Cleansing the Philippine Bar

In a per curiam decision in the recent case of CATHERINE & HENRY YU vs. ATTY. ANTONIUTTI K. PALAÑA, A.C. No. 7747, July 14, 2008, the Philippine Supreme Court en banc once again showed its firm resolve to rid the Philippine Bar of misfits and unethical and fraudulent lawyers.

On November 16, 2006, complainants Henry and Catherine Yu filed a complaint[i][1] for disbarment against respondent Atty. Antoniutti K. Palaña for alleged acts of defraudation, before the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).[ii][2] Complainants attached therewith their Consolidated Complaint-Affidavit[iii][3] which they earlier filed before the City Prosecutor’s Office of Makati, charging the respondent and his co-accused (in the criminal case), with syndicated estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22).

Sometime in 2004, complainants met a certain Mr. Mark Anthony U. Uy who introduced himself as the Division Manager of Wealth Marketing and General Services Corporation (Wealth Marketing), a corporation engaged in spot currency trading.[iv][4] Mr. Uy persuaded the complainants, together with other investors, to invest a minimum amount of P100,000.00 or its dollar equivalent with said company. They were made to believe that the said company had the so-called “stop-loss mechanism” that enabled it to stop trading once the maximum allowable loss fixed at 3%-9% of the total contributions, would be reached. If, on the other hand, the company would suffer loss, Wealth Marketing would return to the investors the principal amount including the monthly guaranteed interests. Further, Wealth Marketing promised to issue, as it had in fact issued, postdated checks covering the principal investments.[v][5]

It turned out, however, that Wealth Marketing’s promises were false and fraudulent, and that the checks earlier issued were dishonored for the reason “account closed.” The investors, including the complainants, thus went to Wealth Marketing’s office. There, they discovered that Wealth Marketing had already ceased its operation and a new corporation was formed named Ur-Link Corporation which supposedly assumed the rights and obligations of the former. Complainants proceeded to Ur-Link office where they met the respondent. As Wealth Marketing’s Chairman of the Board of Directors, respondent assured the complainants that Ur-Link would assume the obligations of the former company.[vi][6] To put a semblance of validity to such representation, respondent signed an Agreement[vii][7] to that effect which, again, turned out to be another ploy to further deceive the investors.[viii][8] This prompted the complainants to send demand letters to Wealth Marketing’s officers and directors which remained unheeded. They likewise lodged a criminal complaint for syndicated estafa against the respondent and his co-accused.[ix][9]

Despite the standing warrant for his arrest, respondent went into hiding and has been successful in defying the law, as of the time of the promulgation of the decision.

In ordering the disbarment of the respondent, the Supreme Court stated that lawyers are instruments in the administration of justice and as vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In so doing, the people’s faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. Lawyers may be disciplined – whether in their professional or in their private capacity – for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor.[x][16]

The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of facts of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) which investigated the complaint:

As correctly pointed out by the City Prosecutor’s Office of Makati, it appears that the executive officers of Wealth Marketing Corporation conspired with each (sic) other to defraud the investors by engaging in unlawful network of recruiting innocent investors to invest in foreign currency trading business. The truth of the matter is that there was no actual foreign currency trading since said corporation is not duly licensed or authorized by the Securities and Exchange Commission to perform such task.

In the General Information Sheet (Annex “I”) of Wealth Marketing and General Services Corporation, the authorized capital stock is only P9,680,000.00 and the paid up capital, at the time of [in]corporation is (sic) only P605,000.00. Said corporation, as the records will show, has been dealing with investors with millions of pesos on hand, with the hope that their money would earn interests as promised. However, their company resources and financial status will show that they are not in the position to meet these demands if a situation such as this would arise.

x x x x

Furthermore, in order to evade the investors who were then asking for the return of their investments, said respondent even formed and made him part of a new company, Ur-Link Corporation, which according to the complainants, when they met the respondent, would assume the obligations of the defunct Wealth Marketing Corporation. It is also evident that respondent is frolicking with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the purpose of employing fraud.[xi][17]

Further, the Supreme Court held that the fact that the criminal case against the respondent involving the same set of facts is still pending in court is of no moment. Respondent, being a member of the bar, should note that administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and they may proceed independently of criminal cases. A criminal prosecution will not constitute a prejudicial question even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the administrative proceedings.[xii][18] Besides, it is not sound judicial policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a complaint against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be rendered helpless to apply the rules on admission to, and continuing membership in, the legal profession during the whole period that the criminal case is pending final disposition, when the objectives of the two proceedings are vastly disparate.[xiii][19] Disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare and for preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice law.[xiv][20] The attorney is called to answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the court.[xv][21]

As to the recommended penalty of disbarment, the Supreme Court cited Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court:

A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so. x x x.

The Court noted that it was not the first time that respondent faced an administrative case, for he had been previously suspended from the practice of law in Samala v. Palaña[xvi][23] and Sps. Amador and Rosita Tejada v. Palaña.[xvii][24] In Samala, respondent also played an important role in a corporation known as First Imperial Resources Incorporated (FIRI), being its legal officer. As in this case, respondent committed the same offense by making himself part of the money trading business when, in fact, said business was not among the purposes for which FIRI was created. Respondent was thus meted the penalty of suspension for three (3) years with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.[xviii][25] Likewise, in Tejada, he was suspended for six (6) months for his continued refusal to settle his loan obligations.[xix][26]

The fact that respondent went into hiding in order to avoid service upon him of the warrant of arrest issued by the court (where his criminal case is pending) exacerbates his offense.[xx][27]

The Court noted that respondent’s case was further highlighted by his lack of regard for the charges brought against him. As in Tejada, instead of meeting the charges head on, respondent did not bother to file an answer and verified position paper, nor did he participate in the proceedings to offer a valid explanation for his conduct.[xxi][28] The Court has emphatically stated that when the integrity of a member of the bar is challenged, it is not enough that he denies the charges against him; he must meet the issue and overcome the evidence against him. He must show proof that he still maintains that degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of him.[xxii][29] Verily, respondent’s failure to comply with the orders of the IBP without justifiable reason manifests his disrespect of judicial authorities.[xxiii][30] As a lawyer, he ought to know that the compulsory bar organization was merely deputized by this Court to undertake the investigation of complaints against lawyers. In short, his disobedience to the IBP is in reality a gross and blatant disrespect of the Court.[xxiv][31] By his repeated cavalier conduct, the respondent exhibited an unpardonable lack of respect for the authority of the Court.[xxv][32]

In fine, considering the serious nature of the instant offense and in light of his prior misconduct herein-before mentioned for which he was penalized with a three-year suspension with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely; and another six-month suspension thereafter, the contumacious behavior of respondent in the instant case which grossly degrades the legal profession indeed warrants the imposition of a much graver penalty --- disbarment.[xxvi][33] Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and override the laws, to trample them underfoot and to ignore the very bonds of society, argues recreancy to his position and office, and sets a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous elements of the body politic.[xxvii][34]

Atty. Manuel J. Laserna Jr.

LCM Law, Las Pinas City, Philippines

lcmlaw@gmail.com

---

Footnotes:

[i][1] Rollo, pp. 1-3.

[ii][2] The complaint was docketed as CBD Case No. 06-1871.

[iii][3] Rollo, pp. 5-11.

[iv][4] Id. at 5.

[v][5] Id. at 5-8.

[vi][6] Commissioner’s Report, pp. 2-3.

[vii][7] Rollo, pp. 48-50.

[viii][8] Id. at 31.

[ix][9] Id. at 5-11.

[x][16] Tomlin II v. Moya II, A.C. No. 6971, February 23, 2006, 483 SCRA 154, 159.

[xi][17] Commissioner’s Report, pp. 4-5.

[xii][18] Tomlin II v. Moya, supra note 16, at 161; Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Atty. Naldoza, 374 Phil 1, 10 (1999).

[xiii][19] Tomlin II v. Moya II, id.

[xiv][20] Soriano v. Reyes, A.C. No. 4676, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 328, 339; Barrios v. Martinez, A.C. No. 4585, November 12, 2004, 442 SCRA 324, 335.

[xv][21] Soriano v. Reyes, id.

[xvi][23] A.C. No. 6595, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 100.

[xvii][24] A.C. No. 7434, August 23, 2007, 530 SCRA 771.

[xviii][25] Samala v. Palaña, supra note 23, at 106.

[xix][26] Sps. Amador and Rosita Tejada v. Palaña, supra note 24.

[xx][27] Cuizon v. Macalino, A.C. No. 4334, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 479, 484.

[xxi][28] Sps. Amador and Rosita Tejada v. Palaña, supra note 24.

[xxii][29] Id.

[xxiii][30] Tomlin II v. Moya II, supra note 16, at 161-162.

[xxiv][31] Sps. Amador and Rosita Tejada v. Palaña, supra note 24.

[xxv][32] Cuizon v. Macalino, supra note 27, at 484.

[xxvi][33] Maligsa v. Atty. Cabanting, 338 Phil. 913, 917-918 (1997).

[xxvii][34] Barrios v. Martinez, supra note 20, at 341.

Atty. Laserna honored by Las Pinas Bar Assn

On August 8, 2008 the Las Pinas City Bar Association (LPBA) awarded Atty. Manuel Laserna Jr., of the Laserna Cueva Mercader Law Offices (LCM Law), a Plaque of Recognition for his past efforts and services as the Founder of the said Association on March 21, 2001.

The ceremony was attended by Congresswoman Cynthia Villar, representing Senate Pres. Manuel Villar, and the trial judges of Las Pinas City, led by Executive Judge Leopoldo Baraquia, as well as the general membership of the LPBA.

The other awardees were Atty. Dick Funk, past chairman, and Atty. Melvyn Lagasca, past president.

Atty. Laserna, assisted by his law partner Atty. Myrna Mercader, both of whom were then officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Chapter in the southern Metro Manila district, founded the Association 8 years ago (2001) to promote the rule of law and the administration of justice in the Philippines by encouraging the formation of voluntary bar associations to unite the Filipino lawyers.

Atty. Laserna and Atty. Mercader serve as Board Consultants of the LPBA.

The LPBA is now headed by Atty. Antonio Manzano, chairman, and Atty. Purita Fajilan, president (2008-2009).

Laserna Cueva Mercader Law Offices

lcmlaw@gmail.com

Las Pinas City, Philippines

http://groups.msn.com/laspinascitybarassociation

http://attylaserna.blogspot.com

US legal profession, c. 2000

Research Notes on the US legal profession as of Year 2000:

1. Lawyers held about 681,000 jobs in 2000. About 3 out of 4 lawyers practiced privately, either in law firms or in solo practices. Most of the remaining lawyers held positions in government, the greatest number at the local level. In the Federal Government, lawyers work for many different agencies but are concentrated in the Departments of Justice, Treasury, and Defense. A small number of lawyers are employed as house counsel by public utilities, banks, insurance companies, real estate agencies, manufacturing firms, welfare and religious organizations, and other business firms and nonprofit organizations. Some salaried lawyers also have part-time independent practices; others work as lawyers part time while working full time in another occupation.

2. To practice law in the courts of any State or other jurisdiction, a person must be licensed, or admitted to its bar, under rules established by the jurisdiction's highest court. All States require that applicants for admission to the bar pass a written bar examination; most jurisdictions also require applicants to pass a separate written ethics examination. Lawyers who have been admitted to the bar in one jurisdiction occasionally may be admitted to the bar in another without taking an examination, if they meet the latter jurisdiction's standards of good moral character and have a specified period of legal experience. Federal courts and agencies set their own qualifications for those practicing before them.

3. To qualify for the bar examination in most States, an applicant usually must obtain a college degree and graduate from a law school accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA) or the proper State authorities. ABA accreditation signifies that the law school—particularly its library and faculty—meets certain standards developed to promote quality legal education. ABA currently accredits 185 law schools; others are approved by State authorities only. With certain exceptions, graduates of schools not approved by the ABA are restricted to taking the bar examination and practicing in the State or other jurisdiction in which the school is located; most of these schools are in California. In 2000, six States accepted the study of law in a law office as qualification for taking the bar examination; only California accepts the study of law by correspondence. Several States require registration and approval of students by the State Board of Law Examiners, either before the students enter law school or during the early years of legal study.

4. Although there is no nationwide bar examination, 48 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands require the 6-hour Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) as part of the bar examination; the MBE is not required in Louisiana and Washington. The MBE covers issues of broad interest and is sometimes given in addition to a locally prepared State bar examination. The 3-hour Multistate Essay Examination (MEE) is used as part of the State bar examination in several States. States vary in their use of MBE and MEE scores.

5. Many states have begun to require Multistate Performance Testing (MPT) to test the practical skills of beginning lawyers. This program has been well received, and many more States are expected to require performance testing in the future. Requirements vary by State, although the test usually is taken at the same time as the bar exam and is a one-time requirement.

6. The required college and law school education usually takes 7 years of full-time study after high school—4 years of undergraduate study followed by 3 years of law school. Law school applicants must have a bachelor's degree to qualify for admission. To meet the needs of students who can attend only part time, a number of law schools have night or part-time divisions, which usually require 4 years of study; about 1 in 10 graduates from ABA-approved schools attends part time.

7. Although there is no recommended "prelaw" major, prospective lawyers should develop proficiency in writing and speaking, reading, researching, analyzing, and thinking logically—skills needed to succeed both in law school and in the profession. Regardless of major, a multidisciplinary background is recommended. Courses in English, foreign languages, public speaking, government, philosophy, history, economics, mathematics, and computer science, among others, are useful. Students interested in a particular aspect of law may find related courses helpful. For example, prospective patent lawyers need a strong background in engineering or science, and future tax lawyers must have extensive knowledge of accounting.

8. Acceptance by most law schools depends on the applicant's ability to demonstrate an aptitude for the study of law, usually through good undergraduate grades, the Law School Admission Test (LSAT), the quality of the applicant's undergraduate school, any prior work experience, and, sometimes, a personal interview. However, law schools vary in the weight they place on each of these and other factors.

9. All law schools approved by the ABA, except for those in Puerto Rico, require applicants to take the LSAT. Nearly all law schools require applicants to have certified transcripts sent to the Law School Data Assembly Service, which then sends applicants' LSAT scores and their standardized records of college grades to the law schools of their choice. Both this service and the LSAT are administered by the Law School Admission Council.

10. Competition for admission to many law schools is intense, especially for the most prestigious schools. Enrollments in these schools rose very rapidly during the 1970s, as applicants far outnumbered available seats. Although the overall number of law school applicants decreased markedly in the 1990s, the number of applicants to most law schools still greatly exceeds the number that can be admitted.

11. During the first year or year-and-a-half of law school, students usually study core courses such as constitutional law, contracts, property law, torts, civil procedure, and legal writing. In the remaining time, they may elect specialized courses in fields such as tax, labor, or corporate law. Law students often acquire practical experience by participation in school-sponsored legal clinic activities; in the school's moot court competitions, in which students conduct appellate arguments; in practice trials under the supervision of experienced lawyers and judges; and through research and writing on legal issues for the school's law journal.

12. A number of law schools have clinical programs in which students gain legal experience through practice trials and projects under the supervision of practicing lawyers and law school faculty. Law school clinical programs might include work in legal aid clinics, for example, or on the staff of legislative committees. Part-time or summer clerkships in law firms, government agencies, and corporate legal departments also provide valuable experience. Such training can lead directly to a job after graduation and can help students decide what kind of practice best suits them. Clerkships may also be an important source of financial aid.

13. In 1999, law students in 52 jurisdictions were required to pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination (MPRE), which tests their knowledge of the ABA codes on professional responsibility and judicial conduct. In some States, the MPRE may be taken during law school, usually after completing a course on legal ethics.

14. Law school graduates receive the degree of juris doctor (J.D.) as the first professional degree. Advanced law degrees may be desirable for those planning to specialize, research, or teach. Some law students pursue joint degree programs, which usually require an additional semester or year. Joint degree programs are offered in a number of areas, including law and business administration or public administration.

15. After graduation, lawyers must keep informed about legal and nonlegal developments that affect their practice. Currently, 39 States and jurisdictions mandate Continuing Legal Education (CLE). Many law schools and State and local bar associations provide continuing education courses that help lawyers stay abreast of recent developments. Some States allow CLE credits to be obtained through participation in seminars on the Internet.

16. The practice of law involves a great deal of responsibility. Individuals planning careers in law should like to work with people and be able to win the respect and confidence of their clients, associates, and the public. Perseverance, creativity, and reasoning ability also are essential to lawyers, who often analyze complex cases and handle new and unique legal problems.

17. Most beginning lawyers start in salaried positions. Newly hired, salaried attorneys usually start as associates and work with more experienced lawyers or judges. After several years of gaining more responsibilities, some lawyers are admitted to partnership in their firm or go into practice for themselves. Others become full-time law school faculty or administrators; a growing number of these lawyers have advanced degrees in other fields as well.

18. Some attorneys use their legal training in administrative or managerial positions in various departments of large corporations. A transfer from a corporation's legal department to another department often is viewed as a way to gain administrative experience and rise in the ranks of management.

19. For lawyers who wish to work independently, establishing a new practice will probably be easiest in small towns and expanding suburban areas. In such communities, competition from larger established law firms is likely to be less keen than in big cities, and new lawyers may find it easier to become known to potential clients.

20. In 2000, the median annual earnings of all lawyers was $88,280. The middle half of the occupation earned between $60,700 and $130,170. The lowest paid 10 percent earned less than $44,590; at least 10 percent earned more than $145,600. Median annual earnings in the industries employing the largest numbers of lawyers in 2000 are shown below:

Legal services $96,610

Federal government 87,080

Fire, marine, and casualty insurance 82,170

Local Government 66,280

State Government 64,190

21. Information on law schools and a career in law may be obtained from:

American Bar Association, 750 North Lake Shore Dr., Chicago, IL 60611. Internet: http://www.abanet.org.

21. Information on the LSAT, the Law School Data Assembly Service, the law school application process, and the financial aid available for law students may be obtained from: Law School Admission Council, P.O. Box 40, Newtown, PA 18940. Internet: http://www.lsac.org.

22. Information on obtaining a job as a lawyer with the Federal Government is available from the Office of Personnel Management through a telephone-based system. Consult your telephone directory under U.S. Government for a local number or call (912) 757-3000; Federal Relay Service: (800) 877-8339. The first number is not toll free, and charges may result. Information also is available from the Internet site: http://www.usajobs.opm.gov.

23. The requirements for admission to the bar in a particular State or other jurisdiction also may be obtained at the State capital, from the clerk of the Supreme Court or the administrator of the State Board of Bar Examiners.

24. I based the foregoing research notes on the informative materials posted on the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an agency within the U.S. Department of Labor. E-Mail: oohinfo@bls.gov. URL: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos053.htm.

Atty. Manuel Laserna Jr.

lcmlaw@gmail.com

Las Pinas City, Philippines

British legal profession in the 1950s

There were 4 great “Inns of Court” since 19^th century in Great Britain, namely: Lincoln’s Inn, Inner Temple, Middle Temple, and Gray’s Inn. (Lund, in Cheatham, 1952 ed., p. 30).

The inns were made up “exclusively of barristers”. They “excluded all attorneys and solicitors and their articles clerks”. (id...).

The Inns were recognized by the judiciary and the legislature as “guilds of advocates” and they “delegated to them the control of the education, administration and discipline of advocates.” (id., 30).

Barristers have “monopoly of the right of audience in the superior courts”, while the “right of audience is also extended to solicitors in… the country courts and Magistrates courts.” (id., 30). Barristers “are consulted from time to time as experts by solicitors.” (id., 31).

The Client “can only approach, consult or instruct a barrister through a solicitor”. (Land, in Cheatham, 31). “A barrister must work as an individual and may not practice in partnership whereas a solicitor not only may do so but… generally does.” (id., 31).

Before the Supreme Court only a barrister may appear (id., 31).

There were only 2,000 Barristers in Great Britain in 1952, “…many of these are no doubt earning their living in some way other than at the bar for the most part, e.g. in journalism.” ( id., 31). Some 1,200 were earning their living “exclusively from their progression.” (id., 32).

Since 1894, the General Council of the Bar has served as the “central representative organization of barristers and a “consultative and deliberative body”. It has “no disciplinary powers of enforcement nor has it any control over the education or admission of Bar students.” (id., 31).

The requirements for admission to the British Bar were: “a test of general education (of approx. the same standard as that required for entry into a university)”; must “fulfill certain conditions of fitness and respectability”; must “keep a certain number of terms (general twelve, which involved nothing more than dinning in half on a number of days in each term, 4 terms in a year”; and must “pass a qualifying exam, of a largely theoretical nature.” (id.).

The exam approximated those for a university law degree and Bar students frequently kept their terms while at the university.” (id.)

As to citizenship, Barristers “may be of any nationality” and Solicitors “must be

British subjects.” (id., 31).

Solicitors “do nine-tenths of the work which members of the bar in the US carry out….” (id.).

A Queen’s Counsel is one “who wear silk gowns and are called ‘Silks’ or ‘Leaders’, while Juniors are “all other barristers”. A “Q.C” is appointed on the recommendation of the Land Chancellor…” (id., 32).

“Nearly all common-law barristers are members of a circuit”. England and Wales were “divided into light circuits each of which has its own Bar”. A barrister “can only belong to one circuit”. A member of one circuit can appear in another circuit, “provided the associates himself with another barrister who belongs to the latter circuit”. (id., 32).

The Lord Chancellor is “the highest judicial officer of the Crown”. (Frank, Wagnalls, 221).

Before 1873, the Chancery was the court presided by the Lord High Chancellor. It is the “highest court next to the House of Lords”. (Judiciary Act of 1873; id.).

The Solicitors Law Society originated in 1823. It was incorporated by Royal Charter. it is the association of solicitors in Great Britain. Its membership is voluntary. As of 1951, out of 22,000 solicitors, 16,000 were members. It “has been entrusted by Parliament with many powers, obligations and duties with respect to the profession”. (Land, op. cit., 33).

The legal education required of a Solicitor consisted of the following: must “serve a period under articles of clerkship (or apprenticeship) with a solicitor engaged in the active practice of law” (“the term is normally five years but is reduced to three years for university graduates (whether in law or arts)”; must “pass a preliminary examination on general knowledge, an intermediate and a final examination in law and trust accounts”; must “obtain the consent of The Law Society and must satisfy the Society of his character, suitability and fitness to do so.” (id.).

In 1952, the fee for clerkship paid by a clerk to his principal was 300 Pounds or more.

The management and control of the Solicitors’ Examinations were “placed by Parliament in the boards of the Law Society which is empowered to make regulations governing the syllabus, the appointments of examiners, and other kindred matters”, which “must be approved by the Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chief Justice”. “Before talking the final examinations, the articled clerk must have attended a course of legal education at a school of law provided or approved by The Law Society… The required course of legal ed. Is of one year’s duration, either part-time at the approved law schools or full-time at The Law Society’s School of Law”. (id.).

The Solicitor’s license was called the “annual practicing certificate or license”, which may be with or without condition and was renewed yearly. (id.).

The Rules of the Law Society, by order of the Parliament, provided that “all clients’ monies or monies of a trust where the solicitor is a sole trustee, which are held or received by a solicitor, must be kept in a bank entirely apart from the solicitor’s monies and the solicitor must keep adequate books of accounts”.; that “juggling or mixing of clients’ monies was prohibited”; that the solicitors was “required to submit annually to The Law Society a certificate signed by a member of one of the recognized accountancy bodies to the effect that the rules have been complied with”. The Law Society may “inspect a solicitor’s books of accounts and bank accounts”. (id., 34).

“Advertising, touting undercutting, profit sharing with unqualified persons and ambulance chasing” were prohibited. (id., 34, citing “Solicitors’ Practice Rules, 1936” of The Law Society, by authority of Parliament). To “tout” is to solicit business (Frank and Wagnalls, 1328).

The Law Society maintained as Compensation Fund “for the purpose of relieving or mitigating losses sustained by any person in consequence of dishonesty on the part of any solicitation or solicitor’s clerks”. Every Solicitor was “required by statute to contribute to this Fund when taking out his annual practicing certificate” (Lund, op. cit., 34).

The Law Society administered the “Legal Aid and Advice Act of 1949”. In legal-aid cases, a maximum of 85% of a “lawyer’s normal fee” was paid by the state and 15% paid by client. “State-financed schemes were drawn up and operated, subject only to ultimate government consent, by voluntary organizations representative of the profession itself”. (id.).

Since 1953, a lawyer’s “remuneration was no longer fixed by schedule but was determined by agreement, subject to review by a taxing master.” (id., 35).

In 1952, a Solicitor earned 700 Pounds per annum. (id., 35).

Atty. Manuel Laserna Jr.
Las Pinas City, Philippines
lcmlaw@gmail.com

Judicial corruption

In his column (“As I See It”, Philippine Daily Inquirer, August 8, 2008), which delved on the current issues facing the Philippine Judiciary, columnist Neal Cruz made the following points, which are worth reading for purposes of legal research on recent issues and developments affecting the Philippine Judiciary:

1. The current scandal involving Court of Appeals Justices (re: Meralco Case) once again raises the issue of judicial corruption. He stated:

“Sometimes the accusations are unfair but at other times they are true. Those at the receiving end of unfair accusations say that this is a normal hazard of the service, considering that losing parties would usually cry injustice whenever an unfavorable decision is handed down. More often than not, it will be very hard to prove the bribery precisely because it is done in secrecy. The more practical solution to the problem lies not in catching the corrupt judge or justice but in preventing a corrupt individual from being appointed to the judiciary. The fact that rogue judges and justices abound should be blamed on the appointing power for putting them there. It seems that judicial appointments based on merit are becoming more the exception than the rule. Political patronage is still the primary qualification for judicial appointments, or any presidential appointment for that matter.”

2. “The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which is charged with the duty of screening nominees for judicial positions, should live up to its duty and the public’s expectations by nominating only candidates of unquestionable competence, probity and integrity for judicial positions. The appointing power, on the other hand, should let the JBC do its job and refrain from influencing the nomination process. In the end, whoever gets appointed should be the responsibility of the appointing power.”

3. “Because of the increasing scandals involving judges and justices, I think the judiciary needs reforms very badly. For one thing, the Supreme Court seems reluctant to punish one of its own, sometimes penalizing erring judges with mere slaps on the wrist, or clearing some of them with stilted arguments. That is hardly conducive to discouraging future wrongdoing. On the contrary, it encourages more of the same; if you get caught you may be able to get away with a mere reprimand or a brief suspension.”

4. “I think that politicians should be banned from appointments to the judiciary, especially to the appellate courts. A politician has many debts owed to friends and supporters incurred during his political battles. More debts are incurred when patrons successfully get him appointed to the judiciary. Judges and justices being only human, gratitude will surely influence their decisions on cases involving some of these patrons. That is not conducive to justice without fear or favor.”

5. “And I think retired justices should be barred from appearing as counsels for litigants. Justices, retired or not, carry the reputations of their positions with them wherever they go. They are usually held in awe and with such respect by judges and lawyers that it cannot be helped that their appearance in court as counsel for one of the litigants will exert influence on the decision-making of the judge trying the case. Retired justices already enjoy generous pensions so that they hardly need any “sidelines” in their twilight years. To keep busy, they can teach, lecture, or write books.”

6. “Generous legal fees from wealthy litigants are a real temptation but ethics should keep the temptation in check. If not, a Supreme Court ruling or a law should put the retired justice in his proper place.”

(See:http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20080808-153339/President-bears-responsibility-for-rogue-justices).

Related Reading:

1st hearing on justices’ bribery quick, quiet By Jerome Aning, Edson C. Tandoc Jr. Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 01:26:00 08/08/2008 MANILA, Philippines—No sound and fury marked the first public appearance together of the main protagonists in the controversy rocking the Court of Appeals (CA). Quick and quiet was Thursday’s first public hearing of the three-member panel formed by the Supreme Court to look into the purported improprieties and bribery attempt involving CA justices who had handled a case between Manila Electric Co. and the Government Service Insurance System. “Dedma” (roughly, emotionless) was how CA Associate Justice Jose Sabio (who had blown the whistle on a purported P10-million bribe attempt) later described to reporters how he felt upon seeing businessman Francis de Borja (who had denied Sabio’s claim). Indeed, the two men, by their own accounts acquaintances of long standing, did not look at each other and were seated three chairs apart. The hearing that began at about 9:15 a.m. was over in 30 minutes. Sabio, De Borja and seven other CA justices sat with their backs to the gallery as they listened to instructions from the panel composed of retired Supreme Court Associate Justices Carolina Griño-Aquino, Flerida Ruth Romero and Romeo Callejo Sr. The others summoned by the committee were CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez and Associate Justices Bienvenido Reyes, Vicente Roxas, Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, Apolinario Bruselas Jr., Martin Villarama Jr. and Edgardo Cruz. Where they sat The seating arrangements at Thursday’s hearing indicated the contending camps and their varying positions on the issue. Vasquez, who had tried to mediate in the controversy over which division should rule on the Meralco vs. GSIS case but ended up referring the matter to the Supreme Court, sat near the middle of the table. On Vasquez’s left were Villarama and Cruz, who had been consulted by the feuding Sabio and Reyes on who should have jurisdiction over the case. At the extreme left sat De Borja. On Vasquez’s right sat Sabio and then Vidal, the acting chair and former member, respectively, of the 9th Division that issued the earlier temporary restraining order favoring Meralco, and who had both protested their being excluded from the case. On their right sat Reyes and Roxas, regular chair and member, respectively, of the 9th Division, and Bruselas. The three, after reorganization at the CA, became members of the 8th Division that issued the July 24 decision favoring Meralco. Roxas was the ponente, or writer of the decision. Aquino, the committee chair, required Sabio et al. to submit their affidavits not later than 4 p.m. Thursday. She said the affidavits would serve as direct testimony, thus abbreviating the proceedings. Callejo instructed Sabio et al. to furnish one another copies of their affidavits so that anyone feeling alluded to could respond. He warned that only statements of facts, and not conclusions and hearsay, may be included in the affidavits. No lawyers for justices Sabio, Vasquez, Vidal and Villarama are to take the witness stand at Friday’s hearing. Being all lawyers, the CA justices summoned will not be represented by legal counsel, the panel said. The panel is ensuring a speedy investigation, with Aquino declaring that no motion for postponement would be granted and that a final report containing findings and recommendations would be issued “not later than Aug. 21.” According to Aquino, the witnesses are allowed to attach to their affidavits as many documents—letters, court issuances, sworn statements of supporting witnesses, etc.—as they wish. “Whatever you believe will support your allegations or additionally support your affidavit, attach it,” she said. To further speed up proceedings, official documents may be photocopied. The authenticity of the papers may later be certified by the witnesses before the panel or determined upon comparison with the records of the case involving Meralco’s efforts to resist a takeover by the GSIS. ‘Kawawa naman siya’ De Borja, who had earlier described himself as a friend of Meralco chair Manuel Lopez, arrived about 10 minutes earlier than Sabio. Asked later by reporters how he felt seeing De Borja, Sabio said: “Dedma lang.” “[I had] no feeling whatsoever. But this morning, my daughter in the United States called me up and said she was praying for him (De Borja). Kawawa naman siya (He’s pitiful). He was the one who brought this upon himself.” Sabio had earlier told CA Presiding Justice Vasquez that someone “brokering for Meralco” had offered him P10 million to inhibit himself from the case in which the power utility sought the voiding of the Securities and Exchange Commission order stopping Meralco from including proxy votes in its May 27 board elections. Feeling alluded to, De Borja had come forward and denied making such an offer to Sabio. In an affidavit, he had also said Sabio claimed to have been offered by the government cash and a seat in the Supreme Court “to favor the GSIS position,” and that when he asked what it would take for Sabio to resist the purported offer, the justice said: “50 million.” Sabio had promptly denied De Borja’s claims. Surprise testimony Asked again how he felt when he saw his fellow CA justices, including Reyes, with whom he had had a falling out, Sabio said: “Wala. Dedma rin.” “I am happy this incident happened, so a lot of matters can be looked into.” Sabio said those trying to discredit him would be surprised by his testimony. He said he had told a number of people about the P10-million offer right after he rejected it, including Fr. Joaquin Bernas, the constitutionalist and law dean, and also his and his daughter’s confessor. He also said he would ask Bernas if the latter could draft an affidavit, “because I think as a priest, how can he deny that we discussed [the bribe offer] in the faculty lounge [of the Ateneo Law School]?” What they said At the beginning of the hearing, each justice and De Borja introduced themselves to the panel. Vasquez, Sabio and Villarama raised points of clarification. Toward the end, a number of the justices asked technical questions, including to whom they would submit their affidavits, and how De Borja, who lives in Pateros, would be provided his copies. The panel allowed the justices to submit their affidavits to the clerks of court of the Supreme Court or the appellate court, from where De Borja could pick up his own copies. It also indicated that it may summon Evelyn Clavano, a friend of both Sabio’s and De Borja’s. It was Sabio who had earlier presented an affidavit from Clavano stating that De Borja had asked her for the justice’s phone number so he could contact the latter regarding possible inhibition from the Meralco vs. GSIS case. Sabio said he was ready to present Clavano, who lives in Cagayan de Oro City, to the panel, and that he would also present affidavits by his daughter, whom he had informed about the purported bribe offer by text message. Bruselas merited a scolding from Callejo for saying that while he was happy to appear before the panel, he was surprised at being called to the investigation. He said his role in the controversy was minimal and that he had already written Vasquez a detailed narration of what he knew about the case. Callejo said Bruselas should not be surprised because the latter had signed the decision favoring Meralco, written Vasquez a letter about the case, and made comments. Bruselas promptly withdrew his remark that he was surprised. Wait for conclusion Aquino requested reporters to “not interpret or anticipate” testimony in the hearings, but clarified that the panel was not issuing a gag order on the proceedings. She said the media should wait for the conclusion of the investigation before publishing or airing comments on the evidence and testimony offered to the panel. “It’s the panel’s duty to come out with the conclusions,” Aquino said. Explaining the panel’s directive to reporters, Supreme Court spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez said it was a mere reiteration of the rule of sub judice. “The committee is just telling the media to be very careful because there are charges and countercharges, accusations and counteraccusations,” Marquez said. He said the directive was made “so that the media will not preempt the committee, and so that the general public will not make its own conclusions before the [investigation] is over.”

(See: http://sports.inquirer.net/inquirersports/inquirersports/view/20080808-153344/1st-hearing-on-justices-bribery-quick-quiet).