Metallicity of solar-type stars with debris discs and planets
CHAPTER 4. METALLICITY OF SOLAR-TYPE STARS WITH DEBRIS DISCS AND PLANETS
4.3.5 Comparison with stars with giant planets
1) Direct Contempt 1) Direct Contempt 1) Direct Contempt 1) Direct Contempt
It consists of misbehavior in the presence of or near a court or judge as to interrupt or obstruct the proceedings before the court or the administration of justice.
2) Indirect or Constructive Contempt 2) Indirect or Constructive Contempt 2) Indirect or Constructive Contempt 2) Indirect or Constructive Contempt
One committed away from the court involving disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment or command of the court, tending to belittle, degrade, obstruct, interrupt or embarrass the court.
a) Civil contempt Civil contempt Civil contempt Civil contempt – failure to do something ordered by the court which is for the benefit of the party.
b) Criminal contempt Criminal contempt Criminal contempt Criminal contempt – consists of any conduct directed against the authority or dignity of the court.
C. Acts of a Lawyer Constituting Contempt C. Acts of a Lawyer Constituting Contempt C. Acts of a Lawyer Constituting Contempt C. Acts of a Lawyer Constituting Contempt
1. Misbehavior as officer of court
2. Disobedience or resistance to court order 3. Abuse or interference with judicial proceedings 4. Obstruction in administration of justice
5. Misleading courts
6. Making false allegations, criticisms, insults, veiled threats against the courts 7. Aiding in unauthorized practice of law (suspended or disbarred)
8. Unlawful retention of client’s funds 9. Advise client to commit contemptuous acts
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEG MANDATORY CONTINUING LEG MANDATORY CONTINUING LEG
MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION AL EDUCATION AL EDUCATION AL EDUCATION
B.M. No. 850 August 22, 2000 B.M. No. 850 August 22, 2000B.M. No. 850 August 22, 2000 B.M. No. 850 August 22, 2000
PURPOSE PURPOSE PURPOSE PURPOSE
Continuing legal education is required of members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law.
REQUIREMENTS OF COMPLETION OF MCLE REQUIREMENTS OF COMPLETION OF MCLEREQUIREMENTS OF COMPLETION OF MCLE REQUIREMENTS OF COMPLETION OF MCLE
Members of the IBP, unless exempted under Rule 7, shall complete every 3 years at least 36 hours of continuing legal education activities. The 36 hours shall be divided as follows:
1. 6 hours – legal ethics
2. 4 hours – trial and pretrial skills 3. 5 hours – alternative dispute resolution
4. 9 hours – updates on substantive and procedural laws and jurisprudence 5. 4 hours – legal writing and oral advocacy
6. 2 hours – international law and international conventions
7. Remaining 6 hours – such other subjects as may be prescribed by the Committee on MCLE.
Classes of Credits Classes of Credits Classes of Credits Classes of Credits
1. Participatory credit – Attending approved education activities like seminars, conventions, symposia, and the like; speaking or lecturing, or assigned as panelist, reactor, or commentator, etc.
in approved education activities; teaching in law school or lecturing in bar review classes.
2. Non-participatory – Preparing, as author or co-author, written materials (article, book or book review) which contribute to the legal education of the author member, which were not prepared in the ordinary course of his practice or employment; editing a law book, law journal or legal newsletter.
COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE COMPLIANCE What constitute non-compliance?
1. Failure to complete education requirement within the compliance period;
2. Failure to provide attestation of compliance or exemption;
3. Failure to provide satisfactory evidence of compliance (including evidence of exempt status) within the prescribed period;
4. Failure to satisfy the education requirement and furnish evidence of such compliance within 60 days from receipt of non-compliance notice;
5. Failure to pay non-compliance fee within the prescribed period; or
6. Any other act or omission analogous to any of the foregoing or intended to circumvent or evade compliance with the MCLE requirements.
EXEMPTIONS EXEMPTIONS EXEMPTIONS EXEMPTIONS
1. The President, Vice-President and the Secretaries and Undersecretaries of Executive Departments;
2. Senators and Members of the House of Representatives;
3. The Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, incumbent and retired members of the judiciary, incumbent members of Judicial Bar Council, incumbent members of the MCLE Committee, incumbent court lawyers who have availed of the Philippine Judicial Academy programs of continuing judicial education (Amendment to Bar Matter 850, Resolution of the Court En Banc, July 13, 2004);
4. The Chief State Counsel, Chief State Prosecutor and Assistant Secretaries of the Dept. of Justice;
5. The Solicitor General and the Assistant Solicitor General;
6. The Government Corporate Counsel, Deputy and Assistant Government Corporate Counsel;
7. The Chairman and Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
8. The Ombudsman, the Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the Deputy Ombudsmen and the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman;
9. Heads of government agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions;
10. Incumbent deans, bar reviewers and professors of law who have teaching experience for at least 10 years in accredited law schools;
11. The Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor and members of the Corps of Professional and Professorial Lecturers of the Philippine Judicial Academy; and
12. Governors and Mayors.
CONSEQUENCES OF NON CONSEQUENCES OF NON CONSEQUENCES OF NON
CONSEQUENCES OF NON----COMPLIANCECOMPLIANCECOMPLIANCECOMPLIANCE
A member who fails to comply with the requirements after the 60-day period shall be listed as delinquent member by the IBP Board of Governors upon recommendation of the Committee on MCLE.
SOME JURISPRUDENCE ON DISCIPLINE OF LAWYER SOME JURISPRUDENCE ON DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERSOME JURISPRUDENCE ON DISCIPLINE OF LAWYER SOME JURISPRUDENCE ON DISCIPLINE OF LAWYER
IN RE MARCIAL EDILLON IN RE MARCIAL EDILLON IN RE MARCIAL EDILLON IN RE MARCIAL EDILLON
(A.M. No. 1928, August 3, 1978) (84 SCRA 554)
FACT FACTFACT
FACTS:S:S: The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the S:
Philippines. The IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for “stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues” to the IBP since the latter’s constitution notwithstanding due notice. Edilion contends that the provision providing for the IBP dues constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled, as a pre-condition to maintaining his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a consequence of this compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is admittedly personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and property guaranteed to him by the Constitution. Hence, the respondent concludes, the above provisions of the Court Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:ISSUE:
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Edillon may be removed from the Rolls of Attorney for non-payment of IBP dues suffers constitutional infirmity.
DECISION:
DECISION:DECISION:
DECISION: YES. The payment of IBP dues does not suffer constitutional infirmity. All legislation directing the integration of the Bar has been uniformly and universally sustained as a valid exercise of the police power over an important profession. The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege, a privilege moreover clothed with public interest because a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State — the administration of justice — as an officer of the court.
When the respondent Edillon entered upon the legal profession, his practice of law and his exercise of the said profession, which affect the society at large, were (and are) subject to the power of the body politic to require him to conform to such regulations as might be established by the proper authorities for the common good, even to the extent of interfering with some of his liberties. If he did not wish to submit himself to such reasonable interference and regulation, he should not have clothed the public with an interest in his concerns.
To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court, in order to further the State’s legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require that the cost of improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program
— the lawyers. Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the State.
YUSECO YUSECOYUSECO
YUSECO V.V.V. BERNADV.BERNADBERNAD BERNAD
(A.M. No. 94-1-061-SC March 29, 1995) (243 SCRA 19)
FACTS:
FACTS:
FACTS:
FACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed by Atty. Joaquin Yuseco and Benjamin Grecia against Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad, charging him with suppressing facts and making false statements in his report to the Court in the disbarment case against complainant Grecia for the purpose of causing injury to him (Grecia). The complaint for disbarment against Benjamin Grecia was filed by Doctors Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco and Achilles Bartolome and the St. Luke's Medical Center who charged him with dishonesty and grave misconduct in connection with the theft of some pages of a medical chart used in evidence in a damage suitfiled by Grecia's clients against the doctors and the hospital. The disbarment case was assigned to respondent Deputy Court Administrator Bernad for investigation, report and recommendation. Respondent submitted report in which Bernad found therein respondent Benjamin Grecia guilty of the charges. Bernad refrained from recommending the penalty but instead left the matter to the Court to determine, observing that whether the penalty should be disbarment or suspension, the two are "severe forms of disciplinary action [which] should be resorted to only in cases where a lawyer demonstrates an attribute or course of conduct wholly inconsistent with approved professional standard."
ISSUES ISSUES ISSUES
ISSUES:::: Can respondent be disbarred on the following grounds:
(1) submitting a report and recommendation to the Supreme Court in the disbarment case without furnishing complainant Grecia with a copy thereof;
(2) falsifying his written report by narrating facts which are absolutely false;
(3) deliberately not revealing his relationship with former Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan, whose brother-in-law, Atty. Pompeyo Nolasco of the Quasha law firm, is the counsel for complainant-doctors in the disbarment case as well as in Civil Case No. 3548-V-91 which Grecia had filed against the doctors and the hospital.
HELDHELD
HELDHELD: : : : First. Respondent had no duty to complainant to furnish him a copy of his report in the disbarment case. That report was solely for Court’s use. What was important was that he was given a copy of the Court's decision ordering his disbarment.
Second. The fourteen (14) cases or instances in which respondent allegedly made false statements in his report to the Court are the same ones cited in complainant Grecia's motion for new investigation and reconsideration which this Court denied way back on August 12, 1993.
Third. The Court agreed with the findings of respondent, his findings became those of the Court and complainants have no basis for charging suppression of material facts. Indeed, "the Court assumes full responsibility for all its acts.
Fourth. Atty. Nolasco is a brother-in-law of former Chief Justice Marcelo B. Fernan. However respondent points out that the disbarment case was assigned to him three months after Chief Justice Fernan had retired from the Court. Indeed, aside from this allegation, there is no evidence in the record to support the charge of complainants.
TAN V.
TAN V.
TAN V.
TAN V. BALAJADIABALAJADIABALAJADIABALAJADIA
(G.R. No. 169517, March 14, 2006)
FACTS:
FACTS:
FACTS:
FACTS: Rogelio, Normal all surnamed Tan and Maliyawao Pagayokan (petitioners) in their petition alleged that Bendicto Balajadia (respondent) filed a criminal case against them for usurpation of authority, grave coercion and violation of city tax ordinance due to the alleged illegal collection of parking fees by petitioners from respondent. In paragraph 5 of the complaint-affidavit, respondent asserted that he is a "practicing lawyer."However, certifications issued by the Office of the Bar Confidantand the Integrated Bar of the Philippinesshowed that respondent has never been admitted to the Philippine Bar. Hence, petitioners claim that respondent is liable for indirect contempt for misrepresenting himself as a lawyer.
In his Comment, respondent avers that the allegation in paragraph 5 of the complaint-affidavit that he is a practicing lawyer was an honest mistake. He claims that the secretary of Atty. Paterno Aquino prepared the subject complaint-affidavit which was patterned after Atty.
Aquino’s affidavit. It appears that Atty. Aquino had previously filed a complaint-affidavit against petitioners involving the same subject matter. Liza Laconsay, Atty. Aquino’s secretary, executed an affidavit admitting the mistake in the preparation of the complaint-affidavit. Respondent alleged that he did not read the complaint-affidavit because he assumed that the two complaint-affidavits contained the same allegations with respect to his occupation and office address. Respondent claims that he had no intention of misrepresenting himself as a practicing lawyer.
In their Reply,petitioners reiterate that respondent should be made liable for indirect contempt for having made untruthful statements in the complaint-affidavit and that he cannot shift the blame to Atty. Aquino’s secretary.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is liable for indirect contempt.
HELD:
HELD:
HELD:
HELD: SC ruled in the negative. Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. – After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:
x x x x
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority;
In several cases, SC have ruled that the unauthorized practice of law by assuming to be an attorney and acting as such without authority constitutes indirect contempt which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. The liability for the unauthorized practice of law under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of CourtSection 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of CourtSection 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of CourtSection 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court is in the nature of criminal contemptcriminal contemptcriminal contemptcriminal contempt and the acts are punished because they are an affront to the dignity and authority of the court, and obstruct the orderly administration of justice. In determining liability for criminal contempt, well-settled is the rule that intentintentintentintent is a necessary element, and no one can be punished unless the evidence makes it clear that he intended to commit it.
In the case at bar, a review of the records supports respondent’s claim that he never intended to project himself as a lawyer to the public. It was a clear inadvertence on the part of the secretary of Atty. Aquino. The affidavit of Liza Laconsay attesting to the circumstances that gave rise to the mistake in the drafting of the complaint-affidavit conforms to the documentary evidence on record. Taken together, these circumstances show that the allegation in paragraph 5 of respondent’s complaint-affidavit was, indeed, the result of inadvertence.
Respondent has satisfactorily shown that the allegation that he is a practicing lawyer was the result of inadvertence and cannot, by itself, establish intent as to make him liable for indirect contempt.
In the case at bar, no evidence was presented to show that respondent acted as an attorney or that he intended to practice law. Consequently, he cannot be made liable for indirect contempt considering his lack of intent to illegally practice law.