1. Cayetano vs.
Monsod
Facts: Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon
C. Aquino to the position of chairman of the COMELEC.
Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod
does not posses required qualification of having been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The 1987
constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be
a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six
Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the
Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-
five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not
have been candidates for any elective position in the
immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof,
including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine
Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least
ten years.
Issue: Whether the respondent does not posses the required
qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years.
Held: In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs.
Agrava, stated: 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 proceeding, the management of such actions and
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and
in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all
action taken for them in matters connected with the law
incorporation services, assessment and condemnation
services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body,
the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim
in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting
proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and
guardianship have been held to constitute law practice.
Definition: Practice of law means any activity, in or out of
court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice
of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the
profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or
render any kind of service, which service requires the use in
any degree of legal knowledge or skill.
The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the
required qualification of having engaged in the practice of law
for at least ten years is incorrect since Atty. Monsod’s past
work experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a
lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of
contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor –
verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement for the
position of COMELEC chairman, The respondent has been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years does In
the view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.
2. MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner, vs.THE LEGAL CLINIC,
INC., respondent.
Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993
Facts:
n 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio
Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was to move toward
specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the
services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a
complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latter’s
advertisements which contain the following:
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
8:30am – 6:00pm
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam
Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday
during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems,
Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree’s Visa.
Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees.
Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina
Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767
It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above
reproduced are champterous, unethical, demeaning of the law
profession, and destructive of the confidence of the
community in the integrity of the members of the bar and that,
as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and
offended by the said advertisements, hence the reliefs sought
in his petition as hereinbefore quoted.
In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of
publication of said advertisement at its instance, but claims
that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering
of "legal support services" through paralegals with the use of
modern computers and electronic machines.
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article
entitled “Rx for Legal Problems” in Star Week of Philippine
Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is
composed of specialists that can take care of a client’s
problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is as
complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion
situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like
doctors, are “specialists” in various fields, can take care of it.
The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal
law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and family law.
These specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals,
counselors and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in
view of the jurisprudence in the US which now allows it (John
Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the
advertisement is merely making known to the public the
services that The Legal Clinic offers.
Issue:
whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal
Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it constitutes practice of law and,
in either case, whether the same can properly be the subject
of the advertisements herein complained of.
Held:
Carelo, Federico |PALE1|1
Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law
however, such practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is
composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include
various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal
services from simple documentation to complex litigation and
corporate undertakings. Most of these services are
undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are
exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law.
Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being
offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot
be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a
member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is
entitled to practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned
advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall
use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information
or statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession
condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his talents. A lawyer
cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise
his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant
advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal
Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous
marriage, and other circumventions of law which their experts
can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement
are allowed. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a
well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to
trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and
conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the
community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public
attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective
service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer
needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his
success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-
product of able service and the unwholesome result of
propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the
following as allowed forms of advertisement:
Advertisement in a reputable law list
Use of ordinary simple professional card
Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his
specialization
3.IN RE CUNANAN
FACTS:
Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the
Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The title of the law was, “An Act to
Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to
and including 1955.”
Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
1946-1951………………70%
1952 …………………….71%
1953……………………..72%
1954……………………..73%
1955……………………..74%
Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade
lower than 50%.
Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who
obtained a grade of 75% in any subject shall be deemed to
have already passed that subject and the grade/grades shall
be included in the computation of the general average in
subsequent bar examinations.”
After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar
candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its
provisions, while other motions for the revision of their
examination papers were still pending also invoked the
aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. There are
also others who have sought simply the reconsideration of
their grades without, however, invoking the law in question. To
avoid injustice to individual petitioners, the court first reviewed
the motions for reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not
they had invoked Republic Act No. 972.
ISSUE: Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
RULING: Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the
fatal defect of not being embraced in the title of the Act. As per
its title, the Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to
1955 Bar examinations. Section2 establishes a permanent
system for an indefinite time. It was also struck down for
allowing partial passing, thus failing to take account of the fact
that laws and jurisprudence are not stationary.
As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared
unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to 1955 was declared in
force and effect. The portion that was stricken down was
based under the following reasons:
1. The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who
flunked the bar from 1946 to 1952 had inadequate preparation
due to the fact that this was very close to the end of World
War II;
2. The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of
the court on the petitions of the said candidates;
3. The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary
prerogative to determine who may be admitted to practice of
law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to repeal,
alter and supplement the Rules of Court. The rules laid down
by Congress under this power are only minimum norms, not
designed to substitute the judgment of the court on who can
practice law; and
4. The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to
class legislation.
As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could
not muster enough votes to declare it void. Moreover, the law
was passed in 1952, to take effect in 1953. Hence, it will not
revoke existing Supreme Court resolutions denying admission
to the bar of an petitioner. The same may also rationally fall
within the power to Congress to alter, supplement or modify
rules of admission to the practice of law.
Held: RA No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to
admit to the Bar, those candidates who suffered from
insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparation.
In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the
admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of
attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their
supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and
responsibility. We have said that in the judicial system from
which ours has been derived, the admission, suspension,
disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice
of the profession is concededly judicial.
On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction between
the functions of the judicial and legislative departments of the
government.
It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license
for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and
the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive
character, or as other authorities may say, merely to fix the
minimum conditions for the license.
(Ito lang yung history sinama ko lang)
R.A. No. 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover
initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. The Act
is a consolidation of House Bill No. 21505 and Senate Bill No.
17. The former was prepared by the committee on Suffrage
and Electoral Reforms of Representatives on the basis of two
House Bills referred to it, viz., (a) House Bill No. 497, which
dealt with the initiative and referendum mentioned in Sections
Carelo, Federico |PALE1|2
1 and 32 of Article VI of the Constitution; and (b) House Bill
No. 988, which dealt with the subject matter of House Bill No.
497, as well as with initiative and referendum under Section 3
of Article XVII of the Constitution. Senate Bill No. 17 solely,
dealt with initiative and referendum concerning ordinances or
resolutions of local government units. The Bicameral
Conference Committee consolidated Senate Bill No. 17 and
House Bill No. 21505 into a draft bill, which was subsequently
approved on 8 June 1989 by the Senate and by the House of
Representatives. This approved bill is now R.A. No. 6735.
4. In re: Meling
ATTY. FROILAN R. MELENDREZ, petitioner,
B.M. No. 1154. June 8, 2004
Facts:
On October 14, 2002, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez (Melendrez)
filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to
disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar
Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate
disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar.
In the Petition, Melendrez alleges that Meling did not disclose
in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has
three (3) pending criminal cases before the Municipal Trial
Court in Cities (MTCC), Cotabato City, namely: Criminal
Cases Noa. 15685 and 15686, both for Grave Oral
Defamation, and Criminal Case No. 15687 for Less Serious
Physical Injuries.
The above-mentioned cases arose from an incident which
occurred on May 21, 2001, when Meling allegedly uttered
defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife in front of
media practitioners and other people. Meling also purportedly
attacked and hit the face of Melendrez’ wife causing the
injuries to the latter.
Furthermore, Melendrez alleges that Meling has been using
the title “Attorney” in his communications, as Secretary to the
Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a
member of the Bar. Attached to the Petition is an indorsement
letter which shows that Meling used the appellation and
appears on its face to have been received by the
Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cotabato City on November 27,
2001.
Pursuant to this Court’s Resolution dated December 3, 2002,
Meling filed his Answer with the OBC.
In his Answer, Meling explains that he did not disclose the
criminal cases filed against him by Melendrez because retired
Judge Corocoy Moson, their former professor, advised him to
settle his misunderstanding with Melendrez. Believing in good
faith that the case would be settled because the said Judge
has moral ascendancy over them, he being their former
professor in the College of Law, Meling considered the three
cases that actually arose from a single incident and involving
the same parties as “closed and terminated.” Moreover,
Meling denies the charges and adds that the acts complained
of do not involve moral turpitude.
As regards the use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that
some of his communications really contained the word
“Attorney” as they were, according to him, typed by the office
clerk.
In its Report and Recommendation dated December 8, 2003,
the OBC disposed of the charge of non-disclosure against
Meling in this wise:
The reasons of Meling in not disclosing the criminal cases filed
against him in his petition to take the Bar Examinations are
ludicrous. He should have known that only the court of
competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases, not a retired judge
nor a law professor. In fact, the cases filed against Meling are
still pending. Furthermore, granting arguendo that these
cases were already dismissed, he is still required to disclose
the same for the Court to ascertain his good moral character.
Petitions to take the Bar Examinations are made under oath,
and should not be taken lightly by an applicant.
Issue: WON the imposition of appropriate sanctions upon
Haron S. Meling is proper and shall subsequently barred him
from taking his lawyer’s oath and signing on the Roll of
Attorneys
Held:
The Petition is GRANTED insofar as it seeks the imposition of
appropriate sanctions upon Haron S. Meling as a member of
the Philippine Shari’a Bar. Accordingly, the membership of
Haron S. Meling in the Philippine Shari’a Bar is hereby
SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court, the
suspension to take effect immediately. Insofar as the Petition
seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from taking the Lawyer’s
Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the
Philippine Bar, the same is DISMISSED for having become
moot and academic.
Rationale:
Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari’a
Court, is not a matter of right but merely a privilege bestowed
upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who
are also known to possess good moral character. The
requirement of good moral character is not only a condition
precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued
possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of
law.
The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to
determine whether there is satisfactory evidence of good
moral character of the applicant. The nature of whatever
cases are pending against the applicant would aid the Court in
determining whether he is endowed with the moral fitness
demanded of a lawyer. By concealing the existence of such
cases, the applicant then flunks the test of fitness even if the
cases are ultimately proven to be unwarranted or insufficient
to impugn or affect the good moral character of the applicant.
5. PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF
LAW, BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, PETITIONER 540 SCRA
424
Facts:
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960.
He practiced law until he migrated to Canada in December
1998 to seek medical attention for his ailments. He
subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of
Canada's free medical aid program. Became a Canadian
citizen in May 2004. On July 14, 2006, pursuant to RA 9225,
petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. He took his
oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine
consulate general in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, he returned
to the Philippines and now intends to resume his law practice
Issue:
Whether petitioner lost his membership in the Philippine bar
when he gave up his Philippine citizenship in May 2004
Ruling:
No. Practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is
so delicately affected with public interest that is both a power
Carelo, Federico |PALE1|3
and duty of the state to control and regulate it in order to
protect and promote the public welfare.
Any breach by a lawyer of any of the conditions makes him
unworthy of the trust and confidence which the courts and
client repose in him for the continued exercise of his
professional privilege.
Admission to the bar requires certain qualifications. The rules
of court mandates that an applicant for admission to the bar
be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty one years of
age, of good moral Character and a resident of the
Philippines.
The constitution provides that the practice of all professions in
the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens save in
cases prescribed by law. Since Filipino citizenship is a
requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates
membership in the Philippine bar and consequently the
privilege to engage in the practice of law. The practice of law
is a privileged denied to foreigners.
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of
naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently
acquired pursuant to RA9225. This is because all Philippine
citizens who become citizens of another country shall be
deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship.
Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another
country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship
if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. Although he is
also deemed never to have terminated his membership in the
Philippine bar, no automatic right to resume law practice
accrues. He must first secure from the court the authority to do
so.
6. G.R. No. L-23959 November 29, 1971
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS
(PAFLU), ENRIQUE ENTILA & VICTORIANO
TENAZAS petitioners,  and is an attorney in good standing at the time.6
vs.
BINALBAGAN ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, & QUINTIN
MUNING respondents.
Facts:
The above-named petitioners were complainants in Case No.
72-ULP-Iloilo entitled, "PAFLU et al. vs. Binalbagan Isabela
Sugar Co., et al." After trial, the Court of Industrial Relations
rendered a decision, on 29 March 1961, ordering the
reinstatement with backwages of complainants Enrique Entila
and Victorino Tenazas. Said decision became final. On 18
October 1963, Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of record
for the winning complainants, filed a notice of attorney's lien
equivalent to 30% of the total backwages. On 22 November
1963, Atty. Atanacio Pacis also filed a similar notice for a
reasonable amount. Complainants Entila and Tenazas on 3
December 1963, filed a manifestation indicating their non-
objection to an award of attorney's fees for 25% of their
backwages, and, on the same day, Quentin Muning filed a
"Petition for the Award of Services Rendered" equivalent to
20% of the backwages. Munings petition was opposed by
Cipriano Cid & Associates the ground that he is not a lawyer.
The records of Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo show that the charge
was filed by Cipriano Cid & Associates through Atty. Atanacio
Pacis. All the hearings were held in Bacolod City and
appearances made in behalf of the complainants were at first
by Attorney Pacis and subsequently by respondent Quintin
Muning.
On 12 May 1964, the Court of Industrial Relations awarded
25% of the backwages as compensation for professional
services rendered in the case
The award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a lawyer
according to the order, is sought to be voided in the present
petition.
Respondent Muning moved in this Court to dismiss the
present petition on the ground of late filing but his motion was
overruled on 20 January 1965.1 He asked for reconsideration,
but, considering that the motion contained averments that go
into the merits of the case, this Court admitted and considered
the motion for reconsideration for all purposes as respondent's
answer to the petitioner for review.2 The case was considered
submitted for decision without respondent's brief.3
Issue:
May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal services
rendered?
Held:
On the present issue, the rule in American jurisdictions is
persuasive. There, it is stated:
But in practically all jurisdictions statutes have now been
enacted prohibiting persons not licensed or admitted to the bar
from practising law, and under statutes of this kind, the great
weight of authority is to the effect that compensation for legal
services cannot be recovered by one who has not been
admitted to practice before the court or in the jurisdiction the
services were rendered. 5
No one is entitled to recover compensation for services as an
attorney at law unless he has been duly admitted to practice ...
The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession should
not be violated;7 that acting as an attorney with authority
constitutes contempt of court, which is punishable by fine or
imprisonment or both,8 and the law will not assist a person to
reap the fruits or benefit of an act or an act done in violation of
law;9 and that if were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would
leave the public in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult
in case of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic
condition, aside from the fact that non-lawyers are not
amenable to disciplinary measures. 10
And the general rule above-stated (referring to non-recovery
of attorney's fees by non-lawyers) cannot be circumvented
when the services were purely legal, by seeking to recover as
an "agent" and not as an attorney. 11
The weight of the reasons heretofore stated why a non-lawyer
may not be awarded attorney's fees should suffice to refute
the possible argument that appearances by non-lawyers
before the Court of Industrial Relations should be excepted on
the ground that said court is a court of special jurisdiction;
such special jurisdiction does not weigh the aforesaid reasons
and cannot justify an exception.
7. CATU vs. RELLOSA (A.C. No. 5738 02/19/2008)
Facts: Petitioner initiated a complaint against Elizabeth Catu
and Antonio Pastor who were occupying one of the units in a
building in Malate which was owned by the former. The said
complaint was filed in the Lupong Tagapamayapa of
Barangay 723, Zone 79 of the 5th District of Manila where
Carelo, Federico |PALE1|4
respondent was the punong barangay. The parties, having
been summoned for conciliation proceedings and failing to
arrive at an amicable settlement, were issued by the
respondent a certification for the filing of the appropriate action
in court. Petitioner, thus, filed a complaint for ejectment
against Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Manila where respondent entered his appearance as counsel
for the defendants. Because of this, petitioner filed the instant
administrative complaint against the respondent on the ground
that he committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as a
public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants
despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation
proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay. In his
defense, respondent claimed that as punong barangay, he
performed his task without bias and that he acceded to
Elizabeth’s request to handle the case for free as she was
financially distressed. The complaint was then referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) where after evaluation,
they found sufficient ground to discipline respondent.
According to them, respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and, as an elective official, the
prohibition under Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713. Consequently,
for the violation of the latter prohibition, respondent committed
a breach of Canon 1. Consequently, for the violation of the
latter prohibition, respondent was then recommended
suspension from the practice of law for one month with a stern
warning that the commission of the same or similar act will be
dealt with more severely.
ISSUE: Whether or not the foregoing findings regarding the
transgression of respondent as well as the recommendation
on the imposable penalty of the respondent were proper.
HELD: No. First, respondent cannot be found liable for
violation of Rule 6.03 the Code of Professional Responsibility
as this applies only to a lawyer who has left government
service and in connection to former government lawyers who
are prohibited from accepting employment in connection
with any matter in which [they] had intervened while in their
service. In the case at bar, respondent was an incumbent
punong barangay. Apparently, he does not fall within the
purview of the said provision.
Second, it is not Section 90 of RA 7160 but Section 7(b) (2) of
RA 6713 which governs the practice of profession of elective
local government officials. While RA 6713 generally applies
to all public officials and employees, RA 7160, being a special
law, constitutes an exception to RA 6713 .Moreover, while
under RA 7160,certain local elective officials (like governors,
mayors, provincial board members and councilors) are
expressly subjected to a total or partial proscription to
practice their profession or engage in any occupation, no
such interdiction is made on the punong barangay and the
members of the sangguniang barangay. Expressio unius est
exclusio alterius since they are excluded from any prohibition,
the presumption is that they are allowed to practice their
profession. Respondent, therefore, is not forbidden to practice
his profession.
Third, notwithstanding all of these, respondent still should
have procured a prior permission or authorization from the
head of his Department, as required by civil service
regulations. The failure of respondent to comply with Section
12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules constitutes a
violation of his oath as a lawyer: to obey the laws. In acting as
counsel for a party without first securing the required written
permission, respondent not only engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law but also violated a civil service rules which is a
breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility:
* Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with
the exacting ethical standards of the legal profession,
respondent failed to comply with Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
* CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD
THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
INTEGRATED BAR.
A lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he
disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legal
profession. Every lawyer should act and comport himself in a
manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the
legal profession. A member of the bar may be disbarred or
suspended from his office as an attorney for violation of the
lawyer's oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa is hereby
found GUILTY of professional misconduct for violating his oath
as a lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is therefore SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of six months effective
from his receipt of this resolution. He is sternly WARNED that
any repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Respondent is strongly advised to look up and take to heart
the meaning of the word delicadeza.
8. A.M. No. P-220 December 20, 1978
JULIO ZETA, complainant, vs. FELICISIMO
MALINAO, respondent.
Facts:
Administrative complaint against Felicisimo Malinao court
interpreter of the Court of First Instance of Catbalogan, Samar
charging as follows:
l — ILLEGALLY APPEARING IN COURT. — MR. Malinao has
been appearing in the municipal court of this town for parties
like attorney when he is not an attorney. Reliable information
also says he has been appearing in the municipal courts of
Daram, Zumarraga, Talalora and even Sta. Rita. He is not
authorized to do so we believe. He makes it his means of
livelihood as he collects fees from his clients. He competes
with attorneys but does not pay anything. We believe that his
doing so should be stopped for a good government. These
facts can be checked with records of those municipal courts.
2 — GRAVE MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE. — Being employed
in the Court of First Instance he would instigate persons,
especially in his barrio to grab land rob or coerce. In fact he
has cases in the municipal court in this town involving himself
and his men. He incite them telling them not to be afraid as he
is a court employee and has influence over the judges. Those
persons being ignorant would believe him and so would
commit crimes. This act of Mr. Malinao is contrary to good
order and peace as he is using his supposed influences to
urge persons to commit crimes.
Carelo, Federico |PALE1|5
3 — CRIME OF FALSIFICATION. — Information has it that he
is unfaithfully filing his time record in the CFI. Even he has
been out practicing in the municipal courts sometimes he
would fill his time record as present. He receives salary for
those absent days. This can be checked with time record he
has submitted and if he has any application for leave. He may
try to cure it by submitting application for leave but this should
not be allowed as he has already committed crime.
4 — VIOLATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER AND CIVIL
SERVICE LAW.-WE have reliable information it is prohibited
for a civil service employee to engage in private practice any
profession or business without permission from the
Department Head. Mr. Malinao we are sure has not secured
that permission because he should not be allowed to practice
as he is not an attorney. If that were so, he violated that
Executive Order and Civil Service Law and we are urgently
and earnestly requesting the Commissioner of Civil Service to
investigate him on this. If warranted he should be given the
corresponding penalty as dismissal because we believe he
deserve it.
Issue:
Is the respondent, as a court interpreter, allowed to practice
law?
Held: No.
We have carefully reviewed the record, and We find the
conclusions of fact of the Investigator to be amply supported
by the evidence, particularly the documents consisting of
public records and the declarations of the judges before whom
respondent had appeared. It is clear to Us that respondent,
apart from appearing as counsel in various municipal courts
without prior permission of his superiors in violation of civil
service rules and regulations, falsified his time record of
service by making it appear therein that he was present in his
office on occasions when in fact he was in the municipal
courts appearing as counsel, without being a member of the
bar, which, furthermore, constitutes illegal practice of law. We,
therefore, adopt the above findings of fact of the Investigator.
The defense of respondent that "his participation (sic) for
defendants' cause was gratuitous as they could not engage
the services of counsel by reason of poverty and the absence
of one in the locality" cannot, even if true, carry the day for
him, considering that in appearing as counsel in court, he did
so without permission from his superiors and, worse, he
falsified his time record of service to conceal his absence from
his office on the dates in question. Indeed, the number of
times that respondent acted as counsel under the above
circumstances would indicate that he was doing it as a regular
practice obviously for considerations other than pure love of
justice.
In the premises, it is quite obvious that the offense committed
by respondent is grave, hence it warrants a more drastic
sanction than that of reprimand recommended by Judge Zosa.
We find no alternative than to separate him from the service,
with the admonition that he desist from appearing in any court
or investigative body wherein Only members of the bar are
allowed to practice.
WHEREFORE, respondent Felicisimo Malinao is hereby
ordered dismissed from his position as interpreter in the Court
of First Instance, CFI, Zumarraga, Western Samar with
prejudice to reemployment in the judicial branch of the
government.
9. In Re: Al C. Argosino 246 SCRA 14 (1995)
FACTS:
On February 4, 1992 ,Argosino, together with 13 others, was
charged with the crime of homicide in connection with the
death of one Raul Camaligan. The death of Camaligan
stemmed from the affliction of severe physical injuries upon
him in course of "hazing" conducted as part of the university
fraternity initiation rites. On February 11, 1993, the accused
were consequently sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a
period ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1)
day to four (4) years.
Eleven (11) days later, Mr. Argosino and his colleagues filed
an application for probation with the lower court. The
application was granted on June 18 1993. The period of
probation was set at two (2) years, counted from the
probationer's initial report to the probation officer assigned to
supervise him.
Less than a month later, Argosino filed a petition to take the
bar exam. He was allowed and he passed the exam, but was
not allowed to take the lawyer's oath of office.
On April 15, 1994, Argosino filed a petition to allow him to
take the attorney's oath and be admitted to the practice of law.
He averred that his probation period had been terminated. It is
noted that his probation period did not last for more than 10
months.
ISSUE: Whether Argosino should be allowed to take the oath
of attorney and be admitted to the practice of law
HELD:
Mr. Argosino must submit to this Court evidence that he may
now be regarded as complying with the requirement of good
moral character imposed upon those who are seeking
admission to the bar. He should show to the Court how he has
tried to make up for the senseless killing of a helpless student
to the family of the deceased student and to the community at
large. In short, he must show evidence that he is a different
person now, that he has become morally fit for admission to
the profession of law.
Given the fact that Mr. Argosino had exhibited competent
proof that he possessed the required good moral character as
required before taking the Lawyer’s Oath and to sign the Rolls
of Attorneys, the Supreme Court considered the premises that
he is not inherently in bad moral fiber. In giving the benefit of
the doubt, Mr. Argosino was finally reminded that the Lawyer’s
Oath is not merely a ceremony or formality before the practice
of law, and that the community assistance he had started is
expected to continue in serving the more unfortunate
members of the society.
He is already directed to inform the Court, by appropriate
written manifestation, of the names of the parents or brothers
and sisters of Camaligan from notice
Definitions:
* The practice of law is a high personal privilege limited to
citizens of good moral character, with special education
qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.
Carelo, Federico |PALE1|6
* Requirement of good moral character is of greater
importance so far as the general public and proper
administration of justice is concerned.
* All aspects of moral character and behavior may be inquired
into in respect of those seeking admission to the Bar.
* Requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by
those who would seek admission to the bar must be a
necessity more stringent than the norm of conduct expected
from members of the general public.
* Participation in the prolonged mindless physical beatings
inflicted upon Raul Camaligan constituted evident rejection of
that moral duty and was totally irresponsible behavior, which
makes impossible a finding that the participant was possessed
of good moral character.
* Good moral character is a requirement possession of which
must be demonstrated at the time of the application for
permission to take the bar examinations and more importantly
at the time of application for admission to the bar and to take
the attorney's oath of office.
10. A.C. No. 11316, July 12, 2016
PATRICK A. CARONAN, Complainant, v. RICHARD A.
CARONAN A.K.A. "ATTY. PATRICK A. CARONAN,"
Respondent.
Facts: Complainant and respondent are siblings born to
Porferio2 R. Caronan, Jr. and Norma A. Caronan. Respondent
is the older of the two, having been born on February 7, 1975,
while complainant was born on August 5, 1976. Both of them
completed their secondary education at the Makati High
School where complainant graduated in 1993 and respondent
in 1991. Upon his graduation, complainant enrolled at the
University of Makati where he obtained a degree in Business
Administration in 1997. He started working thereafter as a
Sales Associate for Philippine Seven Corporation (PSC), the
operator of 7-11 Convenience Stores.
Meanwhile, upon graduating from high school, respondent
enrolled at the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM),
where he stayed for one (1) year before transferring to the
Philippine Military Academy (PMA) in 1992. In 1993, he was
discharged from the PMA and focused on helping their father
in the family's car rental business. In 1997, he moved to
Nueva Vizcaya with his wife, Rosana, and their three (3)
children. Since then, respondent never went back to school to
earn a college degree.
In 1999, during a visit to his family in Metro Manila,
respondent told complainant that the former had enrolled in a
law school in Nueva Vizcaya. Subsequently, in 2004, their
mother informed complainant that respondent passed the Bar
Examinations and that he used complainant's name and
college records from the University of Makati to enroll at St.
Mary's University's College of Law in Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya and take the Bar Examinations. Complainant brushed
these aside as he did not anticipate any adverse
consequences to him.
Realizing that respondent had been using his name to
perpetrate crimes and commit unlawful activities, complainant
took it upon himself to inform other people that he is the real
"Patrick A. Caronan" and that respondent's real name is
Richard A. Caronan. However, problems relating to
respondent's use of the name "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan"
continued to hound him. In July 2013, PSC received a letter
from Quasha Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law Offices requesting
that they be furnished with complainant's contact details or, in
the alternative, schedule a meeting with him to discuss certain
matters concerning respondent. On the other hand, a fellow
church-member had also told him that respondent who, using
the name "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan," almost victimized his
(church-member's) relatives. Complainant also received a
phone call from a certain Mrs. Loyda L. Reyes (Reyes), who
narrated how respondent tricked her into believing that he was
authorized to sell a parcel of land in Taguig City when in fact,
he was not. Further, he learned that respondent was arrested
for gun-running activities, illegal possession of explosives, and
violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22.
Due to the controversies involving respondent's use of the
name "Patrick A. Caronan," complainant developed a fear for
his own safety and security.26 He also became the subject of
conversations among his colleagues, which eventually forced
him to resign from his job at PSC. Hence, complainant filed
the present Complaint-Affidavit to stop respondent's alleged
use of the former's name and identity, and illegal practice of
law.
Since respondent falsely assumed the name, identity, and
academic records of complainant and the real "Patrick A.
Caronan" neither obtained the bachelor of laws degree nor
took the Bar Exams, the Investigating Commissioner
recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of
Attorneys No. 49069 be dropped and stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys.46 He also recommended that respondent and the
name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being admitted as
a member of the Bar; and finally, for making a mockery of the
judicial institution, the IBP was directed to institute appropriate
actions against respondent.
Issue:
Whether or not the IBP erred in ordering that: (a) the name
"Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys; and
(b) the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being
admitted to the Bar.
Held:
After a thorough evaluation of the records, the Court finds no
cogent reason to disturb the findings and recommendations of
the IBP.
As correctly observed by the IBP, complainant has established
by clear and overwhelming evidence that he is the real
"Patrick A. Caronan" and that respondent, whose real name is
Richard A. Caronan, merely assumed the latter's name,
identity, and academic records to enroll at the St. Mary's
University's College of Law, obtain a law degree, and take the
Bar Examinations.
As pointed out by the IBP, respondent admitted that he and
complainant are siblings when he disclosed upon his arrest on
August 31, 2012 that his parents are Porferio Ramos Caronan
and Norma Atillo.49 Respondent himself also stated that he is
married to Rosana Halili-Caronan.50 This diverges from the
official NSO records showing that "Patrick A. Caronan" is
married to Myrna G. Tagpis, not to Rosana Halili-Caronan.51
Moreover, the photograph taken of respondent when he was
arrested as "Richard A. Caronan" on August 16, 2012 shows
the same person as the one in the photograph in the IBP
records of "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan."52 Meanwhile,
complainant submitted numerous documents showing that he
Carelo, Federico |PALE1|7
is the real "Patrick A. Caronan," among which are: (a) his
transcript of records from the University of Makati bearing his
photograph;53 (b) a copy of his high school yearbook with his
photograph and the name "Patrick A. Caronan" under it;54
and (c) NBI clearances obtained in 2010 and 2013.
To the Court's mind, the foregoing indubitably confirm that
respondent falsely used complainant's name, identity, and
school records to gain admission to the Bar. Since
complainant - the real "Patrick A. Caronan" - never took the
Bar Examinations, the IBP correctly recommended that the
name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys.
The IBP was also correct in ordering that respondent, whose
real name is "Richard A. Caronan," be barred from admission
to the Bar. Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,
no applicant for admission to the Bar Examination shall be
admitted unless he had pursued and satisfactorily completed a
pre-law course, viz.:
Section 6. Pre-Law. - No applicant for admission to the bar
examination shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate
that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he
began the study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily
completed in an authorized and recognized university or
college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a
four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed
therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of
the following subject as major or field of concentration: political
science, logic, english, Spanish, history, and economics.
(Emphases supplied)
In the case at hand, respondent never completed his college
degree. While he enrolled at the PLM in 1991, he left a year
later and entered the PMA where he was discharged in 1993
without graduating. Clearly, respondent has not completed the
requisite pre-law degree.
The Court does not discount the possibility that respondent
may later on complete his college education and earn a law
degree under his real name. However, his false assumption of
his brother's name, identity, and educational records renders
him unfit for admission to the Bar. The practice of law, after all,
is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right to be granted to
everyone who demands it. Rather, it is a privilege limited to
citizens of good moral character.
Here, respondent exhibited his dishonesty and utter lack of
moral fitness to be a member of the Bar when he assumed the
name, identity, and school records of his own brother and
dragged the latter into controversies which eventually caused
him to fear for his safety and to resign from PSC where he had
been working for years. Good moral character is essential in
those who would be lawyers. This is imperative in the nature
of the office of a lawyer, the trust relation which exists
between him and his client, as well as between him and the
court.
Finally, respondent made a mockery of the legal profession by
pretending to have the necessary qualifications to be a lawyer.
He also tarnished the image of lawyers with his alleged
unscrupulous activities, which resulted in the filing of several
criminal cases against him. Certainly, respondent and his acts
do not have a place in the legal profession where one of the
primary duties of its members is to uphold its integrity and
dignity.
11. BM No. 2112 In re: petition to re acquire the privelege
to practice law in the phil
Facts: On June 8, 2009, petitioner Epifanio B. Muneses with
the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) praying that he be
granted the privilege to practice law in the Philippines.
Petitioner became a member of the IBP in 1966 but lost his
privilege to practice law when he became a American citizen
in 1981. In 2006, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship
pursuant to RA 9225 or the “Citizenship Retention and Re-
Acquisition Act of 2003” by taking his oath of allegiance as a
Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate in Washington,
D.C. He intends to retire in the Philippines and if granted, to
resume the practice of law.
Issue: whether or not the petition of Muneses praying that he
be granted the privelege to practice law in the Philippines.
Ruling: The Court reiterates that Filipino citizenship is a
requirement for admission to the bar and is, in fact, a
continuing requirement for the practice of law. The loss thereof
means termination of the petitioner’s membership in the bar;
ipso jure the privilege to engage in the practice of law. Under
R.A. No. 9225, natural-born citizens who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as
citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired
their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance
to the Republic. Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen
of another country and later re-acquires his Philippine
citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a member of
the Philippine Bar. However, as stated in Dacanay, the right
to resume the practice of law is not automatic. R.A. No. 9225
provides that a person who intends to practice his profession
in the Philippines must apply with the proper authority for a
license or permit to engage in such practice.
Thus, in pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the Court
for the practice of law, the OBC required, and incompliance
thereof, petitioner submitted the following:
1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
4. Certificate of Re-Acquisition/Retention of Philippine
Citizenship issued by the Bureau of Immigration, in lieu of the
IC;
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;
6. Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) for the year 2010;
7. Certificate of Compliance with the MCLE for the 2nd
compliance period; and
8. Certification dated December 5, 2008 of Atty. Gloria
Estenzo-Ramos, Coordinator, UC-MCLE Program,
University of Cebu, College of Law attesting to his compliance
with the MCLE.
Carelo, Federico |PALE1|8
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, the OBC
recommended that the petitioner be allowed to resume his
practice of law.
WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney Epifanio B. Muneses is
hereby GRANTED, subject to the condition that he shall re-
take the Lawyer's Oath on a date to be set by the Court and
subject to the payment of appropriate fees.
12. A.C. No. 10164               March 10, 2014
STEPHAN BRUNET and VIRGINIA ROMANILLOS
BRUNET, Complainants, vs.
ATTY. RONALD L. GUAREN, Respondent
Facts:
Complainants alleged that in February 1997, they engaged the
services of Atty. Guaren for the titling of a residential lot they
acquired in Bonbon, Nueva Caseres; that Atty. Guaren asked
for a fee of Ten Thousand Pesos ( 竄 ｱ 10,000.00) including
expenses relative to its proceeding; that it was agreed that full
payment of the fee shall be made after the delivery of the title;
that Atty. Guaren asked for an advance fee of One Thousand
Pesos (Pl,000.00) which they gave; that Atty. Guaren took all
the pertinent documents relative to the titling of their lot-
certified true copy of the tax declaration, original copy of the
deed of exchange, sketch plan, deed of donation, survey plan,
and original copy of the waiver; that on March 10, 1997, Atty.
Guaren asked for additional payment of Six Thousand Pesos
( 竄 ｱ 6,000.00) which they dutifully gave; that from 1997 to
2001, they always reminded Atty. Guaren about the case and
each time he would say that the titling was in progress; that
they became bothered by the slow progress of the case so
they demanded the return of the money they paid; and that
respondent agreed to return the same provided that the
amount of Five Thousand Pesos (竄ｱ 5,000.00) be deducted
to answer for his professional fees.
 the Report and Recommendation,1 dated August 24, 2012,
the Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Guaren to have
violated the Canon of Professional Responsibility when he
accepted the titling of complainants’ lot and despite the
acceptance of ₱7,000.00, he failed to perform his obligation
and allowed 5 long years to elapse without any progress in the
titling of the lot. Atty. Guaren should also be disciplined for
appearing in a case against complainants without a written
consent from the latter. The CBD recommended that he be
suspended for six (6) months.
In its May 20, 2013 Resolution, 2 the IBP Board of Governors,
adopted and approved with modification the Report and
Recommendation of the CBD, suspending Atty. Guaren from
the practice of law for three (3) months only.
The Court adopts the findings of the IBP Board of Governors
on the unethical conduct of Atty. Guaren, except as to the
penalty.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent violated the code of professional
responsibility
Held:
Yes.
The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in
which duty to public service, not money, is the primary
consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a
money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be
a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to
the administration of justice should be the primary
consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal
interests or what they owe to themselves.3
Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that:
CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him.
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence
and diligence.
In the present case, Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted
the amount of ₱7,000.00 as partial payment of his acceptance
fee. He, however, failed to perform his obligation to file the
case for the titling of complainants' lot despite the lapse of 5
years. Atty. Guaren breached his duty to serve his client with
competence and diligence when he neglected a legal matter
entrusted to him.1âwphi1
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ronald L. Guaren is found
GUILTY of having violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS effective
from receipt of this Resolution, with a warning that a similar
infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
13. A.C. No. 5377 June 30, 2014
VICTOR C. LINGAN, Complainant, vs.ATTYS. ROMEO
CALUBAQUIB and JIMMY P. BALIGA, Respondents.
Facts:A complaint for disbarment was filed by Victor Lingan
against Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy Baliga on
November 16, 2000. Complainant alleged that respondents,
both notaries public, falsified certain public documents, as
follows:
1. A complaint for annulment of title with damages filed by
Isaac Villegas against complainant with the Regional Trial
Court of Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Respondent Calubaquib
signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping
of the complaint as notary public and entered the same as
Doc. No. 182; Page No. 38; Book No. CLXXII; Series of 1996,
which according to the records of the National Archives, the
document entered as Doc. No. 182; Page 38; Book No.
CLXXII; Series of 1996 in respondent Calubaquib’snotarial
register was an affidavit of one Daniel Malayao.
2. A special power of attorney dated September 10, 1996
executed by Isaac Villegas appointing respondent Calubaquib
as his attorney-in-fact to “enter into a compromise agreement
under such terms and conditions acceptable to him” which
was notarized by respondent Baliga and entered as Doc. No.
548, Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996, which
according to respondentBaliga’snotarial register, Doc. No.
Carelo, Federico |PALE1|9
548; Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996 pertains to
an affidavit of loss of one Pedro Telan, dated August 26, 1996.
3. A petition for reappointment as notary public for and in
Tuguegarao,Cagayan by respondent Baliga, which was
notarized by respondent Calubaquib and entered in his
notarial register as Doc. No. 31, Page No. 08, Book No.
CXXX, Series of 1995. However, Notarial Register Book No.
CXXX was for the year 1996 and entered there as Doc. No.
31, Page No. 08 was a cancellation of real estate mortgage
dated January 11, 1996. Respondents Calubaquib and Baliga
both admitted the incorrectness of the entries and simply
attributed them to the inadvertence in good faith of their
secretary and legal assistants to whom they had left the task
of entering all his notarial documents.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents violated the Notarial Practice Law
RULING:
This court suspended Atty. Baliga from the practice of law for
one year on June 15, 2006, "effective immediately."75 From
the time Atty. Baliga received the court's order of suspension
on July 5, 2006,76 he has been without authority to practice
law. He lacked a necessary 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:
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
suspended. This is without prejudice to the investigation to be
conducted to the practice of law of Atty. Baliga, which in the
case of all Regional Human Rights Directors is not generally
allowed by the Commission;
In ordering Atty. Baliga suspended from office as Regional
Director, the Commission on Human Rights did not violate
Atty. Baliga's right to due process. First, he was only
suspended after: investigation by the Commission on Human
Rights Legal and Investigation Office.78Second, the
Commission gave Atty. Baliga an opportunity to be heard
when he filed his motion for reconsideration.
Atty. Baliga's performance of generally managerial functions
was not supported by the record. It was also
immaterial.1âwphi1 He held the position of Commission on
Human Rights Regional Director because of his authority to
practice law. Without this authority, Atty. Baliga was
disqualified to hold that position.
All told, performing the functions of a Commission on Human
Rights Regional Director constituted practice of law. Atty.
Baliga should have desisted from holding his position as
Regional Director.
14. [B. M. No. 1036. June 10, 2003]
DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, complainant, vs. EDWIN L.
RANA, respondent.
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 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 (Bunan).
On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that
respondent is a municipal government employee, being a
secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate.
As such, respondent is not allowed by law to act as counsel
for a client in any court or administrative body.
On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation,
complainant accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice
mayoralty candidate George Bunan (Bunan) without the latter
engaging respondents services. Complainant claims that
respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the
proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty candidate.
On 22 May 2001, the Court issued a resolution allowing
respondent to take the lawyers oath but disallowed him from
signing the Roll of Attorneys until he is cleared of the charges
against him. In the same resolution, the Court required
respondent to comment on the complaint against him.
In his Comment, respondent admits that Bunan sought his
specific assistance to represent 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 pleading that
objected to the inclusion of certain votes in the canvassing. He
explains, however, that he did not sign the pleading as a
lawyer or represented himself as an attorney in the pleading.
On his employment as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan,
respondent claims that he submitted his resignation on 11
May 2001 which was allegedly accepted on the same date. He
submitted a copy of the Certification of Receipt of Revocable
Resignation dated 28 May 2001 signed by Vice-Mayor
Napoleon Relox. Respondent further claims that the complaint
is politically motivated considering that complainant is the
daughter of Silvestre Aguirre, the losing candidate for mayor
of Mandaon, Masbate. Respondent prays that the complaint
be dismissed for lack of merit and that he be allowed to sign
the Roll of Attorneys.
Carelo, Federico |PALE1|10
On 22 June 2001, complainant filed her Reply to respondents
Comment and refuted the claim of respondent that his
appearance before the MBEC was only to extend specific
assistance to Bunan. Complainant alleges that on 19 May
2001 Emily Estipona-Hao (Estipona-Hao) filed a petition for
proclamation as the winning candidate for mayor. Respondent
signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in this petition. When
respondent appeared as counsel before the MBEC,
complainant questioned his appearance on two grounds: (1)
respondent had not taken his oath as a lawyer; and (2) he was
an employee of the government.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law and thus does not deserve admission to the
Philippine
Held:
Yes.
We agree with the findings and conclusions of the OBC that
respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and
thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar.
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 lawyers oath. In the pleading entitled Formal
Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some
Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor dated 19 May 2001,
respondent signed as counsel for George Bunan. In the first
paragraph of the same pleading respondent stated that he
was the (U)ndersigned Counsel for, and in behalf of Vice
Mayoralty Candidate, GEORGE T. BUNAN. Bunan himself
wrote the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he had authorized Atty.
Edwin L. Rana as his counsel to represent him before the
MBEC and similar bodies.
On 14 May 2001, mayoralty candidate Emily Estipona-Hao
also retained respondent as her counsel. On the same date,
14 May 2001, Erly D. Hao informed the MBEC that Atty. Edwin
L. Rana has been authorized by REFORMA LM-PPC as the
legal counsel of the party and the candidate of the said party.
Respondent himself wrote the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he
was entering his appearance as counsel for Mayoralty
Candidate Emily Estipona-Hao and for the REFORMA LM-
PPC. On 19 May 2001, respondent signed as counsel for
Estipona-Hao in the petition filed before the MBEC praying for
the proclamation of Estipona-Hao as the winning candidate for
mayor of Mandaon, Masbate.
All these happened even before respondent took the lawyers
oath. Clearly, respondent engaged in the practice of law
without being a member of the Philippine Bar.
he Court held that “practice of law” means any activity, in or
out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in
the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually
performed by members of the legal profession. Generally, to
practice law is to render any kind of service 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 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.
15. B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013
IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS
MICHAEL A. MEDADO, Petitioner.
FACTS:
Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with
the degree of Bachelor of Laws in 1979, and
passed the same year’s bar examinations with a general
weighted average 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 on his scheduled date,
allegedly because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the
Roll of Attorneys given by the Bar Office when he went home
to his province for a vacation. 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 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
ha[d] 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 required to
provide his roll number in order for his MCLE compliances to
be credited. 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. The Office of the Bar Confidant
(OBC) recommended that the instant petition be denied for
petitioner’s gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack
of merit.
ISSUE: WON Medado should be allowed to sign the roll of
attorney’s
HELD: YES. 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. In
this case, the records do not show that this action is
warranted. petitioner demonstrated good faith and good moral
character when he finally filed the instant Petition to Sign in
the Roll of Attorneys.
Carelo, Federico |PALE1|11
Carelo, Federico |PALE1|12