Philip Edwin S.

De Ello November 29, 2010

Legal Ethics – 1B Judge Arcega
Assignment: Case Disgests for Canon 9

Aguirre v. Rana
B. M. No. 1036
June 10, 2003

Facts:
Respondent has appeared before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers as counsel in the May
2001 elections. The minutes of the MBEC proceedings show that respondent actively participated in
the election proceedings. Respondent has likewise appeared in the MBEC proceedings even before
taking the lawyer's oath on May 22, 2001.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent has engeaged in unauthorized practice of law.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court has ruled that he has engaged in unauthorized practice of law.

Without license, respondent, as shown in the MBEC proceedings, has engeaged in the practice of law.
The exercise of such presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment and
even public trust since a lawyer is considered an officer of the Court.

A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar exams. The same is
a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar exams, if the person seeking
admission had practiced law without license.

The Rules of Court (Sec. 3(e), Rule 71) provides that a person isliable for indirect contempt of court for
unauthorized practice of law.

xxx

OCA v. Ladaga
A.M. No. P-99-1287
January 26, 2001

Facts:
Atty. Misael Ladaga, a Branch Clerk of Court of Makati RTC, has appeared for free as counsel for and
in behalf of his cousin, an accused for falsification of public documents before the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Quezon City.

During the occasion that the respondent appeared as such before the QC MeTC, he has been on official
leave of absences. Moreover, his presiding judge is aware of the case he was handling.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of appearing as counsel in Court without authority.
Philip Edwin S. De Ello November 29, 2010
Legal Ethics – 1B Judge Arcega
Assignment: Case Disgests for Canon 9

-2-

Ruling:
The Supreme Court has ruled that he is guilty of such.

Although, he is not guilty of being engaged in “private practice” because his appearance is just an
isolated case, and that he did not hold himself to the public as a lawyer, he appeared in court without
authority because he failed to obtain permission from his department head.

The Revised Civil Service Rules require civil servants to secure written permission first from the head
of the department before engaging in any practice of profession.

The Presiding Judge, in this case, is not the department head.