5.

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys, Michael Medado

Facts:
Petitioner graduated from UP with a degree in Bachelor of Laws. He took the bar in 1979 and
passed. He was able to take the oath and was given the slip of Notice which contains the
schedule to sign the roll of attorneys. Unfortunately, he misplaced the Notice when he went
home to the province for his vacation.

Later on, years after, he came upon the notice and realized he was not able to sign the roll of
attorneys. But he believes it was already of no need, no urgency so he continued on engaging
on the practice of law. Several years later, when he was attending the mandatory continuing
legal education (mcle), he was asked to provide his roll of attorneys number but failed to do so
because he was not able to sign the roll of attorneys. It was then that he realized that the roll of
attorneys number is important in order to be able to sign pleadings and to comply with the mcle.
But again, when he learned of the importance and urgency of securing the roll of attorneys
number, he did not initiate it immediately. It was after a few more years when he filed a petition
to the SC that he be allowed to sign the roll of attorneys.

Issue:
WON he should be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys

Ruling:
SC granted him to sign the roll of attorneys but he was not allowed to sign it immediately. He
was granted to sign it one year after his receipt of the resolution of the SC granting the petition.
In addition to that, he was required to pay a fine of Php 32, 000.

In granting the petition, SC considered the following:

1. it was Medado himself who filed the petition without any complaint filed by anybody
against him being engaged in the unauthorized practice of law; this demonstrated
good faith on the part of Medado
2. he has shown to be of good moral character because there was no complaint for
disbarment/suspension filed against him during the years that he practiced the
profession
3. he demonstrated that he has all the necessary qualifications; he is involved in many
practice especially corporate practice; based on the records he is a competent
professional
SC emphasized that the applicant to the bar must complete all the requirements.

6. Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin Dacanay

7. IN RE: PETITION TO RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE IN RE: PETITION TO

RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES LAW IN THE
PHILIPPINES, Epifanio Muneses

These involve the requirement of citizenship.

Facts:
(Dacanay) He was a Filipino citizen, lawyer but he migrated to Canada and became a Canadian
citizen to avail of their medical benefits. These lawyers, upon returning to the Philippines, they want to
resume the practice of the profession. They were able to reacquire their citizenship based on the law
(RA 9225).
(Muneses) went to the US, became a citizen there and similarly required Philippine citizenship as per
RA 9225.
Issue:
WON they may be allowed to practice law in the Philippines

Ruling:
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. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure
terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege denied to
foreigners
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of another
country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is because "all Philippine citizens
who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship
under the conditions of [RA 9225]."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 if
he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225 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.

No, it is not automatic. While you may have reacquired your citizenship, you must
still comply with the ff requirements:
1. update the IBP dues - from the time when you were abroad
2. pay the professional tax
3. take the mcle - to be updated on the latest laws and jurisprudence while away from
the country
4. re-take the lawyer's oath

8. Catu vs Rellosa

This involves a brgy captain who is also a lawyer.

Facts:
Catu filed a complaint before the barangay. He is the owner of a building and he wants the
people occupying be removed/ejected. In the barangay proceeding, the brgy captain mediated,
they tried to settle amicably the controversy between the parties. Unfortunately, the parties
could not agree on a settlement so the brgy captain issued a certificate to file action on the
parties. Catu filed a case for ejectment against respondents in the MTC. In the court
proceeding, the brgy captain who is also a lawyer now represented the respondents. Because
of that representation, Catu filed a complaint for disbarment
against the brgy captain.

Findings of IBP:
1. the brgy captain violated Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility --
former govt lawyers representing conflict of interest;
2. he also violated RA 6713 --- which prohibits public officials from engaging in the private
practice of profession.
3. recommended 1 month suspension for the brgy captain

Ruling:
SC modified the findings of IBP.
1. the respondent brgy captain did not violate Canon 6 specifically 6.03 because that provision
of the code applies only to former govt lawyers; in this case, the brgy captain is the incumbent
official so the provision is not applicable
2. RA 6713 is not really the law in point to this case but it is the provision on the Local
Government Code which provides govt officials who are prohibited from engaging in the practice
of law and those who can practice but with restrictions. The SC referred to that provision on city
governors/mayors/sanggunian members. SC said that if we examine that provision it does not
mention or include brgy captain/chairman, so applying the principle of expressio unius est
exclusio alterius--the express mention of one thing is the exclusion of the other. Because the
brgy captain is not among the enumerated in the law, in other words the law is silent so he can
practice.
3. BUT, the brgy captain still violated the civil service rules which require him to secure a written
permission from the dept head (DILG); so instead of Canon 6, he violated Canon 1, he engaged
in an unlawful conduct because he violated the law. Suspended for 6 months. Brgy captain
should look up the term delicadeza.