Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ethics - Intro
Ethics - Intro
99-634 June 10, 2002 offered to reimburse me by issuing two (2) checks, postdated June 1 and June 5, 1999, in
the amounts of P12,000.00 and P8,000.00, respectively, copies of which are attached as
DOMINADOR P. BURBE, complainant, vs. ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA, respondent.
Annexes D and E;
PANGANIBAN, J.:
"That for the inconvenience, treatment and deception I was made to suffer, I wish to
After agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to both cause and client, complain Atty. Alberto C. Magulta for misrepresentation, dishonesty and oppressive
even if the client never paid any fee for the attorney-client relationship. Lawyering is not a conduct;"
business; it is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary
xxx xxx x x x.1
consideration.
On August 6, 1999, pursuant to the July 22, 1999 Order of the IBP Commission on Bar
The Case
Discipline,2 respondent filed his Answer3 vehemently denying the allegations of complainant
Before us is a Complaint for the disbarment or suspension or any other disciplinary action "for being totally outrageous and baseless." The latter had allegedly been introduced as
against Atty. Alberto C. Magulta. Filed by Dominador P. Burbe with the Commission on Bar a kumpadre of one of the former's law partners. After their meeting, complainant requested
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on June 14, 1999, the Complaint is him to draft a demand letter against Regwill Industries, Inc. -- a service for which the former
accompanied by a Sworn Statement alleging the following: never paid. After Mr. Said Sayre, one of the business partners of complainant, replied to this
letter, the latter requested that another demand letter -- this time addressed to the former --
"x x x xxx xxx
be drafted by respondent, who reluctantly agreed to do so. Without informing the lawyer,
"That in connection with my business, I was introduced to Atty. Alberto C. Magulta, complainant asked the process server of the former's law office to deliver the letter to the
sometime in September, 1998, in his office at the Respicio, Magulta and Adan Law Offices addressee.
at 21-B Otero Building, Juan de la Cruz St., Davao City, who agreed to legally represent
Aside from attending to the Regwill case which had required a three-hour meeting, respondent
me in a money claim and possible civil case against certain parties for breach of contract;
drafted a complaint (which was only for the purpose of compelling the owner to settle the
"That consequent to such agreement, Atty. Alberto C. Magulta prepared for me the case) and prepared a compromise agreement. He was also requested by complainant to do
demand letter and some other legal papers, for which services I have accordingly paid; the following:
inasmuch, however, that I failed to secure a settlement of the dispute, Atty. Magulta
1. Write a demand letter addressed to Mr. Nelson Tan
suggested that I file the necessary complaint, which he subsequently drafted, copy of
which is attached as Annex A, the filing fee whereof will require the amount of Twenty Five 2. Write a demand letter addressed to ALC Corporation
Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00);
3. Draft a complaint against ALC Corporation
"That having the need to legally recover from the parties to be sued I, on January 4, 1999,
4. Research on the Mandaue City property claimed by complainant's wife
deposited the amount of P25,000.00 to Atty. Alberto C. Magulta, copy of the Receipt
attached as Annex B, upon the instruction that I needed the case filed immediately; All of these respondent did, but he was never paid for his services by complainant.
"That a week later, I was informed by Atty. Alberto C. Magulta that the complaint had Respondent likewise said that without telling him why, complainant later on withdrew all the
already been filed in court, and that I should receive notice of its progress; files pertinent to the Regwill case. However, when no settlement was reached, the latter
instructed him to draft a complaint for breach of contract. Respondent, whose services had
"That in the months that followed, I waited for such notice from the court or from Atty.
never been paid by complainant until this time, told the latter about his acceptance and legal
Magulta but there seemed to be no progress in my case, such that I frequented his office
fees. When told that these fees amounted to P187,742 because the Regwill claim was almost
to inquire, and he would repeatedly tell me just to wait;
P4 million, complainant promised to pay on installment basis.
"That I had grown impatient on the case, considering that I am told to wait [every time] I
On January 4, 1999, complainant gave the amount of P25,000 to respondent's secretary and
asked; and in my last visit to Atty. Magulta last May 25, 1999, he said that the court
told her that it was for the filing fee of the Regwill case. When informed of the payment, the
personnel had not yet acted on my case and, for my satisfaction, he even brought me to
lawyer immediately called the attention of complainant, informing the latter of the need to
the Hall of Justice Building at Ecoland, Davao City, at about 4:00 p.m., where he left me at
pay the acceptance and filing fees before the complaint could be filed. Complainant was told
the Office of the City Prosecutor at the ground floor of the building and told to wait while
that the amount he had paid was a deposit for the acceptance fee, and that he should give
he personally follows up the processes with the Clerk of Court; whereupon, within the
the filing fee later.
hour, he came back and told me that the Clerk of Court was absent on that day;
Sometime in February 1999, complainant told respondent to suspend for the meantime the
"That sensing I was being given the run-around by Atty. Magulta, I decided to go to the
filing of the complaint because the former might be paid by another company, the First
Office of the Clerk of Court with my draft of Atty. Magulta's complaint to personally verify
Oriental Property Ventures, Inc., which had offered to buy a parcel of land owned by Regwill
the progress of my case, and there told that there was no record at all of a case filed by
Industries. The negotiations went on for two months, but the parties never arrived at any
Atty. Alberto C. Magulta on my behalf, copy of the Certification dated May 27, 1999,
agreement.
attached as Annex C;
Sometime in May 1999, complainant again relayed to respondent his interest in filing the
"That feeling disgusted by the way I was lied to and treated, I confronted Atty. Alberto C.
complaint. Respondent reminded him once more of the acceptance fee. In response,
Magulta at his office the following day, May 28, 1999, where he continued to lie to with
complainant proposed that the complaint be filed first before payment of respondent's
the excuse that the delay was being caused by the court personnel, and only when shown
acceptance and legal fees. When respondent refused, complainant demanded the return of
the certification did he admit that he has not at all filed the complaint because he had
the P25,000. The lawyer returned the amount using his own personal checks because their
spent the money for the filing fee for his own purpose; and to appease my feelings, he
RESOLUTION
On 12 August 2009, the IBP Board of Governors transmitted its Resolution to the Supreme
Court for its action following Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court. 8
LEONEN, J.:
WHEREFORE, We find Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez guilty of engaging in notarial practice without
a notarial commission, and accordingly, We SUSPEND him from the practice of law for two (2)
years and DISQUALIFY him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. He
is warned that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall merit a more severe
sanction.
SO ORDERED.
The issue resolved by the Investigating Commissioner was whether or not there was clear and
preponderant evidence showing that respondent violated the Canons of Professional Respondent presented her former employee Basilio T. Depaudhon to prove the alleged signing
Responsibility by (a) deceiving complainant Anita C. Pea; (b) conspiring with Estrella Kraus by complainant of the purported Deed of Absolute Sale, and the notarization by respondent of
and Engr. Ernesto Lampa to enable the latter to register the subject property in his name; and the said Deed. However, Commissioner Sordan doubted the credibility of Depaudhon, as he
(c) knowingly notarizing a falsified contract of sale. affirmed that his participation in the alleged Deed of Absolute Sale was mere recording, but he
later affirmed that he saw the parties sign the Deed of Absolute Sale. 23
On January 6, 2009, Atty. Albert R. Sordan, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP,
submitted his Report and Recommendation finding that respondent betrayed the trust reposed Commissioner Sordan stated that the unbroken chain of circumstances, like respondent's
upon her by complainant by executing a bogus deed of sale while she was entrusted with testimony that she saw complainant sign the Deed of Sale before her is proof of respondent's
complainant's certificate of title, and that respondent also notarized the spurious deed of sale. deception. Respondent's notarization of the disputed deed of sale showed her active role to
Commissioner Sordan stated that there was no evidence showing that respondent actively perpetuate a fraud to prejudice a party. Commissioner Sordan declared that respondent failed
conspired with any party or actively participated in the forgery of the signature of to exercise the required diligence and fealty to her office by attesting that the alleged party,
Anita Pea, appeared before her and signed the deed when in truth and in fact the said person
The criminal case of estafa from which respondent was acquitted, as her guilt was not proven
A ground for revocation of a notary public's commission is failure of the notary to send the
beyond reasonable doubt, is different from this administrative case, and each must be
copy of the entries to the proper clerk of the Court of First Instance (RTC) within the first ten
disposed of according to the facts and the law applicable to each case. 26 Section 5,27 in
days of the month next following or the failure of the notary to forward his notarial register,
relation to Sections 128 and 2,29 Rule 133, Rules of Court states that in administrative cases,
when filled, to the proper clerk of court.40
only substantial evidence is required, not proof beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases,
or preponderance of evidence as in civil cases. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. 30 In this case, the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Manila issued a Certification, 41 dated February 22,
1994, stating that respondent was duly appointed as a Notary Public for the City of Manila for
the year 1986, and that respondent has not yet forwarded to the Clerk of Court's Office her
Freeman v. Reyes31 held that the dismissal of a criminal case does not preclude the
Notarial Report for the month of November 1986, when the Deed of Sale was executed and
continuance of a separate and independent action for administrative liability, as the weight of
notarized by her. Hence, a copy of the Notarial Report/Record and the said Deed of Sale could
evidence necessary to establish the culpability is merely substantial evidence. An
not also be found in the National Archives per the certification 42 of the Archives Division Chief
administrative case can proceed independently, even if there was a full-blown trial wherein,
Teresita R. Ignacio for Director Edgardo J. Celis. The failure of respondent to fulfill her duty as
based on both prosecution and defense evidence, the trial court eventually rendered a
notary public to submit her notarial register for the month of November 1986 and a copy of
judgment of acquittal, on the ground either that the prosecution failed to prove the
the said Deed of Sale that was notarized by her on the same month is cause for revocation of
respondent's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or that no crime was committed. 32
her commission under Section 249 of the Notarial Law.43 Lawyers commissioned as notaries
Pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be removed or CANON 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession,
suspended for any deceit or dishonest act, thus: and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. A member of Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or to the discredit of the legal profession.1wphi1
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 wilfull disobedience of WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Christina C. Paterno is DISBARRED from the practice of law,
any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully appearing as an attorney for a pursuant to Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, as well as for violation of the Code of
party to a case without authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the Professional Responsibility; and the notarial commission of Atty. Christina C. Paterno, if still
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. existing, is perpetually REVOKED.
Given the facts of this case, wherein respondent was in possession of complainant's copy of Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to
the certificate of title (TCT No. N-61244) to the property in Marikina, and it was respondent respondent's personal record. Likewise, copies shall be furnished to the Integrated Bar of the
who admittedly prepared the Deed of Sale, which complainant denied having executed or Philippines and all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
signed, the important evidence of the alleged forgery of complainant's signature on the Deed
of Sale and the validity of the sale is the Deed of Sale itself. However, a copy of the Deed of
The Bar Confidant is hereby DIRECTED to strike out the name of Christina C. Paterno from the
Sale could not be produced by the Register of Deeds of Marikina City, as it could not be
Roll of Attorneys.
located in the general files of the registry, and a certification was issued stating that the Deed
of Sale may be considered lost.45 Moreover, respondent did not submit to the Clerk of Court of
the RTC of Manila her Notarial Report for the month of November 1986,46 including the said SO ORDERED.
Deed of Sale, which was executed on November 11, 1986. Hence, Investigating Commissioner
Sordan opined that it appears that efforts were exerted to get rid of the copies of the said
Deed of Sale to prevent complainant from getting hold of the document for the purpose of
handwriting verification from an expert to prove that her alleged signature on the Deed of
Sale was forged. The failure of respondent to submit to the proper RTC Clerk of Court her
Notarial Register/Report for the month of November 1986 and a copy of the Deed of Sale,
which was notarized by her within that month, has far-reaching implications and grave
consequences, as it in effect suppressed evidence on the veracity of the said Deed of Sale and
showed the deceitful conduct of respondent to withhold the truth about its authenticity. During
her testimony, it was observed by the Investigating Commissioner and reflected in the
transcript of records that respondent would neither directly confirm nor deny that she
notarized the said Deed of Sale.
For the aforementioned deceitful conduct, respondent is disbarred from the practice of law. As
a member of the bar, respondent failed to live up to the standards embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility, particularly the following Canons:
CANON 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
RESOLUTION
This court noted without action Atty. Baliga's ex parte clarificatory pleading as this court does
not render advisory opinions.13
LEONEN, J.:
On May 8, 2009, this court received a letter from complainant Lingan. In his letter14 dated
This court has the exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law. When this court orders
May 4, 2009, Lingan alleged that Atty. Baliga continued practicing law and discharging his
a lawyer suspended from the practice of law, the lawyer must desist from performing all
functions as Commission on Human Rights Regional Director, in violation of this court's order
functions requiring the application of legal knowledge within the period of suspension. This
of suspension.
includes desisting from holding a position in government requiring the authority to practice
law.
Complainant Lingan allegedly received a copy of the Commission on Human Rights En Banc 's
resolution suspending Atty. Baliga as Regional Director. On Atty. Baliga's motion, the
For our resolution is respondent Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga's motion to lift one-year suspension from
ommission reconsidered Atty. Baliga's suspension and instead admonished him for "[violating]
the practice of law.1
the conditions of his commission as a notary public." 15According to complainant Lingan, he
was not served a copy of Atty. Baliga's motion for reconsideration. 16
In the resolution2 dated June 15, 2006, this court found Attys. Romeo I. Calubaquib and Jimmy
P. Baliga guilty of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility 3 and
Complainant Lingan claimed that the discharge of the functions of a Commission on Human
of the Lawyer's Oath.4 Respondents allowed their secretaries to notarize documents in their
Rights Regional Director necessarily required the practice of law. A Commission on Human
stead, in violation of Sections 2455 and 2466 of the Notarial Law. This court suspended
Rights Regional Director must be a member of the bar and is designated as Attorney VI. Since
respondents from the practice of law for one year, revoked their notarial commissions, and
this court suspended Atty. Baliga from the practice of law, Atty. Baliga was in effect "a non-
disqualified them from reappointment as notaries public for two years.
lawyer . . . and [was] disqualified to hold the position of [Regional Director] [during the
effectivity of the order of suspension]." 17 The Commission on Human Rights, according to
Complainant Victor C. Lingan filed his motion for reconsideration,7 praying that respondents be complainant Lingan, should have ordered Atty. Baliga to desist from performing his functions
disbarred, not merely suspended from the practice of law. In the resolution 8 dated September as Regional Director. Complainant Lingan prayed that this court give "favorable attention and
6, 2006, this court denied complainant Lingan's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. action on the matter."18
On March 22, 2007, Atty. Baliga, also the Regional Director of the Commission on Human This court endorsed complainant Lingan's letter to the Office of the Bar Confidant for report
Rights Regional Office for Region II, filed the undated ex parte clarificatory pleading with leave and recommendation.19
of court.9
In its report and recommendation 20 dated June 29, 2009, the Office of the Bar Confidant found
In his ex parte clarificatory pleading, Atty. Baliga alleged that on July 14, 2006, complainant that the period of suspension of Attys. Calubaquib and Baliga had already lapsed. It
Lingan wrote the Commission on Human Rights. Lingan requested the Commission to recommended that respondents be required to file their respective motions to lift order of
investigate Atty. Baliga following the latter's suspension from the practice of law. suspension with certifications from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the Executive
Judge of the court where they might appear as counsel and state that they desisted from
After this court had suspended Atty. Baliga from the practice of law, the Commission on practicing law during the period of suspension.
Human Rights En Banc issued the resolution10 dated January 16, 2007, suspending him from
his position as Director/Attorney VI of the. Commission on Human Rights Regional Office for On the claim that the Commission on Human Rights allowed Atty. Baliga to perform his
Region II. According to the Commission on Human Rights En Banc, Atty. Baliga's suspension functions as Regional Director during the period of suspension, the Office of the Bar Confidant
from the practice of law "prevent[ed] [him] from assuming his post [as Regional Director] for said that the Commission "deliberate[ly] disregard[ed]" 21 this court's order of suspension.
want of eligibility in the meantime that his authority to practice law is suspended." 11 According to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Commission on Human Rights had no power
In the resolution26 dated September 23, 2009, this court required respondents to file their
respective motions to lift order of suspension considering the lapse of the period of The Commission on Human Rights filed its comment 37 dated November 27, 2009. It argued
suspension. This court further ordered Atty. Baliga and the Commission on Human Rights to that "the penalty imposed upon Atty. Baliga as a member of the bar is separate and distinct
comment on complainant Lingari's allegation that Atty. Baliga continued performing his from any penalty that may be imposed upon him as a public official for the same
functions as Regional Director while he was suspended from the practice of law. The resolution acts."38 According to the Commission, Atty. Baliga's suspension from the practice of law is a
dated September 23, 2009 provides: "bar matter"39 while the imposition of penalty upon a Commission on Human Rights official "is
an entirely different thing, falling as it does within the exclusive authority of the [Commission
as] disciplining body."40
Considering that the period of suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from
being commissioned as notary public imposed on respondents have [sic] already elapsed, this
Court resolves: Nevertheless, the Commission manifested that it would defer to this court's resolution of the
issue and would "abide by whatever ruling or decision [this court] arrives at on [the] matter.
"41 In reply42 to Atty. Baliga's comment, complainant Lingan argued that Atty. Baliga again
(1) to require both respondents, within ten (10) days from notice, to FILE their
disobeyed this. court. Atty. Baliga failed to submit a certification from the Commission on
respective motions to lift relative to their suspension and disqualification from being
Human Rights stating that he was suspended from office and desisted from performing his
commissioned as notary public and SUBMIT certifications from the Integrated Bar of
functions as Regional Director.
the Philippines and Executive Judge of the Court where they may appear as counsel,
stating that respondents have actually ceased and desisted from the practice of law
during the entire period of their suspension and disqualification, unless already As to Atty. Baliga's claim that he did not practice law while he held his position as Regional
complied with in the meantime; Director and only performed generally managerial functions, complainant Lingan countered
that Atty. Baliga admitted to defying the order of suspension. Atty. Baliga admitted to
performing the functions of a "lawyer-manager,"43 which under the landmark case of Cayetano
(2) to require Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga to SUBMIT a certification from the Commission on
v. Monsod44 constituted practice of law. Complainant Lingan reiterated that the position of
Human Rights [CHR] stating that he has been suspended from office and has stopped
Regional Director/ Attorney VI requires the officer "to be a lawyer [in] good
from the performance of his functions for the period stated in the order of suspension
standing."45 Moreover, as admitted by Atty. Baliga, he had supervision and control over
and disqualification, within ten (10) days from notice hereof;
Attorneys III, IV, and V. Being a "lawyer-manager," Atty. Baliga practiced law while he held his
position as Regional Director.
(3) to require respondent Atty. Baliga and the CHR to COMMENT on the allegations of
complainant against them, both within ten (10) days from receipt of notice
hereof; ...27 (Emphasis in the original)
On February 17, 2010, this court lifted the order of suspension of Atty. Calubaquib. 48 He was The Commission on Human Rights is an independent office created under the Constitution
allowed to resume his practice of law and perform notarial acts subject to compliance with the with power to investigate "all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political
requirements for issuance of a notarial commission. rights[.]"62 It is divided into regional offices with each office having primary responsibility to
investigate human rights violations in its territorial jurisdiction.63 Each regional office is headed
On the other hand, this court referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant for evaluation, report, by the Regional Director who is given the position of Attorney VI.
and recommendation Atty. Baliga's motion to lift one-year suspension and the respective
comments of Atty. Baliga and the Commission on Human Rights. 49 Under the Guidelines and Procedures in the Investigation and Monitoring of Human Rights
Violations and Abuses, and the Provision of CHR Assistance, 64 the Regional Director has the
In its report and recommendation50 dated October 18, 2010, the Office of the Bar Confidant following powers and functions:
stated that Atty. Baliga "should not [have been] allowed to perform his functions, duties, and
responsibilities [as Regional Director] which [required acts constituting] practice .of a. To administer oaths or affirmations with respect to "[Commission on Human Rights]
law."51 Considering that Atty. Baliga claimed that he did not perform his functions as Regional matters;"65
Director which required the practice of law, the Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that
the Commission on Human Rights be required to comment on this claim. The Office of the Bar
b. To issue mission orders in their respective regional offices; 66
Confidant also recommended holding in abeyance the resolution of Atty. Baliga's motion to lift
suspension "pending [the Commission on Human Right's filing of comment]." 52
c. To conduct preliminary evaluation or initial investigation of human rights
53 complaints in the absence of the legal officer or investigator; 67
In the resolution dated January 12, 2011, this court held in abeyance the resolution of Atty.
Baliga's motion to lift one-year suspension. The Commission on Human Rights was ordered to
comment on Atty. Baliga's claim that he did not practice law while he held his position as d. To conduct dialogues or preliminary conferences among parties and discuss
Regional Director. "immediate courses of action and protection remedies and/or possible submission of
the matter to an alternative dispute resolution";68
In its comment54 dated April 6, 2011, the Commission on Human Rights reiterated that the
penalty imposed on Atty. Baliga as a member of the bar is separate from the penalty that e. To issue Commission on Human Rights processes, including notices, letter-
might be imposed on him as Regional Director. The Commission added that it is "of honest invitations, orders, or subpoenas within the territorial jurisdiction of the regional
belief that the position of [Regional Director] is managerial and does not [require the practice office;69 and
of law]."55 It again manifested that it will "abide by whatever ruling or decision [this court]
arrives on [the] matter."56 f. To review and approve draft resolutions of human rights cases prepared by the
legal officer.70
The issue for our resolution is whether Atty. Baliga's motion to lift order of suspension should
be granted. These powers and functions are characteristics of the legal profession. Oaths and affirmations
are usually performed by members of the judiciary and notaries public 71 - officers who are
We find that Atty. Baliga violated this court's order of suspension. We, therefore, suspend him necessarily members of the bar.72Investigating human rights complaints are performed
further from the practice of law for six months. primarily by the Commission's legal officer.73 Discussing immediate courses of action and
protection remedies and reviewing and approving draft resolutions of human rights cases
prepared by the legal officer require the use of extensive legal knowledge.
This court suspended Atty. Baliga from the practice of law for one year on June 15, 2006, In Molina v. Atty. Magat,79 this court suspended further Atty. Ceferino R. Magat from the
"effective immediately."75 From the time Atty. Baliga received the court's order of suspension practice of law for six months for practicing his profession despite this court's previous order
on July 5, 2006,76 he has been without authority to practice law. He lacked a necessary of suspension.
qualification to his position as Commission on Human Rights Regional Director/ Attorney VI. As
the Commission on Human Rights correctly resolved in its resolution dated January 16, 2007: We impose the same penalty on Atty. Baliga for holding his position as Regional Director
despite lack.of authority to practice law.1wphi1
WHEREAS, this suspension under ethical standards, in effect, prevents Atty. Baliga from
assuming his post, for want of eligibility in the meantime that his authority to practice law is We note that the Commission on Human Rights En Banc issued the resolution dated April 13,
suspended. This is without prejudice to the investigation to be conducted to the practice of 2007, reconsidering its first resolution suspending Atty. Baliga as Regional Director/ Attorney
law of Atty. Baliga, which in the case of all Regional Human Rights Directors is not generally VI. Instead, the Commission admonished Atty. Baliga and sternly warned him that repeating
allowed by the Commission; the same offense will cause his dismissal from the service. The resolution with CHR (III) No.
A2007-045 dated April 13, 2007 reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines
resolved to put into effect and implement the legal implications of the SC decision by In his Motion for Reconsideration dated March 15, 2007, respondent Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga prays
decreeing the suspension of Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga in the discharge of his functions and before the Honorable Commission to recall and annul his suspension as Regional Director/
responsibilities as Director/Attorney VI of CHRP-Region II in Tuguegarao City for the period for Attorney VI of the Commission on Human Rights - Regional Office No. II, per 16 January 2007
which the Supreme Court Resolution is in effect. 77 (Emphasis in the original) Commission en Banc Resolution CHR (III) No. A2007-013.
In ordering Atty. Baliga suspended from office as Regional Director, the Commission on Human The grounds relied upon the motion are not sufficient to convince the Commission that Atty.
Rights did not violate Atty. Baliga's right to due process. First, he was only suspended after: Jimmy P. Baliga is totally blameless and should not suffer the appropriate penalty for breach of
investigation by the Commission on Human Rights Legal and Investigation Office. 78 Second, the Code of Professional Responsibility and his Lawyer's oath.
the Commission gave Atty. Baliga an opportunity to be heard when he filed his motion for
reconsideration.
The Commission, in the exercise of its authority to discipline, is concerned with the
transgression by Atty. Baliga of his oath of office as government employee. As records have it,
Atty. Baliga's performance of generally managerial functions was not supported by the record. the Commission granted Atty. Baliga authority to secure a commission as a notary public. With
It was also immaterial.1wphi1 He held the position of Commission on Human Rights Regional this, he is mandated to act as a notary public in accordance with the rules and regulations, to
Director because of his authority to practice law. Without this authority, Atty. Baliga was include the conditions expressly set forth by the Commission.
disqualified to hold that position.
With the findings clearly enunciated in the Supreme Court resolution in SC Administrative Case
All told, performing the functions of a Commission on Human Rights Regional Director No. 5277 dated 15 June 2006, the Commission cannot close its eyes to the act of Atty. Baliga
constituted practice of law. Atty. Baliga should have desisted from holding his position as that is clearly repugnant to the conduct of an officer reposed with public trust.
Regional Director.
This is enough just cause to have this piece of word, short of being enraged, and censure Atty.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, willful disobedience to any lawful order of a Baliga for having contravened the conditions of his commission as a notary public. What was
superior court is a ground for disbarment or suspension from the practice of law: granted to Atty. Baliga is merely a privilege, the exercise of which requires such high esteem
to be in equal footing with the constitutional mandate of the Commission. Clearly, Atty. Baliga
SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. - A should keep in mind that the Commission exacts commensurate solicitude from whatever
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme privilege the Commission grants of every official and employee.
Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
WHEREFORE, the Commission hereby modifies its ruling in Resolution CHR (III) No. A2007-013
and imposes the penalty of admonition with a stem warning that a repetition of the same will
merit a penalty of dismissal from the service.80 (Emphasis in the original)
The Commission on Human Rights erred in issuing the resolution dated April 13, 2007. This
resolution caused Atty. Baliga to reassume his position as Regional Director/ Attorney VI
despite lack of authority to practice law.
We remind the Commission on Human Rights that we have the exclusive jurisdiction to
regulate the practice of law.81 The Commission cannot, by mere resolutions and .other
issuances, modify or defy this court's orders of suspension from the practice of law. Although
the Commission on Human Rights has the power to appoint its officers and employees, 82 it can
only retain those with the necessary qualifications in the positions they are holding.
As for Atty. Baliga, we remind him that the practice of law is a "privilege burdened with
conditions."83 To enjoy the privileges of practicing law, lawyers must "[adhere] to the rigid
standards of mental fitness, [maintain] the highest degree of morality[,] and [faithfully
comply] with the rules of [the] legal profession."84
WHEREFORE, we further SUSPEND Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga from the practice of law for six ( 6)
months. Atty. Baliga shall serve a total of one (1) year and six (6) months of suspension from
the practice of law, effective upon service on Atty. Baliga of a copy of this resolution.
SERVE copies of this resolution to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar
Confidant, and the Commission on Human Rights.
SO ORDERED.
IN RE: PETITION TO TAKE THE BAR MATTER NO. 1209 LAWYER'S OATH
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
The petitioner was conditionally allowed to take the 2001 Bar Examinations [3] and passed the May I inquire from your good office, whether a bar passer who has not taken his oath in view
same.He could not, however, take the Lawyer's Oath nor sign in the Roll of Attorneys pending of the pending criminal case filed against him can attached (sic) to his name the
the resolution of the above-mentioned case. nomenclature atty.?Such is the case of Mr. Caesar Z. Distrito , SK Federation, Bacolod City
Vice-President whopassed the bar last May 2002, but has not taken his oath due to the
On August 2, 2002, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received a letter [4] from a certain Mr. pending criminal case lodged in MTCC branch 4, Bacolod City for Usurpation of Power charge
Benjie Montinola informing the said office that there were other cases filed against the against him by the undersigned.
petitioner which were not duly disclosed in the latter's petition to take the bar examinations,
to wit: Ms. Espinosa attached a copy of an attendance sheet of a Sangguniang
Panglungsod committee hearing dated June 21, 2002 where the petitioner's name appeared to
1.Two counts of Violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P.) 22 filed sometime in 1999, docketed have been signed, along with the word "Atty."
as B.C.I.S. 99-6735 and 99-6736, before the City Prosecutor's Office of Bacolod;
On April 23, 2003, the petitioner filed his Petition to take the Lawyer's Oath and to sign the
2.Civil Case No. 27447 for "Sum of Money" filed on July 26, 2001, before the MTCC, Bacolod, in Roll of Attorneys alleging that on April 4, 2003, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),
which an adverse decision dated April 1, 2002 was rendered; Bacolod, rendered a decision acquitting him in Criminal Case No. 99609. [5] Attached thereto
was a certified true copy of the decision in the said criminal case and a certificate of finality of
judgment.[6] The OBC informed the petitioner of the above-mentioned charges and required
3.Civil Case No. 27447 for "Sum of Money" filed on March 15, 2002, before MTCC, Bacolod.
him to comment on the same.
Mr. Montinola also alleged in his letter that the petitioner took his oath as an Integrated Bar of
In his Comment dated May 12, 2003, the petitioner avers that when he filed his petition to
the Philippines (IBP) member, knowing fully well that he had not yet taken his oath as a lawyer
take the 2001 bar exams, the criminal case for usurpation of authority or official function was
before the Supreme Court nor signed in the Roll of Attorneys Mr. Montinola further averred:
the only pending case against him at the time.He did not mention I.S.B.C. Case Nos. 99-6735
and 6736 for Violation of B.P. Blg. 22 in his petition because he was of the honest belief that it
The fact that CAESAR Z. DISTRITO have (sic)not disclosed the above-mentioned criminal and was no longer necessary for him to do so, considering that the cases had long been settled
civil case filed against him in his application form despite his personal knowledge of the same and dismissed without even reaching the arraignment stage. [7] The said criminal cases
when he applied for the Bar Exams sometime in 2001, is tantamount to PERJURY and that apparently stemmed from the debts of some 50 fish vendors at Magsungay Village.The
should be acted upon by your respectable office to protect the integrity of our present lawyers petitioner's father, as the punong barangay, had guaranteed the same in order to help the
It has been held that moral character is what a person really is, as distinguished from good The IBP-Negros Occidental Chapter will hold its Chapter's Judicial Award of Excellence to
reputation or from the opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate in which he is held Outstanding Judges and Proscutors and Testimonial Dinner for new lawyers on June 28,
by the public in the place where he is known.Moral character is not a subjective term but one 2002, 7:00 P.M., at the Ballroom-A, Business Inn, Lacson Street, Bacolod City.
which corresponds to objective reality.The standard of personal and professional integrity is
not satisfied by such conduct as it merely enables a person to escape the penalty of criminal In behalf of the Officers and members of the IBP-Negros Occidental Chapter, I am
law.Good moral character includes at least common honesty.[23] inviting you to attend said after being one of the new members of the Bar.Please come in
formal attire.
Admittedly, the petitioner was less than honest when he failed to disclose the two other cases
for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 and the civil cases involving sums of money which were filed Your presence on this occasion will be highly appreciated.
against him, in his petition to take the bar examinations.He should have known that the said
petitionis not to be taken lightly as it is made under oath.The petitioner, in so doing, violated
The Court can only conclude that the petitioner did not take his petition to take the Lawyer's
Rule 7.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, [24] which requires of every applicant
Oath and to sign in the Roll of Attorneys seriously.He would have us believe that he attended
candor and truthfulness.Every applicant is duty bound to lay before the Court all his
an affair, believing in good faith that it was meant for those who recently passed the bar,
involvement in any criminal case, pending or otherwise terminated, to enable the Court to
when the invitation he himself attached to his petition states otherwise.The petitioner's
fully ascertain or determine the applicant's moral character. [25] The petitioner should have
forthrightness and candor with the Court leave much to be desired.
realized the implication of any omission on his part, even if inadvertently made.
The petitioner's admitted use of the Appellation "Atty." When he had no Authority to do
In the case of People v. Tuanda,[26] the Court held that "violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is a serious
so as yet.
criminal offense which deleteriously affects public interest and public order," and considered
the same an offense involving moral turpitude.The erring lawyer was consequently suspended
from the practice of law. The petitioner's erroneous belief that a person who passed the bar examinations may allow
himself to be called an attorney should be corrected.An applicant who has passed the required
examination or has been otherwise found to be entitled to admission to the bar, shall take and
In this case, the fact that the criminal complaint for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 did not even reach
subscribe before the Supreme Court the corresponding oath of office. [31] The Court shall
the arraignment stage is of no moment; it was the petitioner's duty to disclose the same as it
thereupon admit the applicant as a member of the bar for all the courts of the Philippines, and
was a material fact which could affect his application for admission to the bar.
shall direct an order to be entered to that effect upon its records, and that a certificate of such
The Oath is thus a prerequisite to the admission to the practice of law, while the signing in the
Roll is the last act that finally signifies membership in the bar, giving the applicant the right to
call himself "attorney".Continued membership in the IBP and regular payment of membership
dues and other lawful assessments that it may levy are conditions sine qua non to the
privilege to practice law and to the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys. [34]
The unauthorized use of the said appellation may render a person liable for indirect contempt
of court.[35] The Court may deny the applicant's petition to take the Lawyer's Oath for grave
misconduct, such as calling himself and "attorney" and appearing as counsel for clients in
courts even before being admitted to the bar.[36] Although the evidence in this case does not
include that the petitioner actually engaged in the practice of law, the fact is that he signed in
an attendance sheet as "Atty. Caesar Distrito."He called himself "attorney" knowing fully well
that he was not yet admitted to the bar.[37]
Thus, we disagree with the findings of the OBC, and find that the petitioner is unfit to become
a member of the bar.The petitioner must show this Court that he has satisfied the moral
requirements before he can be admitted to the practice of law.
(Sgd.)LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Before one is admitted to the Philippine Bar, he must possess the requisite moral integrity for
membership in the legal profession. Possession of moral integrity is of greater importance
than possession of legal learning. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only on the
morally fit. A bar candidate who is morally unfit cannot practice law even if he passes the bar
examinations.
The Facts
Respondent Edwin L. Rana ("respondent") was among those who passed the 2000 Bar
Examinations.
On 21 May 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar examinees
as members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre ("complainant") filed
against respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. Complainant charged
respondent with unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave
misrepresentation.
The Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member of the Bar during the scheduled
oath-taking on 22 May 2001 at the Philippine International Convention Center. However, the
Court ruled that respondent could not sign the Roll of Attorneys pending the resolution of the
charge against him. Thus, respondent took the lawyers oath on the scheduled date but has
not signed the Roll of Attorneys up to now.
Complainant charges respondent for unauthorized practice of law and grave misconduct.
Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a
candidate in the May 2001 elections before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers
("MBEC") of Mandaon, Masbate. Complainant further alleges that respondent filed with the
MBEC a pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the
On 22 May 2001, the Court issued a resolution allowing respondent to take the lawyers oath On the other charges, OBC stated that complainant failed to cite a law which respondent
but disallowed him from signing the Roll of Attorneys until he is cleared of the charges against allegedly violated when he appeared as counsel for Bunan while he was a government
him. In the same resolution, the Court required respondent to comment on the complaint employee. Respondent resigned as secretary and his resignation was accepted. Likewise,
against him. respondent was authorized by Bunan to represent him before the MBEC.
In his Comment, respondent admits that Bunan sought his "specific assistance" to represent The Courts Ruling
him before the MBEC. Respondent claims that "he decided to assist and advice Bunan, not as
a lawyer but as a person who knows the law." Respondent admits signing the 19 May 2001 We agree with the findings and conclusions of the OBC that respondent engaged in the
pleading that objected to the inclusion of certain votes in the canvassing. He explains, unauthorized practice of law and thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar.
however, that he did not sign the pleading as a lawyer or represented himself as an "attorney"
in the pleading.
Respondent took his oath as lawyer on 22 May 2001. However, the records show that
respondent appeared as counsel for Bunan prior to 22 May 2001, before respondent took the
On his employment as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan, respondent claims that he lawyers oath. In the pleading entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of
submitted his resignation on 11 May 2001 which was allegedly accepted on the same date. He Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor dated 19 May 2001, respondent signed as
submitted a copy of the Certification of Receipt of Revocable Resignation dated 28 May 2001 "counsel for George Bunan." In the first paragraph of the same pleading respondent stated
signed by Vice-Mayor Napoleon Relox. Respondent further claims that the complaint is that he was the "(U)ndersigned Counsel for, and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate,
politically motivated considering that complainant is the daughter of Silvestre Aguirre, the GEORGE T. BUNAN." Bunan himself wrote the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he had "authorized
losing candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate. Respondent prays that the complaint be Atty. Edwin L. Rana as his counsel to represent him" before the MBEC and similar bodies.
dismissed for lack of merit and that he be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
On 14 May 2001, mayoralty candidate Emily Estipona-Hao also "retained" respondent as her
On 22 June 2001, complainant filed her Reply to respondents Comment and refuted the claim counsel. On the same date, 14 May 2001, Erly D. Hao informed the MBEC that "Atty. Edwin L.
of respondent that his appearance before the MBEC was only to extend specific assistance to Rana has been authorized by REFORMA LM-PPC as the legal counsel of the party and the
Bunan. Complainant alleges that on 19 May 2001 Emily Estipona-Hao ("Estipona-Hao") filed a candidate of the said party." Respondent himself wrote the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he was
petition for proclamation as the winning candidate for mayor. Respondent signed as counsel entering his "appearance as counsel for Mayoralty Candidate Emily Estipona-Hao and for the
for Estipona-Hao in this petition. When respondent appeared as counsel before the MBEC, REFORMA LM-PPC." On 19 May 2001, respondent signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in the
complainant questioned his appearance on two grounds: (1) respondent had not taken his petition filed before the MBEC praying for the proclamation of Estipona-Hao as the winning
oath as a lawyer; and (2) he was an employee of the government. candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate.
Respondent filed a Reply (Re: Reply to Respondents Comment) reiterating his claim that the All these happened even before respondent took the lawyers oath. Clearly, respondent
instant administrative case is "motivated mainly by political vendetta." engaged in the practice of law without being a member of the Philippine Bar.
In Cayetano v. Monsod,2 the Court held that "practice of law" means any activity, in or out of On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, evidence shows that Bunan indeed
court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and authorized respondent to represent him as his counsel before the MBEC and similar bodies.
experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually performed by While there was no misrepresentation, respondent nonetheless had no authority to practice
members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of service law.
which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill.
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to
persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The
exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational
attainment, and even public trust4 since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate
does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The
practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar
examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a license. 5
The regulation of the practice of law is unquestionably strict. In Beltran, Jr. v. Abad,6 a
candidate passed the bar examinations but had not taken his oath and signed the Roll of
Attorneys. He was held in contempt of court for practicing law even before his admission to
the Bar. Under Section 3 (e) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person who engages in the
unauthorized practice of law is liable for indirect contempt of court. 7
True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyers
oath.1wphi1 However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-
fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing
the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. 8Respondent should know
that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his
lawyers oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys. 9
RESOLUTION
SERENO, CJ.:
We resolve the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys filed by petitioner Michael A.
Medado (Medado).
Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with the degree of Bachelor of Laws
in 19791 and passed the same year's bar examinations with a general weighted average of
82.7.2
On 7 May 1980, he took the Attorneys Oath at the Philippine International Convention Center
(PICC) together with the successful bar examinees. 3 He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys on 13 May 1980,4 but he failed to do so on his scheduled date, allegedly because he
had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys 5 given by the Bar Office when he went
home to his province for a vacation.6
Several years later, while rummaging through his old college files, Medado found the Notice to
Sign the Roll of Attorneys. It was then that he realized that he had not signed in the roll, and
that what he had signed at the entrance of the PICC was probably just an attendance record. 7
By the time Medado found the notice, he was already working. He stated that he was mainly
doing corporate and taxation work, and that he was not actively involved in litigation practice.
Thus, he operated "under the mistaken belief that since he had already taken the oath, the
signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not as urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a
lawyer";8 and "the matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys lost its urgency and compulsion,
and was subsequently forgotten."9
In 2005, when Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars, he
was required to provide his roll number in order for his MCLE compliances to be credited. 10
Not having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to provide his roll number.
About seven years later, or on 6 February 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition, praying that
he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.11
The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) conducted a clarificatory conference on the matter on
21 September 201212 and submitted a Report and Recommendation to this Court on 4
After a judicious review of the records, we grant Medados prayer in the instant petition, We disagree.
subject to the payment of a fine and the imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from
the practice of law. While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal
consequences of his acts23 as it negates malice or evil motive,24 a mistake of law cannot be
At the outset, we note that not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys would be akin utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed to know the law and its
to imposing upon him the ultimate penalty of disbarment, a penalty that we have reserved for consequences.25 Ignorantia factiexcusat; ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
the most serious ethical transgressions of members of the Bar.
Applying these principles to the case at bar, Medado may have at first operated under an
In this case, the records do not show that this action is warranted. honest mistake of fact when he thought that what he had signed at the PICC entrance before
the oath-taking was already the Roll of Attorneys. However, the moment he realized that what
For one, petitioner demonstrated good faith and good moral character when he finally filed he had signed was merely an attendance record, he could no longer claim an honest mistake
the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys. We note that it was not a third party who of fact as a valid justification. At that point, Medado should have known that he was not a full-
called this Courts attention to petitioners omission; rather, it was Medado himself who fledged member of the Philippine Bar because of his failure to sign in the Roll of Attorneys, as
acknowledged his own lapse, albeit after the passage of more than 30 years. When asked by it was the act of signing therein that would have made him so. 26 When, in spite of this
the Bar Confidant why it took him this long to file the instant petition, Medado very candidly knowledge, he chose to continue practicing law without taking the necessary steps to
replied: complete all the requirements for admission to the Bar, he willfully engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law.
Mahirap hong i-explain yan pero, yun bang at the time, what can you say? Takot ka kung
anong mangyayari sa yo, you dont know whats gonna happen. At the same time, its a Under the Rules of Court, the unauthorized practice of law by ones assuming to be an
combination of apprehension and anxiety of whats gonna happen. And, finally its the right attorney or officer of the court, and acting as such without authority, may constitute indirect
thing to do. I have to come here sign the roll and take the oath as necessary. 16 contempt of court,27 which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.28 Such a finding,
however, is in the nature of criminal contempt29 and must be reached after the filing of
charges and the conduct of hearings.30 In this case, while it appears quite clearly that
For another, petitioner has not been subject to any action for disqualification from the practice
petitioner committed indirect contempt of court by knowingly engaging in unauthorized
of law,17 which is more than what we can say of other individuals who were successfully
practice of law, we refrain from making any finding of liability for indirect contempt, as no
admitted as members of the Philippine Bar. For this Court, this fact demonstrates that
formal charge pertaining thereto has been filed against him.
petitioner strove to adhere to the strict requirements of the ethics of the profession, and that
he has prima facie shown that he possesses the character required to be a member of the
Philippine Bar. Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgresses Canon 9 of 'the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
Finally, Medado appears to have been a competent and able legal practitioner, having held
various positions at the Laurel Law Office,18 Petron, Petrophil Corporation, the Philippine CANON 9 -A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
National Oil Company, and the Energy Development Corporation. 19
While a reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit lawyers from assisting in the
All these demonstrate Medados worth to become a full-fledged member of the Philippine unauthorized practice of law, the unauthorized practice of law by the lawyer himself is
Bar.1wphi1 While the practice of law is not a right but a privilege,20 this Court will not subsumed under this provision, because at the heart of Canon 9 is the lawyer's duty to
unwarrantedly withhold this privilege from individuals who have shown mental fitness and prevent the unauthorized practice of law. This duty likewise applies to law students and Bar
moral fiber to withstand the rigors of the profession. candidates. As aspiring members of the Bar, they are bound to comport themselves in
accordance with the ethical standards of the legal profession.
That said, however, we cannot fully exculpate petitioner Medado from all liability for his years
of inaction. Turning now to the applicable penalty, previous violations of Canon 9have warranted the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law. 31 As Medado is not yet a full-fledged lawyer, we
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys is hereby GRANTED. Petitioner
Michael A. Medado is ALLOWED to sign in the Roll of Attorneys ONE (1) YEAR after receipt of
this Resolution. Petitioner is likewise ORDERED to pay a FINE of P32,000 for his unauthorized
practice of law. During the one year period, petitioner is NOT ALLOWED to practice law, and is
STERNLY WARNED that doing any act that constitutes practice of law before he has signed in
the Roll of Attorneys will be dealt will be severely by this Court.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the
country.
SO ORDERED.
5. Certification dated May 19, 2010 of the IBP-Surigao City Chapter attesting to his
good moral character as well as his updated payment of annual membership dues;
7. Certificate of Compliance with the MCLE for the 2nd compliance period; and
The OBC further required the petitioner to update his compliance, particularly with the MCLE.
After all the requirements were satisfactorily complied with and finding that the petitioner has
met all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for membership in the bar, the OBC
recommended that the petitioner be allowed to resume his practice of law.
Upon this favorable recommendation of the OBC, the Court adopts the same and sees no bar
to the petitioner's resumption to the practice of law in the Philippines.
Furthermore, the Office of the Bar Confidant is directed to draft the necessary guidelines for
the re-acquisition of the privilege to resume the practice of law for the guidance of the Bench
and Bar.
SO ORDERED.
On April 16, 2013, the IBP Board of Governors issued a Resolution 8 adopting and approving In line with jurisprudence, however, this Court held that disbarment is meted out only in clear
with modification the Report and Recommendation of the CBD. The Board of Governors cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an
modified the penalty meted out to respondent reducing the period of suspension from six (6) officer of the court.15 In the present case, this Court, after considering the circumstances and
months to three (3) months. Both Chua and Atty. De Castro filed their respective motions for records of the case, finds that the suspension from the practice of law for three (3) months oi
reconsideration dated August 28, 20139 and August 23, 201310 but the same were denied in a Atty. De Castro, as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, is sufficient to discipline him.
Resolution11 dated May 3, 2014.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Arturo M. De Castro is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
Upon review of the records of the instant case, this Court finds the recommendation of the IBP period of THREE (3) MONTHS effective from notice, with a STERN WARNING that a
Board of Governors to be proper under the circumstances. repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
"Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in the Let copies of this Resolution be entered in the record of Atty. Arturo M. De Castro as a member
administration of justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede or obstruct the of the Bar and served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, as well as on the Office of the
SO ORDERED.