudged by the participants held) during a recess x x x."
and observers to be above board. For Justice Puno took
it upon himself to device safeguards to prevent tampering Mr. Locsin in his column and editorial substantially re-
with, and marking of, the ballots.
echoed Mauricio's reports with some embellishments.

What the Court viewed with considerable concern was

II. THE COURT'S DECISION TO INVESTIGATE.
the reported electioneering and extravagance that
characterized the campaign conducted by the three
candidates for president of the IBP. Responding to the critical reports, the Court, in its en
banc resolution dated June 15, 1989, directed the
outgoing and incoming members of the IBP Board of
I. MEDIA ACCOUNT OF THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN. Governors, the principal officers and Chairman of the
House of Delegates to appear before it on Tuesday, June
Emil Jurado, in his column "IBP Group Questions Drilon 20, 1989, at 2:00 o'clock p.m., and there to inform the
Election" (Manila Standard, Sunday, June 17, 1989), Luis Court on the veracity of the aforementioned reports and
Mauricio, in two successive columns: "The Invertebrated to recommend, for the consideration of the Court,
Bar" (Malaya, June 10, 1989) and "The Disintegrating appropriate approaches to the problem of confirming and
Bar" (Malaya, June 20, 1989), and Teodoro Locsin Jr. in strengthening adherence to the fundamental principles of
an article, entitled "Pam-Pam" (The Philippines Free the IBP.
Press, July 8,1989), and the editorial, entitled 'W rong
Forum" of the Daily Globe (June 8, 1989), were In that resolution the Court "call[ed] to mind that a basic
unanimously critical of the "vote-buying and pressure
postulate of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP),
tactics" allegedly employed in the campaign by the three
heavily stressed at the time of its organization and
principal candidates: Attys. Violeta C. Drilon, Nereo
commencement of existence, is that the IBP shall be
Paculdo and Ramon Nisce who reportedly "poured heart, non-political in character and that there shall be no
soul, money and influence to win over the 120 IBP
lobbying nor campaigning in the choice of members of
delegates." the Board of Governors and of the House of Delegates,
and of the IBP officers, national, or regional, or chapter.
Mr. Jurado mentioned the resentment of Atty. Drilon's The fundamental assumption was that officers, delegates
rivals who felt at a disadvantage because Atty. Drilon and governors would be chosen on the basis of
allegedly used PNB helicopters to visit far-flung IBP professional merit and willingness and ability to serve."
chapters on the pretext of distributing Bigay Puso
donations, and she had the added advantage of having
The resolution went on to say that the "Court is deeply
regional directors and labor arbiters of the Department of disturbed to note that in connection with the election of
Labor and Employment (who had been granted leaves of members of the Board of Governors and of the House of
absence by her husband, the Labor Secretary)
Delegates, there is a widespread belief, based on reports
campaigning for her. Jurado's informants alleged that
carried by media and transmitted as well by word of
there was rampant vote-buying by some members of the mouth, that there was extensive and intensive
U.P. Sigma Rho Fraternity (Secretary Drilon's fraternity),
campaigning by candidates for IBP positions as well as
as well as by some lawyers of ACCRA (Angara,
expenditure of considerable sums of money by
Concepcion, Cruz, Regala and Abello Law Office) where
candidates, including vote-buying, direct or indirect."
Mrs. Drilon is employed, and that government positions
were promised to others by the office of the Labor
Secretary. The venerable retired Supreme Court Justice and IBP
President Emeritus, Jose B.L. Reyes, attended the
dialogue, upon invitation of the Court, to give counsel
Mr. Mauricio in his column wrote about the same matters
and advice. The meeting between the Court en banc on
and, in addition, mentioned "talk of personnel of the the one hand, and the outgoing and in coming IBP
Department of Labor, especially conciliators and officers on the other, was an informal one. Thereafter,
employers, notably Chinese Filipinos, giving aid and
the Court resolved to conduct a formal inquiry to
comfort to her (Atty. Drilon's) candidacy," the billeting of
determine whether the prohibited acts and activities
out-of-town delegates in plush hotels where they were enumerated in the IBP By-Laws were committed before
reportedly "wined and dined continuously, womened and
and during the 1989 elections of IBP's national officers.
subjected to endless haggling over the price of their
votes x x x" which allegedly "ranged from Pl5,000 to
P20,000, and, on the day of the election, some twelve to
The Court en banc formed a committee and designated A Delegate, Governor, officer or
Senior Associate Justice Andres R. Narvasa, as employee of the Integrated Bar, or an
Chairman, and Associate Justices Teodoro R. Padilla, officer or employee of any Chapter
Emilio A. Gancayco, Abraham F. Sarmiento, and thereof shall be considered ipso
Carolina C. Grio-Aquino, as members, to conduct the facto resigned from his position as of
inquiry. The Clerk of Court, Atty. Daniel Martinez, acted the moment he files his certificate of
as the committee's Recording Secretary. candidacy for any elective public
office or accepts appointment to any
A total of forty-nine (49) witnesses appeared and testified judicial, quasi-judicial, or prosecutory
in response to subpoenas issued by the Court to shed office in the Government or any
political subdivision or instrumentality
light on the conduct of the elections. The managers of
three five-star hotels the Philippine Plaza, the Hyatt, and thereof. "'
the Holiday Inn where the three protagonists (Drilon,
Nisce and Paculdo) allegedly set up their respective Section 14 of the same By-Laws
headquarters and where they billeted their supporters enumerates the prohibited acts
were summoned. The officer of the Philippine National relative to IBP elections:
Bank and the Air Transport Office were called to
enlighten the Court on the charge that an IBP
SEC. 14. Prohibited acts and
presidential candidate and the members of her slate practices relative to elections. The
used PNB planes to ferry them to distant places in their
following acts and practices relative to
campaign to win the votes of delegates. The Philippine
election are prohibited, whether
Airlines officials were called to testify on the charge that committed by a candidate for any
some candidates gave free air fares to delegates to the elective office in the Integrated Bar or
convention. Officials of the Labor Department were also
by any other member, directly or
called to enable the Court to ascertain the truth of the
indirectly, in any form or manner, by
reports that labor officials openly campaigned or worked
himself or through another person:
for the election of Atty. Drilon.

(a) Distribution, except on election

The newspaper columnists, Messrs. Luis Mauricio, Jesus
day, of election campaign material;
Bigornia and Emil Jurado were subpoenaed to determine
the nature of their sources of information relative to the
IBP elections. Their stories were based, they said, on (b) Distribution, on election day, of
letters, phone calls and personal interviews with persons election campaign material other than
who claimed to have knowledge of the facts, but whom a statement of the biodata of a
they, invoking the Press Freedom Law, refused to candidate on not more than one page
identify. of a legal-size sheet of paper; or
causing distribution of such statement
to be done by persons other than
The Committee has since submitted its Report after those authorized by the officer
receiving, and analyzing and assessing evidence given
presiding at the elections;
by such persons as were perceived to have direct and
personal knowledge of the relevant facts; and the Court,
after deliberating thereon, has Resolved to accept and (c) Campaigning for or against any
adopt the same. candidate, while holding an elective,
judicial, quasi-judicial or prosecutory
office in the Government or any
III. PROHIBITED ACTS AND PRACTICES UNDER IBP
political subdivision, agency or
BY-LAW S.
instrumentality thereof;

Article I, Section 4 of the IBP By-Laws emphasizes the

(d) Formation of tickets, single slates,
"strictly non-political" character of the Integrated Bar of or combinations of candidates, as well
the Philippines, thus: as the advertisement thereof;

"SEC. 4. Non-political Bar. The (e) For the purpose of inducing or

Integrated Bar is strictly non-political,
influencing a member to withhold his
and every activity tending to impair
vote, or to vote for or against a
this basic feature is strictly prohibited candidate, (1) payment of the dues or
and shall be penalized accordingly. other indebtedness of any member;
No lawyer holding an elective, judicial,
(2) giving of food, drink,
quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in
entertainment, transportation or any
the Government or any political article of value, or any similar
subdivision or instrumentality thereof
consideration to any person; or (3)
shall be eligible for election or
making a promise or causing an
appointment to any position in the
expenditure to be made, offered or
Integrated Bar or any Chapter thereof.
promised to any person."
Section 12(d) of the By-Laws prescribes sanctions for National President of the
violations of the above rules:
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(d) Any violation of the rules
governing elections or commission of
any of the prohibited acts and
practices defined in Section 14
prohibited Acts and Practices relative ______________ _______________
to elections) of the by-laws of the
Integrated Bar shall be a ground for Chapter Signature"
the disqualification of a candidate or
his removal from office if elected,
without prejudice to the imposition of Among those who signed the nomination forms were:
sanctions upon any erring member Onofre P. Tejada, Candido P. Balbin, Jr., Conizado V.
pursuant to the By-laws of the Posadas, Quirico L. Quirico Ernesto S. Salun-at, Gloria
Integrated Bar. C. Agunos, Oscar B. Bernardo, Feliciano F. W ycoco,
Amor L. Ibarra, Jose M. Atienza, Jose N. Contreras,
Romeo T. Mendoza, Leo C. Medialdea, Jr., Paulino G.
At the formal investigation which was conducted by the Clarin, Julius Z. Neil, Roem J. Arbolado Democrito M.
investigating committee, the following violations were Perez, Abelardo Fermin, Diosdado B. Villarin, Jr., Daniel
established: C. Macaraeg, Confesor R. Sansano Dionisio E. Bala, Jr.,
Emesto A. Amores, Romeo V. Pefianco, Augurio C.
(1) Prohibited campaigning and solicitation of votes by Pamintuan, Atlee T. Viray, Ceferino C. Cabanas, Jose S.
the candidates for president, executive vice-president, Buban, Diosdado Z. Reloj, Jr., Cesar C. Viola, Oscar C.
the officers of candidate the House of Delegates and Fernandez, Ricardo B. Teruel Rodrigo R. Flores, Sixto
Board of Governors. Marella, Jr., Arsenio C. Villalon, Renato F. Ronquillo,
Antonio G. Nalapo Romualdo A. Din Jr., Jose P.
Icaonapo Jr., and Manuel S. Person.
The three candidates for IBP President Drilon, Nisce and
Paculdo began travelling around the country to solicit the
votes of delegates as early as April 1989. Upon the Atty. Nisce admitted that he reserved rooms at the Hyatt
invitation of IBP President, Leon Garcia, Jr. (t.s.n., July Hotel based on the commitments he had obtained (t.s.n.,
13,1989, p. 4), they attended the Bench and Bar June 29, 1989, pp. 82-85). Unfortunately, despite those
dialogues held in Cotabato in April 1989 (t.s.n., June 29, formal commitments, he obtained only 14 votes in the
1989, p. 123), in Tagaytay City, Pampanga, and in election (t.s.n., June 29, 1 989, p. 86). The reason, he
Baguio City (during the conference of chapter presidents said, is that. some of those who had committed their
of Northern Luzon (t.s.n., July 3,1989, p. 113; t.s.n., July votes to him were "manipulated, intimidated, pressured,
10, p. 41; t.s.n., July 13, p. 47) where they announced or remunerated" (t.s.n., June 29,1989, pp. 8695; Exhibit
their candidacies and met the chapter presidents. "M-4-Nisce," t.s.n., July 4, 1989, pp. 100-1 04).

Atty. Nisce admitted that he went around the country (2) Use of PNB plane in the campaign.
seeking the help of IBP chapter officers, soliciting their
votes, and securing their written endorsements. He The records of the Philippine National Bank (Exhibit C-1-
personally hand-carried nomination forms and requested Crudo and Exhibit C-2-Crudo) show that Secretary
the chapter presidents and delegates to fill up and sign Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. of the Department of
the forms to formalize their commitment to his nomination Environment & Natural Resources (DENR) borrowed a
for IBP President. He started campaigning and plane from the Philippine National Bank for his Bicol
distributing the nomination forms in March 1989 after the CORD (Cabinet Officers for Regional Development)
chapter elections which determined the membership of Assistant, Undersecretary Antonio Tria. The plane
the House of Delegates composed of the 120 chapter manifest (Exh. C-2-Crudo) listed Atty. Violeta Drilon,
presidents (t.s.n., June 29, 1989, pp. 82-86). He obtained Arturo Tusi (Tiu), Assistant Secretary for Environment
forty (40) commitments. He submitted photocopies of his and Natural Resources (DENR) Tony Tria, Atty. Gladys
nomination forms which read: Tiongco, and Amy W ong. Except for Tony Tria, the rest
of the passengers were IBP candidates.
"Nomination Form
Atty. Drilon admitted that she "hitched" a ride on a PNB
plane. She said that she was informed by Atty. Tiu about
the availability of a PNB plane (t.s.n., July 3,1989, pp.
116-118).
I Join in Nominating

Atty. Tiu, who ran for the position of IBP executive vice-
RAMON M. NISCE president in the Drilon ticket, testified that sometime in
May 1989 he failed to obtain booking from the Philippine
as Airlines for the projected trip of his group to Bicol. He
went to the DENR allegedly to follow up some papers for Tordilla, Jr., Jose S. Buban, Joel A. Llosa, Jesus T.
a client. W hile at the DENR, he learned that Assistant Albacite and Oscar V. Badelles.
Secretary Tria was going on an official business in Bicol
for Secretary Fulgencio Factoran and that he would be
(4) Giving free transportation to out-of-town delegates
taking a PNB plane. As Assistant Secretary Tria is his
and alternates.
fraternity brother, he asked if he, together with the Drilon
group, could hitch a ride on the plane to Bicol. His
request was granted. Their purpose in going to Bicol was Atty. Nisce admitted having bought plane tickets for
to assess their chances in the IBP elections. The Drilon some delegates to the convention. He mentioned Oscar
company talked with the IBP chapter presidents in Daet, Badelles to whom he gave four round-trip tickets (worth
Naga, and Legaspi, and asked for their support (t.s.n., about P10,000) from Iligan City to Manila and back.
July 10, 1989, pp. 549). Badelles was a voting delegate. Nisce, however, failed to
get a written commitment from him because Atty.
Medialdea assured him (Nisce) "sigurado na 'yan, h'wag
Assistant Secretary Antonio S. Tria confirmed the use of
mo nang papirmahin." Badelles won as sergeant-at-
a PNB plane by Atty. Drilon and her group. He recalled
arms, not in Nisce's ticket, but in that of Drilon.
that on May 23,1989, DENR Secretary Factoran
instructed him to go to Bicol to monitor certain regional
development projects there and to survey the effect of Badelles admitted that Nisce sent him three airplane
the typhoon that hit the region in the middle of May. On tickets, but he Badelles said that he did not use them,
the same day, Atty. Tiu, a fraternity brother (meaning that because if he did, he would be committed to Nisce, and
Tiu belongs to the Sigma Rho fraternity) went to the he Badelles did not want to be committed (t.s.n., July
DENR office and requested the Secretary (Factoran) if 4,1989, pp. 77-79, 95-96).
he (Tiu) could be allowed to hitch a ride on the plane.
Assistant Secretary Tria, together with the Drilon group Nisce also sent a plane ticket to Atty. Atilano, who was
which included Attorneys Drilon, Grapilon, Amy W ong, his candidate, and another ticket to Mrs. Linda Lim of
Gladys Tiongco, and Tiu, took off at the Domestic Airport Zamboanga. Records of the Philippine Airlines showed
bound for Naga, Daet and Legaspi. In Legaspi the Drilon that Atty. Nisce paid for the plane tickets of Vicente Real,
group had lunch with Atty. Vicente Real, Jr., an IBP Jr. (Exh. D-1-Calica), Romeo Fortes (Exh. D-1-Calica),
chapter president (t.s.n., July 10, 1989, pp. 54-69). Cesar Batica (Exh. D-2-Calica), Jose Buban of Leyte
(Exh. D-2-Calica), Delsanto Resuello (Exh. D-3- Calica),
(3) Formation of tickets and single slates. and Ceferino Cabanas (Exh. D-3-Calica).

The three candidates, Paculdo, Nisce and Drilon, In spite of his efforts and expense, only one of Nisce's
admitted having formed their own slates for the election candidates won: Renato Ronquillo of Manila 4, as
of IBP national officers on June 3, 1989. Secretary of the House of Delegates (t.s.n. July 3, p.
161).
Atty. Paculdo's slate consisted of himself for
President; Bella D. Tiro, for Executive Vice-President; (5) Giving free hotel accommodations, food, drinks,
and for Governors: Justiniano P. Cortez (Northern entertainment to delegates.
Luzon), Oscar C. Fernandez (Central Luzon), Mario C.V.
Jalandoni (Greater Manila), Petronilo A. de la Cruz (a) ATTY. NEREO PACULDO
(Southern Luzon), Teodorico C. Almine, Jr. (Bicolandia),
Ricardo B. Teruel (W estern Visayas), Porfirio P.
Siyangco (Eastern Visayas), Jesus S. Anonat (W estern Atty. Paculdo alleged that he booked 24 regular rooms
Mindanao), Guerrero A. Adaza, Jr. (Eastern Mindanao) and three suites at the Holiday Inn, which served as his
(Exhibit M-Nisce). headquarters. The 24 rooms were to be occupied by his
staff (mostly ladies) and the IBP delegates. The three
suites were to be occupied by himself, the officers of the
The Drilon ticket consisted of. Violeta C. Drilon for Capitol Bar Association, and Atty. Mario Jalandoni. He
President, Arturo Tiu for Executive Vice President, paid P150,000 for the hotel bills of his delegates at the
Salvador Lao for Chairman of the House of Delegates, Holiday Inn, where a room cost P990 per day with
and, for Governors: Basil Rupisan (Northern 'Luzon), breakfast.
Acong Atienza (Central Luzon), Amy W ong (Metro
Manila), Jose Grapilon (Southern Tagalog), Teodoro
Almine (Bicolandia), Baldomero Estenzo (Eastern Those listed as guests of Atty. Paculdo at the Holiday Inn
Visayas), Joelito Barrera (W estern Visayas), Gladys were: Emesto C. Perez, Tolomeo Ligutan Judge Alfonso
Tiongco (Eastern Mindanao), Simeon Datumanong Combong, Ricardo Caliwag, Antonio Bisnar, Benedicto
(W estern Mindanao) (Exhibit M-1-Nisce). Balajadia, Jesus Castro, Restituto Villanueva, Serapio
Cribe Juanita Subia, Teodorico J. Almine, Rudy Gumban,
Roem Arbolado, Ricardo Teruel, Shirley Moises, Ramon
Atty. Ramon N. Nisce's line-up listed himself and Roco, Alberto Trinidad, Teodoro Quicoy Manito Lucero,
Confessor B. Sansano Benjamin B. Bernardino, Antonio Fred Cledera Vicente Tordilla, Julian Ocampo, Francisco
L. Nalapo Renato F. Ronquillo, Gloria C. Agunos, Mario Felizmenio Marvel Clavecilla, Amador Capiral, Eufronio
Valderrama, Candido P. Balbin Jr., Oscar C. Fernandez, Maristela, Porfirio Siyangco, W illiam Llanes, Jr.,
Cesar G. Viola, Leo C. Medialdea, Jr., Vicente P. Marciano Neri, Guerrero Adaza, Diosdado Peralta, Luis
 C. Formilleza, Jr., Democrito Perez, Bruno Flores,
(h) Cosme Rossel 15,300
Dennis Rendon, Judge Ceferino Chan, Mario Jalandoni,
Kenneth Siruelo Bella Tiro, Antonio Santos, Tiburcio
Edano James Tan, Cesilo A. Adaza, Francisco Roxas,
(t.s.n. July 4, 1 989, pp. 3-4)
Angelita Gacutan, Jesse Pimentel, Judge Jaime Hamoy,
Jesus Anonat, Carlos Egay, Judge Carlito Eisma, Judge
Jesus Carbon, Joven Zach, and Benjamin Padon. Atty. Callanta explained that the above listed persons
have been contributing money every time the IBP
embarks on a project. This time, they contributed so that
Noel de Guzman, Holiday Inn's credit manager, testified
their partners or associates could attend the legal aid
that Atty. Paculdo booked 52 (not 24) rooms, including
seminar and the IBP convention too.
the presidential suite, which was used as the Secretariat.
The group bookings were made by Atty. Gloria Paculdo,
the wife of Nereo Paculdo (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, pp. 63- Atty. Drilon alleged that she did not know that Atty.
68). The total sum of P227,114.89 was paid to Holiday Callanta had billeted her delegates at the Philippine
Inn for the use of the rooms. Plaza. She allegedly did not also know in whose name
the room she occupied was registered. But she did ask
for a room where she could rest during the convention.
(b) ATTY. VIOLETA C. DRILON
She admitted, however, that she paid for her hotel room
and meals to Atty. Callanta, through Atty. Loanzon (t.s.n.
The delegates and supporters of Atty. Drilon were July 3,1989).
billeted at the Philippine Plaza Hotel where her campaign
manager, Atty. Renato Callanta, booked 40 rooms, 5 of
The following were listed as having occupied the rooms
which were suites. According to Ms. Villanueva,
reserved by Atty. Callanta at the Philippine Plaza: Violeta
Philippine Plaza banquet and conventions manager, the
Drilon, Victoria A. Verciles, Victoria C. Loanzon,
contract that Atty. Callanta signed with the Philippine
Leopoldo A. Consulto Ador Lao, Victoria Borra, Aimee
Plaza was made in the name of the "IBP c/o Atty.
W ong, Callanta, Pena, Tiu, Gallardo, Acong Atienza, D.
Callanta."
Bernardo, Amores, Silao Caingat, Manuel Yuson,
Simeon Datumanong, Manuel Pecson, Sixto Marella,
Mrs. Lourdes Juco, a sales manager of the Philippine Joselito Barrera, Radon Macalalag, Oscar Badelles,
Plaza, recalled that it was Mr. Mariano Benedicto who Antonio Acyatan, Ildefonso C. Puerto, Nestor Atienza, Gil
first came to book rooms for the IBP delegates. She Batula Array Corot, Dimakuta Corot Romeo Fortes Irving
suggested that he obtain a group (or discounted) rate. He Petilla, Teodoro Palma, Gil Palma, Danilo Deen,
gave her the name of Atty. Callanta who would make the Delsanto, Resuello, Araneta, Vicente Real, Sylvio
arrangements with her. Mr. Benedicto turned out to be Casuncad Espina, Guerrero, Julius Neri, Linda Lim, Ben
the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Labor and Lim, C. Batica, Luis Formilleza, Felix Macalag Mariano
Employment (DOLE). Benedicto, Atilano, Araneta, Renato Callanta.

The total sum of P316,411.53 was paid by Atty. Callanta Atty. Nilo Pena admitted that the Quasha Law Office of
for the rooms, food, and beverages consumed by the which he is a senior partner, gave P25,000 to Callanta
Drilon group, with an unpaid balance of P302,197.30. Per for rooms at the Philippine Plaza so that some members
Attorney Daniel Martinez's last telephone conversation of his law firm could campaign for the Drilon group (t.s.n.
with Ms. Villanueva, Atty. Callanta still has an July 5,1989, pp. 7678) during the legal aid seminar and
outstanding account of P232,782.65 at Philippine Plaza. the IBP convention. Most of the members of his law firm
are fraternity brothers of Secretary Drilon (meaning,
Atty. Callanta admitted that he signed the contract for 40 members of the Sigma Rho Fraternity). He admitted
rooms at the Philippine Plaza. He made a downpayment being sympathetic to the candidacy of Atty. Drilon and
of P123,000. His "working sheet' showed that the the members of her slate, two of whom Jose Grapilon
following persons contributed for that down payment: and Simeon Datumanong are Sigma Rhoans. They
consider Atty. Drilon as a "sigma rho sister," her husband
being a sigma rhoan.
(a) Nilo Pena (Quasha Law Office) P 25,000
Atty. Antonio Carpio, also a Sigma Rhoan, reserved a
(b) Antonio Carpio 20,000 room for the members of his own firm who attended the
legal aid seminar and the convention. He made the
(c) Toto Ferrer (Carpio Law Office) 10,000 reservation through Atty. Callanta to whom he paid
P20,000 (t.s.n. July 6,1989, pp. 30-34).
(d) Jay Castro 10,000
Atty. Carpio assisted Atty. Drilon in her campaign during
(e) Danny Deen 20,000 the convention, by soliciting the votes of delegates he
knew, like Atty. Albacite his former teacher (but the latter
(f) Angangco Tan (Angara Law Office) 10,000 was already committed to Nisce), and Atty. Romy Fortes,
a classmate of his in the U.P. College of Law (t. t.s.n.
(g) Alfonso Reyno 20,000 July 6, 1989, pp. 22, 29, 39).
(c) ATTY. RAMON NISCE. Opposite Room 114, was Room 112, also a suite, listed
in the names of Mrs. Drilon, Gladys Tiongco (candidate
for Governor, Eastern Mindanao) and Amy W ong
Atty. Nisce, through his brother-in-law, Ricardo Paras,
(candidate for Governor, Metro Manila). These two
entered into a contract with the Hyatt Hotel for a total of
rooms served as the "action center' or "war room" where
29 rooms plus one (1) seventh-floor room. He made a
downpayment of P20,000 (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, p. 58) on campaign strategies were discussed before and during
the convention. It was in these rooms where the
April 20, 1989, and P37,632.45 on May 10, or a total of
supporters of the Drilon group, like Attys. Carpio,
P57,632.45.
Callanta, Benedicto, the Quasha and the ACCRA
lawyers met to plot their moves.
Ms. Cecile Flores, Ms. Milagros Ocampo, and Mr.
Ramon Jacinto, the sales department manager, credit
manager, and reservation manager, respectively of the (7) Paying the dues or other indebtedness of any number
Hyatt, testified that Atty. Nisce's bill amounted to (Sec. 14[e], IBP BY-Laws).
P216,127.74 (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, pp. 57-58; Exhibits E-
Flores, F-Jacinto G-Ocampo). Atty. Teresita C. Sison, IBP Treasurer, testified that she
has heard of candidates paying the IBP dues of lawyers
As earlier mentioned, Atty. Nisce admitted that he who promised to vote for or support them, but she has no
reserved rooms for those who committed themselves to way of ascertaining whether it was a candidate who paid
the delinquent dues of another, because the receipts are
his candidacy.
issued in the name of the member for whom payment is
made (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, pp. 24-28).
The hotel guests of Atty. Nisce were: Gloria Agunos
Dennis Habanel B. Batula, John E. Asuncion, Reynaldo
Cortes, Lourdes Santos, Elmer Datuin, Romualdo Din, She has noticed, though, that there is an upsurge of
Antonio Nalapo, Israel Damasco, Candido Balbin, payments in March, April, May during any election year.
This year, the collections increased by P100,000 over
Serrano Balot, Ibarra, Joel Llosa, Eltanal, Ruperto,
that of last year (a non-election year from Pl,413,425 to
Asuncion, Q. Pilotin Reymundo P. Guzman, Zoilo
Aguinaldo, Clarin, R. Ronquillo, Dominador Carillo, Pl,524,875 (t.s.n. June 28, 1989, p. 25).
Filomeno Balinas, Ernesto Sabulan, Yusop Pangadapun,
A. Viray, Icampo, Abelardo Fermin, C. Quiaoit, Augurio (8) Distribution of materials other than bio-data of not
Pamintuan, Daniel Macaraeg, Onofre Tejada. more than one page of legal size sheet of paper (Sec.
14[a], IBP By-Laws).
(6) Campaigning by labor officials for Atty. Violeta Drilon
On the convention floor on the day of the election, Atty.
Paculdo caused to be distributed his bio-data and copies
In violation of the prohibition against "campaigning for or
against a candidate while holding an elective, judicial, of a leaflet entitled "My Quest," as wen as, the lists of his
slate. Attys. Drilon and Nisce similarly distributed their
quasi-judicial, or prosecutory office in the Government'
(Sec. 14[c], Art. I, IBP By-Laws), Mariano E. Benedicto II, tickets and bio-data.
Assistant Secretary, Department of Labor and
Employment, testified that he took a leave of absence The campaign materials of Atty. Paculdo cost from
from his office to attend the IBP convention. He stayed at P15,000 to P20,000. They were printed by his own
the Philippine Plaza with the Drilon group admittedly to printing shop.
give "some moral assistance" to Atty. Violeta Drilon. He
did so because he is a member of the Sigma Rho
(9) Causing distribution of such statement to be done by
Fraternity. W hen asked about the significance of Sigma persons other than those authorized by the officer
Rho, Secretary Benedicto explained: "More than the
presiding at the election (Sec. 14[b], IBP By-Laws).
husband of Mrs. Drilon being my boss, the significance
there is that the husband is my brother in the Sigma
Rho." Atty. Paculdo employed uniformed girls to distribute his
campaign materials on the convention floor. Atty. Carpio
noted that there were more campaign materials
He cheered up Mrs., Drilon when her spirits were low. He distributed at the convention site this year than in
talked to her immediate circle which included Art Tiu, previous years. The election was more heated and
Tony Carpio, Nilo Pena, Amy W ong, Atty. Grapilon,
expensive (t.s.n. July 6,1989, p. 39).
Victor Lazatin, and Boy Reyno. They assessed the
progress of the campaign, and measured the strengths
and weaknesses of the other groups The group had Atty. Benjamin Bernardino, the incumbent President of
sessions as early as the later part of May. the IBP Rizal Chapter, and a candidate for chairman of
the House of Delegates on Nisce's ticket, testified that
campaign materials were distributed during the
Room 114, the suite listed in the name of Assistant
convention by girls and by lawyers. He saw members of
Secretary Benedicto toted up a bill of P23,110 during the
the ACCRA law firm campaigning for Atty. Drilon (t.s.n.
2-day IBP convention/election. A total of 113 phone calls
July 3,1989, pp. 142-145).
(amounting to Pl,356) were recorded as emanating from
his room.
(10) Inducing or influencing a member to withhold his Atty. Llosa said that while he was still in Dumaguete City,
vote, or to vote for or against a candidate (Sec. 14[e], he already knew that the three candidates had their
IBP BY-Laws). headquarters in separate hotels: Paculdo, at the Holiday
Inn; Drilon, at the Philippine Plaza; and Nisce, at the
Hyatt. He knew about this because a week before the
Atty. Bernardino disclosed that his cousin, Atty. Romeo
Capulong, urged him to withdraw his candidacy for elections, representatives of Atty. Drilon went to
Dumaguete City to campaign. He mentioned Atty. Rodil
chairman of the House of Delegates and to run as vice-
Montebon of the ACCRA Law Office, accompanied by
chairman in Violy Drilon's slate, but he declined (t.s.n.
Atty. Julve the Assistant Regional Director of the
July 3,1989, pp. 137, 149).
Department of Labor in Dumaguete City. These two, he
said, offered to give him two PAL tickets and
Atty. Gloria Agunos personnel director of the Hyatt accommodations at the Philippine Plaza (t.s.n. July
Terraces Hotel in Baguio and president of the Baguio- 4,1989, pp. 101-104). But he declined the offer because
Benguet IBP Chapter, recalled that in the third week of he was already committed to Atty. Nisce.
May 1989, after the Tripartite meet of the Department of
Labor & Employment at the Green Valley Country Club in
Atty. Llosa also revealed that before he left for Manila on
Baguio City, she met Atty. Drilon, together with two labor
May 31, 1989, a businessman, Henry Dy, approached
officers of Region 1, Attys. Filomeno Balbin and Atty.
him to convince him to vote for Atty. Paculdo. But Llosa
Mansala Atty. Drilon solicited her (Atty. Agunos') vote
and invited her to stay at the Philippine Plaza where a told Dy that he was already committed to Nisce.
room would be available for her. Atty. Paculdo also tried
to enlist her support during the chapter presidents' He did not receive any plane tickets from Atty. Nisce
meeting to choose their nominee for governor for the because he and his two companions (Atty. Eltanal and
Northern Luzon region (t.s.n. July 13,1989, pp. 43-54). Atty. Ruperto) had earlier bought their own tickets for
Manila (t.s.n. July 4, 1989, p. 101).
Atty. Nisce testified that a Manila Chapter 4 delegate,
Marcial Magsino, who had earlier committed his vote to SUMMARY OF CAMPAIGN EXPENSES INCURRED
Nisce changed his mind when he was offered a
judgeship (This statement, however, is admittedly
BY THE CANDIDATES
hearsay). W hen Nisce confronted Magsino about the
alleged offer, the latter denied that there was such an
offer. Nisce's informant was Antonio G. Nalapo an IBP Atty. Paculdo admitted having spent some P250,000
candidate who also withdrew. during his three weeks of campaigning. Of this amount,
the Capitol Bar Association (of which he was the chapter
president) contributed about P150,000. The Capitol Bar
Another Nisce candidate, Cesar Viola, withdrew from the
Association is a voluntary bar association composed of
race and refused to be nominated (t.s.n. June 29, 1989,
Quezon City lawyers.
p. 104). Vicente P. Tordilla who was Nisce's candidate
for Governor became Paculdo's candidate instead (t.s.n.
June 29, 1989, p. 104). He spent about P100,000 to defray the expenses of his
trips to the provinces (Bicol provinces, Pampanga, Abra,
Mountain Province and Bulacan) (t.s.n. June 29,1989,
Nisce recalled that during the Bench and Bar Dialogue in
pp. 9-14).
Cotabato City, Court Administrator Tiro went around
saying, "I am not campaigning, but my wife is a
candidate." Nisce said that the presidents of several IBP Atty. Nisce's hotel bills at the Hyatt amounted to
chapters informed him that labor officials were P216,127.74. This does not include the expenses for his
campaigning for Mrs. Drilon (t.s.n. June 29,1989, pp. campaign which began several months before the June
109-110). He mentioned Ciony de la Cerna, who 3rd election, and his purchases of airplane tickets for
allegedly campaigned in La Union (t.s.n. June some delegates.
29,1989,p.111)
The records of the Philippine Plaza Hotel, headquarters
Atty. Joel A. Llosa, Nisce's supporter and candidate for of Atty. Drilon's camp, showed that her campaign rang up
governor of the W estern Visayas, expressed his over P600,000 in hotel bills. Atty. Callanta paid
disappointment over the IBP elections because some P316,411.53 for the rooms, food, and beverage
delegates flip-flopped from one camp to another. He consumed by Atty. Drilon's supporters, but still left an
testified that when he arrived at the Manila Domestic unpaid bill of P302,197.30 at convention's end.
Airport he was met by an assistant regional director of
the DOLE who offered to bring him to the Philippine FINDINGS.
Plaza, but he declined the offer. During the legal aid
seminar, Atty. Drilon invited him to transfer to the
Philippine Plaza where a room had been reserved for From all the foregoing, it is evident that the manner in
him. He declined the invitation (t.s.n. July 4,1989, pp. which the principal candidates for the national positions
102-106). in the Integrated Bar conducted their campaign
preparatory to the elections on June 3, 1989, violated
Section 14 of the IBP By-Laws and made a travesty of
the idea of a "strictly non-political" Integrated Bar subsequent investigation conducted by this Committee
enshrined in Section 4 of the By-Laws. has revealed that those parties had been less than
candid with the Court and seem to have conspired
among themselves to deceive it or at least withhold vital
The setting up of campaign headquarters by the three
information from it to conceal the irregularities committed
principal candidates (Drilon, Nisce and Paculdo) in five-
star hotels: The Philippine Plaza, the Holiday Inn and during the campaign.
The Hyatt the better for them to corral and entertain the
delegates billeted therein; the island hopping to solicit the CONCLUSIONS.
votes of the chapter presidents who comprise the 120-
member House of Delegates that elects the national
It has been mentioned with no little insistence that the
officers and regional governors; the formation of tickets, provision in the 1987 Constitution (See. 8, Art. VIII)
slates, or line-ups of candidates for the other elective providing for a Judicial and Bar Council composed of
positions aligned with, or supporting, either Drilon,
seven (7) members among whom is "a representative of
Paculdo or Nisce; the procurement of written
the Integrated Bar," tasked to participate in the selection
commitments and the distribution of nomination forms to of nominees for appointment to vacant positions in the
be filled up by the delegates; the reservation of rooms for
judiciary, may be the reason why the position of IBP
delegates in three big hotels, at the expense of the
president has attracted so much interest among the
presidential candidates; the use of a PNB plane by Drilon
lawyers. The much coveted "power" erroneously
and some members of her ticket to enable them to perceived to be inherent in that office might have caused
"assess their chances" among the chapter presidents in
the corruption of the IBP elections. To impress upon the
the Bicol provinces; the printing and distribution of tickets
participants in that electoral exercise the seriousness of
and bio-data of the candidates which in the case of the misconduct which attended it and the stern
Paculdo admittedly cost him some P15,000 to P20,000; disapproval with which it is viewed by this Court, and to
the employment of uniformed girls (by Paculdo) and
restore the non-political character of the IBP and reduce,
lawyers (by Drilon) to distribute their campaign materials
if not entirely eliminate, expensive electioneering for the
on the convention floor on the day of the election; the top positions in the organization which, as the recently
giving of assistance by the Undersecretary of Labor to
concluded elections revealed, spawned unethical
Mrs. Drilon and her group; the use of labor arbiters to
practices which seriously diminished the stature of the
meet delegates at the airport and escort them to the
IBP as an association of the practitioners of a noble and
Philippine Plaza Hotel; the giving of pre-paid plane
honored profession, the Court hereby ORDERS:
tickets and hotel accommodations to delegates (and
some families who accompanied them) in exchange for
their support; the pirating of some candidates by inducing 1. The IBP elections held on June3,1989 should be as
them to "hop" or "flipflop" from one ticket to another for they are hereby annulled.
some rumored consideration; all these practices made a
political circus of the proceedings and tainted the whole 2. The provisions of the IBP By-Laws for the direct
election process. election by the House of Delegates (approved by this
Court in its resolution of July 9, 1985 in Bar Matter No.
The candidates and many of the participants in that 287) of the following national officers:
election not only violated the By-Laws of the IBP but also
the ethics of the legal profession which imposes on all (a) the officers of the House of Delegates;
lawyers, as a corollary of their obligation to obey and
uphold the constitution and the laws, the duty to
"promote respect for law and legal processes" and to (b) the IBP president; and
abstain from 'activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system" (Rule 1.02, (c) the executive vice-president,
Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility). Respect
for law is gravely eroded when lawyers themselves, who
are supposed to be millions of the law, engage in be repealed, this Court being empowered to amend,
unlawful practices and cavalierly brush aside the very modify or repeal the By-Laws of the IBP under Section
rules that the IBP formulated for their observance. 77, Art. XI of said By-Laws.

The unseemly ardor with which the candidates pursued 3. The former system of having the IBP President and
the presidency of the association detracted from the Executive Vice-President elected by the Board of
dignity of the legal profession. The spectacle of lawyers Governors (composed of the governors of the nine [91
bribing or being bribed to vote one way or another, IBP regions) from among themselves (as provided in
certainly did not uphold the honor of the profession nor Sec. 47, Art. VII, Original IBP By-Laws) should be
elevate it in the public's esteem. restored. The right of automatic succession by the
Executive Vice-President to the presidency upon the
expiration of their two-year term (which was abolished by
The Court notes with grave concern what appear to be this Court's resolution dated July 9,1985 in Bar Matter
the evasions, denials and outright prevarications that No. 287) should be as it is hereby restored.
tainted the statements of the witnesses, including tome of
the candidates, during the initial hearing conducted by it
before its fact-finding committee was created. The
4. At the end of the President's two-year term, the 9. Section 39, Article V is hereby amended as follows:
Executive Vice-President shall automatically succeed to
the office of president. The incoming board of governors
Section 39. Nomination and election
shall then elect an Executive Vice-President from among
of the Governors at least one (1)
themselves. The position of Executive Vice-President
month before the national convention
shall be rotated among the nine (9) IBP regions. One the delegates from each region shall
who has served as president may not run for election as
elect the governor for their region, the
Executive Vice-President in a succeeding election until
choice of which shall as much as
after the rotation of the presidency among the nine (9) possible be rotated among the
regions shall have been completed; whereupon, the
chapters in the region.
rotation shall begin anew.

10. Section33(a), Article V hereby is amended by

5. Section 47 of Article VII is hereby amended to read as
addingthe following provision as part of the first
follows:
paragraph:

Section 47. National Officers. The

No convention of the House of
Integrated Bar of the Philippines shall Delegates nor of the general
have a President and Executive Vice- membership shall be held prior to any
President to be chosen by the Board
election in an election year.
of Governors from among nine (9)
regional governors, as much as
practicable, on a rotation basis. The 11. Section 39, (a), (b), (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7)
governors shall be ex oficio Vice- of Article VI should be as they are hereby deleted.
President for their respective regions.
There shall also be a Secretary and All other provisions of the By-Laws including its
Treasurer of the Board of Governors amendment by the Resolution en banc of this Court of
to be appointed by the President with July 9, 1985 (Bar Matter No. 287) that are inconsistent
the consent of the Board. herewith are hereby repealed or modified.

6. Section 33(b), Art. V, IBP By-Laws, is hereby 12. Special elections for the Board of Governors shall be
amended as follows: held in the nine (9) IBP regions within three (3) months,
after the promulgation of the Court's resolution in this
(b) The President and Executive Vice case. W ithin thirty (30) days thereafter, the Board of
President of the IBP shall be the Governors shall meet at the IBP Central Office in Manila
Chairman and Vice-Chairman, to elect from among themselves the IBP national
respectively, of the House of president and executive vice-president. In these special
Delegates. The Secretary, Treasurer, elections, the candidates in the election of the national
and Sergeant-at-Arms shall be officers held on June 3,1989, particularly identified in
appointed by the President with the Sub-Head 3 of this Resolution entitled "Formation of
consent of the House of Delegates.' Tickets and Single Slates," as well as those identified in
this Resolution as connected with any of the irregularities
attendant upon that election, are ineligible and may not
7. Section 33(g) of Article V providing for the positions of
present themselves as candidate for any position.
Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary-Treasurer and
Sergeant-at- Arms of the House of Delegates is hereby
repealed 13. Pending such special elections, a caretaker board
shall be appointed by the Court to administer the affairs
of the IBP. The Court makes clear that the dispositions
8. Section 37, Article VI is hereby amended to read as
here made are without prejudice to its adoption in due
follows: time of such further and other measures as are
warranted in the premises.
Section 37. Composition of the Board.
The Integrated Bar of the
SO ORDERED.
Philippines shall be governed by a
Board of Governors consisting of nine
(9) Governors from the nine (9) Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Cruz, Paras, Feliciano,
regions as delineated in Section 3 of Gancayco, Padilla. Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Grio-
the Integration Rule, on the Aquino and Regalado, JJ., concur.
representation basis of one (1)
Governor for each region to be Fernan, C.J. and Medialdea, J., took no part.
elected by the members of the House
of Delegates from that region only.
The position of Governor should be Gutierrez, Jr., J., is on leave.
rotated among the different Chapters
in the region.