TOPIC: PRACTICE OF LAW

TITLE: CAYETANO VS MONSOD

FACTS: • Monsod was nominated as Comelec’s Chairman and confirmed by the

Commission on Appointments
• Cayetano opposed and challenged the nomination and confirmation as
allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification of being
engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.

ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod possesses the required qualification for the position?

HELD: Yes, as Monsod’s work experiences, as lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager,

lawyer entrep, lawyer legislator, satisfy the constitutional requirement “that
he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.

TITLE: CRUZ VS CABRERA

FACTS: • Cruz, a 4th year law student, filed an administrative case against Atty.
Cabrera for misconduct in violating the Code of Professional
responsibility as he said “Appear a ng appear, pumasa ka muna” in
the court.
• The case was referred to IBP where he was suspended for 3 months
for violating the rule.
ISSUE: WON Cabrera’s statement is a violation under the rule

HELD: No, SC dismissed the case for lack of merit but admonished him to be more
circumspect in performing his duties
TITLE: BERNARDO VS MEJIA

FACTS: • Bernardo accused Mejia of admin cases such as misappropriating and

converting an amount to his personal use, falsification of documents,
and issuing bouncing checks
• After being guilty of these offenses and imposes him a penalty of
disbarment, he filed a petition for review on 2007 for reinstatement in
the practice of law

ISSUE: W/N the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys

HELD: The position was granted as the court stated that he learned his lesson from
the experience, and it knows how to show compassion when the penalty
served its purpose.
TITLE: ALAWI VS ALAUYA
FACTS: • Alawi filed a complaint against Alauya, a clerk of court of the 4th
judicial Sharia District for usurpation of the title “Attorney” by
writing several letters using the title
• Alauya justifies that the title “Atty is lexically synonymous with
“counsellors at law”- a title used by Sharia lawyers.

ISSUE: W/N the respondent has the right to use the title “Atty”

HELD: No. because persons who pass the Sharia’s bar are not full-pledged
members f the Philippines Bar and may only practice law before Sharia
courts.

TITLE: In Re: Petition of Algorsino to take the lawyer’s Oath

FACTS: • Argosino passed the bar but the court deferred his oath taking due
to his previous conviction for reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide.
• He was discharged from probation and filed before the SC a
petition to be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.

ISSUE: • W/N the petitioner should be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath

HELD: Yes, the SC recognizes that Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber
(after the evaluation of this case)

TITLE: RUTHIE LIM- SANTIAGO VS ATTY. SAGUCIO

FACTS: • Santiago filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Carlos Sagucio

for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and for
defying the prohibition against private practice of law working as
government prosecutor

ISSUE: W/N respondent engaged in the private practice of law while working as a
government prosecutor

HELD: Find the respondent guilty of violation of the Code of Professional

Responsibility and suspended Atty. Sagucio from the practice of law for 6
months.
TOPIC: PASSING THE BAR

TITLE AGUIIRE VS RANA

FACTS: • Rana passed the 200 bar. On the day before the oathtaking, Aguirrre
filed a petition for denial of admission to the bar against the respondent

• He charged him with unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct,

violation of law, and grave misrepresentation

• He acted as counsel for Bunan

• The court allowed him to take his oath but not allowed to sign the roll
of attorneys
ISSUE: W/N the respondent engaged in unauthorized practice of law

HELD: Yes, because he appears as a counsel before his oath. Passing the bar and
lawyer’s oath will not make him a full pledge lawyer as he needed to sign the
ROA to be one.

TITLE PETITION TO SIGN I THE ROA; MICHAEL MEDADO

FACTS: • Medado passed the bar, took an oath, and scheduled to sign in the Roll
of Attorneys
• He failed to attend as he had misplaced the Notice to sign the ROA
• After he found the notice, he realized that he didn’t sign it and what he
signed was an attendance record
• When he attended a seminar, he was required to provide his roll
number but unable to provide it
• He filed a petition to sign the ROA but the office of bar confidant
denied it for gross negligence, gross misconduct and lack of merit.

ISSUE W/N, he’s allowed to sign the ROA

HELD: Yes, cannot forbid from signing the ROA as such action constitutes
disbarment and such penalty is reserved to the most serious ethical
transgressions.
TOPIC: REQS BEFORE ADMISSION TO THE BAR

TITLE ATTY LACSAMAN vs ATTY BUSMENTE

FACTS • Noe Lacsama, counsel of Bides and the complainant of this case while
Busmente, the counsel for the defendant Ulaso.
• Upon the process of the case they’re handling, Atty Dela Rosa Dela
Rosa accompanied Ulaso in court, projecting as Busmentes counsel
• Lacsaman alleged that court orders and notices specified Dela Rosa as
Busmentes collaborating counsel.
• Then confirmed with the court and IBP that Dela Rosa was not a lawyer

ISSUE: W/N respondent is in violation of the CANON 9 – the code of professional

responsibility stating that a lawyer shall not directly/ indirectly assist in the
unauthorized practice of law
HELD: Yes, guilty of violation and suspended for six months

TITLE QUERY of ATTY. SILVERIO- BUFFE

FACTS: • Atty. Buffe previously worked as a clerk of court VI of the RTC Branch
in Romblon
• Resigned and within one year prohibition, she engaged in the practice of
law by appearing as a private counsel.

ISSUE: W/N Atty. Buffe is guilty of professional misconduct

HELD: Yes, she’s guilty of such acts and fined in the amount of 10,000 and sternly
warned that a repetition of this violation shall be dealt with more severely
TITLE: RE: ELMO S. ABAD

FACTS: • Elmo S. Abad, respondent is charged by Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr of

practicing law without having been previously admitted to the
Philippine Bar.
• The respondent, to answer the complaint, claims that prior to his Oath
taking as member of the bar, respondent has paid his Bar Admission fee,
Certification Fee and Membership dues for the year to the IBP and
Professional Tax Receipt which are all supported with Official Receipts.
Likewise, he has signed his Lawyer’s Oath but has not taken his Oath
and received an invite to the Annual General Assembly of the IBP and
has a Certificate of Membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
as well as a Certificate of Membership in Good Standing with the
Quezon City Chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
ISSUE: W/N, the respondent has been admitted to the Ph Bar and has the right to
practice law.
HELD: No. The circumstances he narrated do not constitute admission to the bar. He
should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer (lawyer’s oath
and signing in the roll of attorneys)
TITLE TAN& PAGAYOKAN VS BALAJADIA
FACTS: • Respondent Balajadia was charged for indirect contempt by the
petitioners, Tan, et al. Before that, the respondent filed a criminal case
against the petitioners with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Baguio
City.

• In his complaint-affidavit, the respondent asserted that he is a “practicing

lawyer” based in Baguio City. However, certifications issued by the OBC
and the IBP showed that the respondent was admitted to the Bar.

• Respondent asserted that the allegation that he was a practicing lawyer is

an honest mistake. He claims that the secretary of Atty. Paterno Aquino
prepared the complaint-affidavit patterned after Atty. Aquino’s affidavit.
Liza Laconsay, Atty. Aquino’s secretary, admitted the mistake of copying
Atty. Aquino’s complaint-affidavit and instead of stating that Respondent
Balajadia is a businessman, he was erroneously referred to as a practicing
lawyer.
ISSUES: W/N Balajadia is liable for indirect contempt
HELD: NO. SC ruled that records support respondent’s 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.
TITLE: IN RE JUAN PEUBLICO, Petition for Reinstatement in the Roll of
Attorneys
FACTS: • There was a resolution of the Court ordering the Bar Division to strike
Publico’s name from the Roll of Attorneys. ( falsified school records,
violating to submit the reqs for the completion of the bar examinee)
• 11 years later, PUBLICO filed a Petition for Reinstatement alleging that
he had never received, for had he been informed, nor did he have any
knowledge of the said Resolution about him
• Prayed that Court allow reinstatement taking into consideration his
exemplary conduct from the time he became a lawyer, his services to the
community the numerous awards, resolutions and/'or commendations he
received,

ISSUE WON PUBLICO can be reinstated, for being in exemplary moral character
despite not completing pre-law requirement
RULING YES, Petitioner is hereby ordered REINSTATED in the Roll of Attorneys.
TITLE: FIGUEROA VS BARRANCO
FACTS: • Patricia Figueroa petitioned that respondent Simeon Barranco should be
denied admission to the legal profession. He passed 1970 bar exams but
failed 1966-1968 exams.
• Patricia Figueroa and Barranco had been lover for several years and they
had a child out of wedlock. Barranco promised several times that he
would marry Patricia however he failed to fulfill his promise to marry her.
• In 1971 she learned that he married another woman and therefore filed
this petition on the ground of gross immorality
ISSUE: W/N grounds invoked constitutes gross immorality
HELD: No. The Court find that these facts do not constitute gross immorality warranting
the permanent exclusion of respondent from the legal profession. Barranco
engaging in premarital sexual relations with complainant and promises to marry
suggests a doubtful moral character on his part but the same does not constitute
grossly immoral conduct.
TITLE: PEOPLE VS MACEDA & JAVELLANA
FACTS: • Avelino Javellana is the counsel for the defendants in a criminal case,
who was subsequently implicated in the killing of an ex-governor in
Antique. Javellana was arrested and by such arrest, he is deemed to be
under the custody of the law. When Javellana was brought before the trial
court, he informed the court that there exists a real and grave danger to his
life if he were to be confined in the Antique Provincial Jail. Thus, RTC
Judge Maceda issued an order of giving to Atty. Deogracias Del Rosario
the custody of Javellana with the obligation “to hold and detain” him in
Atty. Del Rosario’s residence in his official capacity as the Clerk of Court
of RTC.

• However, the order was not strictly complied with as Javellana was not
detained in the residence of Atty. Del Rosario, instead, he went about his
normal activities as a free man, including engaging in the practice of law.
RTC recalled the order of Judge Maceda.
ISSUE: W/N Javellana is allowed to continue practice of law, despite his status as a
detention prisoner.
HELD: NO.As a detention prisoner private respondent Javellana is not allowed to
practice his profession as a necessary consequence of his status as a detention
prisoner. The trial courts order was clear that private respondent "is not to be
allowed liberty to roam around but is to be held as a detention prisoner."

TITLE: PETITION TO REACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW IN

THE PHILIPPINES, EPIFANIO MUNESES
FACTS: • Petitioner filed a petition with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC)
praying that he be granted the privilege to practice law in the Philippines
• Petitioner alleged that he became a member of the IBP in 1966 and lost
his privilege to practice law when he became citizen of the US in 1981
and reacquired his Philippine citizenship
 • Petitioner submitted documents in support of his petition.

ISSUE: WON the petitioner may be granted the privilege to practice law in the
Philippines.
HELD: YES. Subject to re-take of lawyer’s oath and payment of appropriate fees.

TITLE: PEOPLE VS DE LUNA

FACTS The defendants Eustacio de Luna et al were accused of disobeying the Supreme
Court Resolution, obstructing or degrading the administration of justice, and
disrespecting the Court by taking their oath as lawyers before a notary public and
making manifestations before the High Court.

Appellees knew that they did not pass the bar examination. Although they,
likewise, sought admission to the Bar under the provisions of Republic Act No.
972, known as the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953, they were subsequently notified of
the resolution of this Court denying said petition. Inasmuch as the oath as lawyer
is a prerequisite to the practice of law and may be taken only, before the Supreme
Court, by those authorized by the latter to engage in such practice, the resolution
denying the d petition of appellees herein, implied, necessarily, a denial of the
right to said oath, as well as a prohibition of or injunction against the taking
thereof. When, this notwithstanding, appellees took the oath before a notary
public, and formally advised this Court, not only of such fact, but also, that "they
will practice in all the court of the Philippines,"
ISSUE WON the acts of the defendants constitutes contempt of court
HELD: Yes. Appellees herein expressed clearly their intent to, and did, in fact,
challenged and defy the authority of this Court to pass upon and settle, in a final
and conclusive manner, the issue whether or not they should be admitted to the
bar, as well as, embarrass, hinder and obstruct the administration of justice and
impair the respect due to the courts of justice in general, and the Supreme Court,
in particular. Thus, they performed acts constituting an "improper conduct
tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration
of justice," in violation of section 3, subdivision (b) of said Rule 64.
TITLE: IN RE PURISIMA
Petitioner passed the 1999 Examinations but the Court disqualified him from
becoming a member of the Philippine Bar and declared his examinations null and
void on two (2) grounds: (a) Petitioner failed to submit the required certificate of
completion of the pre-bar review course and (b) He committed a serious act of
dishonesty which rendered him unfit to become a member of the Philippine Bar
when he made it appear that he took his pre-bar review course at the Philippine
Law School (PLS) when PLS had not offered such course since 1967.
ISSSUE; WON petitioner did enroll in and complete his pre-bar review course in UST as
he herein avows
HELD: ES. The testimony of petitioner and Ms. Felipe during the 30 October 2002
hearing that the subject Certification of Dean Dimayuga was duly submitted to
the OBC a week after the filing of the Petition to take the bar appears to be
 credible. It is supported by documentary evidence showing that petitioner
actually enrolled and completed the required course in UST.

TITLE PAGUIA VS OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

FACTS • Petitioner Alan F. Paguia (petitioner), as citizen and taxpayer, filed this
original action for the writ of certiorari to invalidate President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo’s nomination of respondent former Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (respondent Davide) as Permanent Representative
to the United Nations (UN) for violation of Section 23 of Republic Act
No. 7157 (RA 7157), the Philippine Foreign Service Act of 1991.
Petitioner argues that respondent Davide’s age at that time of his
nomination in March 2006, 70, disqualifies him from holding his post.
Petitioner grounds his argument on Section 23 of RA 7157 pegging the
mandatory retirement age of all officers and employees of the Department
of Foreign Affairs (DFA) at 65. Petitioner theorizes that Section 23
imposes an absolute rule for all DFA employees, career or non-career;
thus, respondent Davide’s entry into the DFA ranks discriminates against
the rest of the DFA officials and employees.

• Respondent Davide, the Office of the President, and the Secretary of

Foreign Affairs (respondents) raise threshold issues against the petition.
They question petitioner’s standing to bring this suit because of his
indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
ISSUE Whether the Petitioner has a standing to bring the suit because of his indefinite
suspension from the practice of law.
HELD: No, the petitioner has no standing. An incapacity to bring legal actions peculiar to
petitioner also obtains. Petitioner’s suspension from the practice of law bars him
from performing "any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application
of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience."

TITLE ULEP vs LEGAL CLINIC

FACTS The petitioner, Atty. Ulep files a complaint against The Legal Clinic. Petitioner
contends that the advertisements reproduced by the respondents are champertous,
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, to which as a
member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the
advertisements presented. ( Secret marriage, guam divorce)
ISSUES 1. Whether or not, the advertised services offered by the Legal Clinic, Inc.,
constitutes practice of law and
2. Whether the same are in violation of the Code of Professional responsibility
HELD: Both Yes. The advertisement of the respondent is covered in the term practice of
law as defined in the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod. There is a restricted concept
and limited acceptance of paralegal services in the Philippines. It is allowed that
 some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have been permitted with a
limited representation in behalf of another or to render legal services, but such
allowable services are limited in scope and extent by the law, rules or regulations
granting permission therefore.

TITLE Re: ATTY EDILLON

FACTS Atty Edillon is a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Philippines. Then, the
IBP adopted a resolution recommending the court for the removal of the name of
the respondent from its Roll of attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his
membership dues
ISSUE W/N a member of the Philippine bar may be compelled to pay the required
membership fee in IBP.
HELD: YES, they are subject to the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar
including the requirement of payment of a reasonable annual fee to discharge the
purpose s of the bar.

TITLE: LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO Y. AREVALO, JR.

FACTS: This is a request for exemption from payment of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) dues filed by petitioner Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr.

In 1961, he was admitted to the Philippine Bar, from 1962 to 1986 he became
part of the Philippine Civil Service and then he migrated to, and worked in the
USA in 1986 until his retirement in the year 2003. He alleged that he cannot be
assessed IBP dues for the years that he was working in the Philippine Service
since the Civil Service Law prohibits the practice of profession while in
government service, and neither can he be assessed for the years when he was
working in the USA.

The IBP commented that membership in the IBP is not based on the actual
practice of law; that a lawyer continues to be included in the Roll of Attorneys as
long as he continues to be a member of the IBP; that one of the obligations of a
member is the payment of annual dues as determined by the IBP Board of
Governors and duly approved by the Supreme Court as provided for in Sections 9
and 10, Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court; that the validity of imposing dues on
the IBP members has been upheld as necessary to defray the cost of an Integrated
Bar Program. Petitioner could have done was to inform the secretary of the IBP
of his intention to stay abroad, so that his membership in the IBP could have been
terminated, thus his obligation to pay dues could have been stopped.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during
the time that he was inactive in the practice of law that is, when he was in the
Civil Service from 1962-1986 and he was working abroad from 1986-2003
HELD: NO. He is not exempted from the payment of IBP Dues. 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
 ones membership in the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the
type of practice, the member is engaged in.

TITLE: SANTOS VS LLAMAS

FACTS: This is a complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership

dues filed against respondent Atty. Francisco R. Llamas who for a number of
years has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP O.R. Nos. and data (date & place
of issuance) in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicated “IBP Rizal 259060” but
he has been using this for at least 3 years already, as shown by the following
attached sample pleadings in various courts in 1995, 1996 & 1997. Respondent’s
last payment of his IBP dues was in 1991. Since then he has not paid or remitted
any amount to cover his membership fees up to the present. He likewise admits
that as appearing in the pleadings submitted by complainant to this Court, he
indicated "IBP-Rizal 259060" in the pleadings he filed in court, at least for the
years 1995, 1996, and 1997, thus misrepresenting that such was his IBP chapter
membership and receipt number for the years in which those pleadings were
filed. He claims, however, that he is only engaged in a "limited" practice and that
he believes in good faith that he is exempt from the payment of taxes, such as
income tax, under R.A. No. 7432, as a senior citizen since 1992.
ISSUE .1. Whether or not the respondent has misled the court about his standing in the
IBP by using the same IBP O.R. number in his pleadings of at least 6 years and
therefore liable for his actions; and

2. Whether or not the respondent is exempt from paying his membership dues
owing to limited practice of law and for being a senior citizen.
HELD: Yes. By indicating "IBP-Rizal 259060" in his pleadings and thereby
misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the
Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional
Responsibility