Case No. 1
Another case for falsification was filed against Ulaso where
ATTY. EDITA NOE-LACSAMANA versus ATTY. YOLANDO F.
BUSMENTE
A.C. No. 7269, 661 SCRA 1, 23 November 2011
TOPIC: Unauthorized Practice of Law
DOCTRINE:
The term “practice of law” implied customarily of habitually holding oneself out
to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in
consideration of his services. Holding one’s self out as a lawyer may be shown by
acts indicative of that purpose, such as identifying oneself as attorney, appearing
in court in representation of a client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law
office for the general practice of law.
Nature of Case: Complaint for Disbarment
Brief: Noe-Lacsamana filed a complaint for disbarment against Busmente before
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Noe-Lacsamana alleged that Busmente
assisted the illegal practice of law by Liza Dela Rosa. Dela Rosa allegedly
represented herself as a lawyer although in fact, she was not a lawyer. The IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer
and that she represented Ulaso as Busmente’s collaborating counsel in Civil Case
No. 9284. The IBP-CBD noted that while Busmente claimed that Dela Rosa no
longer worked for him since 2000, there was no proof of her separation from
employment. The IBP-CBD recommended Busmente’s suspension from the
practice of law for not less than five years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted
and approved the recommendation of the IBP-CBD, with modification by
reducing the period of Busmente’s suspension to six months. The Supreme Court
agreed with the IBP.
Facts:
Noe-Lacsamana was the counsel for Irene Bides, plaintiff in a civil case while
Busmente was the counsel for the defendant Imelda B. Ulaso (Ulaso). Noe-
Lacsamana alleged that Ulasos deed of sale over the property was annulled, which
resulted in the filing of an ejectment case, Civil Case No. 9284, where Busmente
appeared as counsel.
Busmente also appeared as counsel.
Noe-Lacsamana alleged that one Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa or Atty. Liza Dela
Rosa (Dela Rosa) would accompany Ulaso in court, projecting herself as
Busmente’s collaborating counsel. Dela Rosa signed the minutes of the court
proceedings in a civil case. Noe-Lacsamana further alleged that the court orders
and notices specified Dela Rosa as Busmente’s collaborating counsel. Noe-
Lacsamana alleged that upon verification with this Court and the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, she discovered that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer.
On the other hand, Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa was a law graduate and was
his paralegal assistant for a few years. Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa’s
employment with him ended in 2000 but Dela Rosa was able to continue
misrepresenting herself as a lawyer with the help of Regine Macasieb (Macasieb),
Busmentes former secretary. Busmente alleged that he did not represent Ulaso in
the ejectment case and that his signature in the Answer presented as proof by Noe-
Lacsamana was forged.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found that Dela Rosa was not
a lawyer and that she represented Ulaso as Busmentes collaborating counsel in
Civil Case No. 9284. The IBP-CBD noted that while Busmente claimed that Dela
Rosa no longer worked for him since 2000, there was no proof of her separation
from employment. The IBP-CBD found that notices from the MTC San Juan, as
well as the pleadings of the case, were all sent to Busmentes designated office
address. The IBP-CBD stated that Busmentes only excuse was that Dela Rosa
connived with his former secretary Macasieb so that the notices and pleadings
would not reach him.
The IBP-CBD recommended Busmentes suspension from the practice of law for
not less than five years. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the
recommendation of the IBP-CBD, with modification by reducing the period of
Busmentes suspension to six months.
Action of the Court: The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP.
Issue: Dela Rosa, who is not a member of the Bar, misrepresented herself as Busmente’s
collaborating counsel in Civil Case No. 9284.
Whether Busmente is guilty of directly or indirectly assisting Dela Rosa in her
illegal practice of law that warrants his suspension from the practice of law Supreme Court Ruling:

Rationale/Held: WHEREFORE, we SUSPEND Atty. Yolando F. Busmente from the practice of

law for SIX MONTHS.
Yes.

Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states:

Canon 9. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the

unauthorized practice of law.

The Court ruled that the term practice of law implies customarily or habitually
holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer for compensation as a source of
livelihood or in consideration of his services. The Court further ruled that holding
ones self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that purpose, such as
identifying oneself as attorney, appearing in court in representation of a client, or
associating oneself as a partner of a law office for the general practice of law.

The Court explained:

The lawyers duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the
unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy.
Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those
individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The
permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited
privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of
moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the
court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of
those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary
control of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is
attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to
permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to
make possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal
or corporate. And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject to
disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law.
Case No. 2
QUERY OF ATTY. KAREN M. SILVERIO-BUFFET
Facts:
Atty. Buffe is a former Clerk of Court in Romblon. After she resigned from office,
she immediately engaged in the private practice of law by appearing as counsel in
several cases before the same branch where she served as a clerk of court.
In her query, he poses the question “Why an incumbent can engage in private
practice assuming not in conflict with his official duties but a non-incumbent
may not as is apparently prohibited under last paragraph of Sec. 7?”
Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 provides:
SECTION 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions. - In addition to
acts and omissions of public officials and employees now
prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following
shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public
official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxx
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. -
Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:
xxx
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official
functions; or
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one
(1) year after resignation, retirement, or separation from
public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above,
but the professional concerned cannot practice his profession in
connection with any matter before the office he used to be with, in
which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise apply
Atty. Buffe alleged that Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 gives preferential
treatment to an incumbent public employee, who may engage in the private
practice of his profession so long as this practice does not conflict or tend to
conflict with his official functions. In contrast, a public official or employee
who has retired, resigned, or has been separated from government service
like her, is prohibited from engaging in private practice on any matter before
the office where she used to work, for a period of one (1) year from the date
of her separation from government employment.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Buffe is guilty of professional misconduct.
Held:
Yes. The clerk of court's limitation is that she cannot practice her
profession within one year before the office where he or she used to work with. In
a comparison between a resigned, retired or separated official or employee, on the
one hand, and an incumbent official or employee, on the other, the former has the
advantage because the limitation is only with respect to the office he or she used
to work with and only for a period of one year. The incumbent cannot practice at
all, save only where specifically allowed by the Constitution and the law and only
in areas where no conflict of interests exists. This analysis again disproves Atty.
Buffe's basic premises.
A common objective is to avoid any conflict of interest on the part of the
employee who may wittingly or unwittingly use confidential information acquired
from his employment, or use his or her familiarity with court personnel still with
the previous office.
Case No. 3
TITLE: Aguirre vs. Rana
TOPIC: UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
DOCTRINE:
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.
DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, complainant, vs. EDWIN L. RANA,
respondent
B. M. No. 1036.
June 10, 2003
Nature of the Case:
Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar against respondent for
unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave
misrepresentation.
Brief:
The OBC found that respondent indeed appeared as counsel for Bunan in
the May 2001 elections. The OBC likewise found that respondent appeared in the
MBEC proceedings even before he took the lawyers oath on 22 May 2001. The
OBC therefore recommends that respondent be denied admission to the Philippine
Bar.
Facts:
Edwin L. Rana 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
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 lawyer’s 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 Canvassing of
Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor. In this pleading,
respondent represented himself as "counsel for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty
Candidate, George Bunan," and signed the pleading as counsel for George Bunan.
Action of the Court:
The OBC recommends that respondent be denied admission to the
Philippine Bar.
Issue: Whether respondent shall be denied admission to the Bar.
Held:
YES. The Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Office of
the Bar Confidant that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and
thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar.
Respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the
proceedings before the MBEC and filed various pleadings, without license to do
so. Evidence clearly supports the charge of unauthorized practice of law.
Respondent called himself "counsel" knowing fully well that he was not a member
of the Bar. Having held himself out as "counsel" knowing that he had no authority
to practice law, respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the
Philippine Bar.

Jurisprudence provides that the practice of law is not limited to the

conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings
and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of
such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in
addition, conveyancing.

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 trust 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.

True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the
lawyer’s oath. 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. Respondent should know that two essential requisites for
becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be
administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.

Supreme Court Ruling:

WHEREFORE, respondent Edwin L. Rana is DENIED admission to the

Philippine Bar.
Case No. 4
TITLE:
Re: Elmo S. Abad
TOPIC:
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
DOCTRINE:
Signing exhibits and making appearances in courts constitute unauthorized
practice of law and this aspect opens the respondent to a charge for perjury.
RE: ELMO S. ABAD, 1978 Successful Bar Examinee, ATTY. PROCOPIO S.
BELTRAN, JR., President of the Philippine Trial Lawyers Association, Inc.,
Complainant, v. ELMO S. ABAD, Respondent.
B.M. No. 139. October 11, 1984
Nature of Case:
MOTION TO CIRCULARIZE TO ALL METRO MANILA COURTS THE
FACT THAT ELMO S. ABAD IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW.
Brief:
In a comprehensive and well-documented report, the Clerk of Court concluded
that the documentary and testimonial evidence, as well as the report of the
National Bureau of Investigation, have clearly proved that respondent Abad is still
practicing law despite the decision of the Supreme Court of March 28, 1983
which held the respondent in contempt of court for unauthorized practice of law.
Facts:
On March 28, 1983, the Court held respondent ELMO S. ABAD in contempt of
court for unauthorized practice of law and he was fined P500.00 with subsidiary
imprisonment in case he failed to pay the fine. He paid the fine.
On May 5, 1983, Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr., the complainant, filed a MOTION
TO CIRCULARIZE TO ALL METRO MANILA COURTS THE FACT THAT
ELMO S. ABAD IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW. Asked to
comment on the Motion, Mr. Abad opposed it. He denied the allegation in the
Motion that he had been practicing law even after our Decision of March 28,
1983.
The Clerk of Court conducted an investigation on the matter. In a comprehensive
and well-documented Report which is hereby made a part of this Resolution, the
Clerk of Court concluded:
”The aforesaid documentary and testimonial evidence, as well as the above report
of the NBI, have clearly proved that respondent Abad is still practicing law
despite the decision of this Court of March 28, 1983."cra
Action of the Courts:
Supreme Court: Found Elmo Abad in violation of the 28 March 1983 order of the
Court and is therefore adjudged as guilty of unauthorized practice of law.
Issue:
Whether Elmo Abad was guilty of unauthorized practice of law.
Rationale/Held:
The Court found the Report to be in order and its recommendations to be well-
taken. However, the latter are not sufficiently adequate in dealing with the
improper activities of the Respondent. The Report has found as a fact, over the
denials of the respondent under oath, that he signed Exhibits B, C, and D, and that
he made appearances in Metro Manila courts. This aspect opens the respondent to
a charge for perjury.
Supreme Court Ruling:
WHEREFORE, Elmo S. Abad is hereby ordered to pay a fine of P2,000.00 within
ten (10) days from notice, failing which he shall be imprisoned for twenty (2)
days. he is also warned that if he persists in the unauthorized practice of law he
shall be dealt with more severely.
The Court Administrator is directed to circularize all courts in the country that the
respondent has not been authorized to practice law. A copy of the circular should
be sent to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
The Clerk of Court is directed to file with the City Fiscal of Manila an appropriate
complaint for false testimony against the Respondent.
Finally, Atty. Ruben A. Jacobe is required to explain within ten (10) days from
notice why he should not be disciplined for collaborating and associating in the
practice of the law with the respondent who is not a member of the bar.

SO ORDERED.
Case No. 5 informed the Secretary of the Integrated Bar of his intention to stay abroad before
he left. In such case, his membership in the IBP could have been terminated and
his obligation to pay dues could have been discontinued.
B.M. No. 1370, May 09, 2005
But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not a property right but a
LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO Y. AREVALO, JR., REQUESTING mere privilege, and as such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the
EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF IBP DUES Court to exact compliance with the lawyer’s public responsibilities.
Facts:

In his letter, dated 22 September 2004, petitioner sought exemption from payment
of IBP dues in the amount of P12,035.00 as alleged unpaid accountability for the
years 1977-2005. He alleged that after being admitted to the Philippine Bar in
1961, he became part of the Philippine Civil Service from July 1962 until 1986,
then migrated to, and worked in, the USA in December 1986 until his retirement
in the year 2003. He maintained that he cannot be assessed IBP dues for the years
that he was working in the Philippine Civil Service since the Civil Service law
prohibits the practice of one’s profession while in government service, and neither
can he be assessed for the years when he was working in the USA.

Issue:

Whether petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during the
time that he was inactive in the practice of law

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that the payment of dues is a necessary consequence of
membership in the IBP, of which no one is exempt. This means that the
compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as one’s membership in
the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of practice, the
member is engaged in.

There is nothing in the law or rules which allows exemption from payment of
membership dues. At most, as correctly observed by the IBP, he could have
Case No. 6
TITLE: IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS
MICHAEL A. MEDADO
TOPIC: Practice of Law; Code of Professional Responsibility
DOCTRINE:
Practice of Law
Under the Rules of Court, the unauthorized practice of law by one’s assuming to
be an attorney or officer of the court, and acting as such without authority, may
constitute indirect contempt of court, which is punishable by fine or imprisonment
or both. Such a finding, however, is in the nature of criminal contempt and must
be reached after the filing of charges and the conduct of hearings. In this case,
while it appears quite clearly that petitioner committed indirect contempt of court
by knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law, we refrain from making
any finding of liability for indirect contempt, as no formal charge pertaining
thereto has been filed against him.
Code of Professional Responsibility
Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgresses Canon
9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: CANON 9 – A
lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
While a reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit lawyers from assisting in
the unauthorized practice of law, the unauthorized practice of law by the lawyer
himself is subsumed under this provision, because at the heart of Canon 9 is the
lawyer’s duty to prevent the unauthorized practice of law. This duty likewise
applies to law students and Bar candidates. As aspiring members of the Bar, they
are bound to comport themselves in accordance with the ethical standards of the
legal profession.
---------------------------------------------------------------
B.M. No. 2540
September 24, 2013
Ponente: SERENO,CJ.
Nature of Case:
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court
Facts:
Medado graduated from UP with the degree of Bachelor of Laws in 1979 and
passed the same year’s bar examinations with a GWA of 82.7.
On 7 May 1980, he took the Attorney’s Oath at the Philippine International
Convention Center (PICC) together with the successful bar examinees. He was
scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980, but he failed to do so
because he had allegely misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys.
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.
By the time Medado found the notice, he was already working. 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”;
and “the matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys lost its urgency and
compulsion, and was subsequently forgotten.”
In 2005, when Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
seminars, he was unable to provide his roll number in order for his MCLE
compliances to be credited.
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.
Issue/s: STERNLY WARNED that doing any act that constitutes practice of law before he
has signed in the Roll of Attorneys will be dealt with severely by this Court.
Whether to grant Medado’s petition to sign the roll.

Rationale/Held:

We grant Medado’s prayer in the instant petition, subject to the payment of a fine
and the imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of law.

At the outset, we note that not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys
would be akin to imposing upon him the ultimate penalty of disbarment, a penalty
that we have reserved for the most serious ethical transgressions of members of
the Bar.

Petitioner demonstrated good faith and good moral character when he finally filed
the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys. We note that it was not a third
party who called this Court’s attention to petitioner’s omission; rather, it was
Medado himself who acknowledged his own lapse, albeit after the passage of
more than 30 years.

For another, petitioner has not been subject to any action for disqualification from
the practice of law, which is more than of other individuals who were successfully
admitted as members of the Philippine Bar. For this Court, this fact demonstrates
that 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 being a member of the Philippine Bar.

Supreme Court Ruling:

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
Case No. 7 xxxx

(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court,

Tan vs. Balajadia and acting as such without authority;

FACTS: This is an original petition for contempt filed by petitioners Tan and
Pagayokan against respondent Balajadia. Petitioners allege that on May 8, 2005,
respondent filed a criminal case against 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 Confidant and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
showed 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.
Respondent avers that the allegation 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. Aquinos complaint-
affidavit.
x x x x.
In the case at bar, a review of the records supports respondents 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. These circumstances show that the allegation in paragraph 5 of
respondents complaint-affidavit was, indeed, the result of inadvertence. 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.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is liable for indirect contempt.

RULING: 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: