G.R. No.

100113 September 3, 1991

RENATO CAYETANO, petitioner,

vs.
CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R. SALONGA, COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENT,
and HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as Secretary of Budget and
Management, respondents.

Renato L. Cayetano for and in his own behalf.

Sabina E. Acut, Jr. and Mylene Garcia-Albano co-counsel for petitioner.

PARAS, J.:

Facts:
● Renato L. Cayetano filed a petition challenging Christian Monsod's appointment as
Chairman of the COMELEC.
● Cayetano argues Monsod doesn't meet the requirement of engaging in the practice
of law for at least ten years.
● Monsod contends he meets the qualification based on his various legal activities and
experiences.
Issue:
Whether Christian Monsod meets the qualification of having engaged in the practice of law
for at least ten years.

Ruling:
Yes, Christian Monsod meets the qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years.

The Court adopts a liberal interpretation of the term "practice of law." It defines it as the
rendition of services requiring legal knowledge and application for the benefit of another with
their consent. The Court considers various factors such as habituality, compensation, and
the existence of an attorney-client relationship in determining engagement in the practice of
law.

Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that the practice of law encompasses activities beyond
courtroom appearances, including counseling clients, negotiating with opposing counsel, and
preparing legal documents. This broad interpretation aligns with the intent of the framers of
the Constitution.

In light of Monsod's extensive legal activities and experiences, the Court concludes that he
satisfies the requirement of engaging in the practice of law for at least ten years. Therefore,
Monsod's appointment as Chairman of COMELEC is valid.

—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.R. No. L-12426 February 16, 1959

PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION, petitioner,

vs.
CELEDONIO AGRAVA, in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office,
respondent.

Arturo A. Alafriz for petitioner.

Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Pacifico P. de Castro for
respondent.

MONTEMAYOR, J.:

Facts:
● Philippine Lawyer's Association petitions against Celedonio Agrava, Director of the
Philippines Patent Office.
● Agrava scheduled an examination to determine qualifications for practicing as patent
attorneys.
● The circular stipulates that members of the Philippine Bar, engineers, and individuals
with scientific and technical training are eligible for the examination.
● Philippine Lawyer's Association argues that being a member of the Bar and in good
standing qualifies an individual to practice before the Patent Office.
● Agrava argues that practicing before the Patent Office involves technical knowledge
and training beyond legal expertise.
● He maintains that the examination requirement is in accordance with Republic Act
No. 165, the Patent Law of the Philippines, which is similar to the US Patent Law.
● The Supreme Court is confronted with the issue of whether members of the Bar must
pass an examination to practice before the Patent Office.

Issue/s:
Whether members of the Philippine Bar need to pass an examination to practice before the
Philippines Patent Office.

Ruling:
No, members of the Philippine Bar do not need to pass an examination to practice before the
Philippines Patent Office.

The Court emphasizes the exclusive authority of the Supreme Court over the admission to
the practice of law in the Philippines. It asserts that any member of the Bar in good standing
may practice law before any entity, judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative, in the
Philippines.

The Court interprets the practice of law broadly, encompassing not only courtroom litigation
but also legal advice, drafting legal instruments, and conducting proceedings before judicial
bodies. It holds that the activities involved in practicing before the Patent Office fall within the
realm of legal practice, requiring legal knowledge, training, and experience.
The Court rejects Agrava's argument that the Patent Office's functions involve predominantly
technical and scientific knowledge, thus justifying the examination requirement. It points out
that many aspects of the Patent Office's business involve questions of law and factual
determinations, which are within the purview of legal expertise.

Moreover, the Court finds no explicit provision in Republic Act No. 165 granting the Patent
Office authority to impose examination requirements on members of the Bar. It highlights
that while other government agencies may prescribe regulations for efficient administration,
such regulations must not contravene existing laws.

Therefore, the Court grants the petition for prohibition, prohibiting Agrava from imposing
examination requirements on members of the Philippine Bar. It affirms that legal
practitioners, by virtue of their legal knowledge and competence, are qualified to practice
before the Patent Office.

—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P February 24, 1997

SOPHIA ALAWI, complainant,

vs.
ASHARY M. ALAUYA, Clerk of Court VI, Shari'a District Court, Marawi City, respondent.

NARVASA, C.J.:

Facts:
● Sophia Alawi, a sales representative of E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd., facilitated
a housing contract for Ashari M. Alauya, the executive clerk of court of the 4th
Judicial Shari'a District.
● Alauya later sent letters to Villarosa & Co. and NHMFC, repudiating the contract,
alleging misrepresentation and fraud by Alawi.
● Alauya accused Alawi of deceit, fraud, and abuse of confidence, among other
allegations, in his letters.
● Alawi filed a complaint against Alauya for making libelous charges, unauthorized use
of free postage, and unauthorized use of the title "attorney."

Issue:
Whether or not Alauya's actions, as described in his letters, constitute ethical violations and
warrant disciplinary action.

Ruling:
Yes. Alauya's use of excessively intemperate, insulting, and virulent language in his letters,
accusing Alawi of deceit and fraud, violates the standard of conduct expected from a judicial
officer. While Alauya may have felt wronged, his language was not appropriate and
contravened the principles of good morals, good customs, and public policy. Additionally, his
use of the title "attorney" without proper authorization is not justified, as only members of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines are entitled to use that title. However, the allegation of
unauthorized use of the franking privilege was not adequately supported by evidence.
Consequently, Ashari M. Alauya is reprimanded for his conduct, and warned that any similar
misconduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.

The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees requires
public officials to respect the rights of others and refrain from acts contrary to law, good
morals, and public policy. Judicial employees, in particular, are held to a high standard of

—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. M. No. 1036 June 10, 2003

DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, Complainant,

vs.
EDWIN L. RANA, Respondent.

CARPIO, J.:

Doctrine: The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only on those who possess the
requisite moral integrity for membership in the legal profession. Passing the bar
examinations alone does not grant the right to practice law; it is contingent upon moral
fitness and adherence to legal standards.

Facts:
● Respondent Edwin L. Rana passed the 2000 Bar Examinations.
● Before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar examinees, complainant
Donna Marie Aguirre filed a petition against respondent, alleging unauthorized
practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation.
● Respondent took the lawyer’s oath on May 22, 2001, but has not signed the Roll of
Attorneys pending the resolution of the charges.
● Complainant accused respondent of acting as counsel for a candidate in the May
2001 elections before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers (MBEC) of
Mandaon, Masbate, while not yet a lawyer.
● Respondent admitted to appearing as counsel for the candidate and submitting
pleadings on his behalf before taking the lawyer’s oath.
● The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) recommended denying respondent's
admission to the Philippine Bar due to unauthorized practice of law.
Issue/s:
Whether or not respondent Edwin L. Rana engaged in the unauthorized practice of law
before his admission to the Philippine Bar.

Ruling:
Yes. Evidence supports the charge of unauthorized practice of law. Despite passing the bar
examinations, respondent appeared as counsel for a client before taking the lawyer’s oath
and signing the Roll of Attorneys, constituting unauthorized practice of law. The practice of
law is a privilege contingent upon moral fitness, legal knowledge, and adherence to ethical
standards. Passing the bar alone does not confer the right to practice law; it requires
admission to the Bar and compliance with legal requirements. Therefore, respondent's
admission to the Philippine Bar is denied.
Supporting the ruling, the Court cited the precedent in Philippine Lawyers Association v.
Agrava, which defined the practice of law as encompassing various legal activities requiring
legal knowledge and skill, including representation before judicial bodies. Additionally,
Cayetano v. Monsod clarified that the practice of law extends to any activity requiring legal
expertise, in or out of court. Respondent's actions, representing a client before the MBEC
without being a member of the Bar, constitute unauthorized practice of law, violating legal
standards and moral integrity requisite for Bar admission.

—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B.M. No. 2540 September 24, 2013

IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS

MICHAEL A. MEDADO, Petitioner.

SERENO, CJ.:

Doctrine: The practice of law is a privilege that requires adherence to ethical standards,
including signing in the Roll of Attorneys as a prerequisite for full-fledged membership in the
Bar.

Facts:
● Petitioner Michael A. Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with a
Bachelor of Laws degree in 1979 and passed the bar examinations in the same year.
● Despite taking the Attorney’s Oath in 1980, Medado failed to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys on his scheduled date due to misplaced notice.
● Years later, Medado found the notice and realized his failure to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys, attributing it to a mistaken belief that it was not urgent.
● In 2005, during Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars, Medado
was unable to provide his roll number due to not signing in the Roll of Attorneys.
● Medado filed a petition in 2012 to sign in the Roll of Attorneys, which was
recommended for denial by the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC).

Issue/s:
Whether or not Michael A. Medado should be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys despite
his failure to do so for more than 30 years.

Ruling:
Yes. Medado is allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys, subject to a fine and a penalty
equivalent to suspension from the practice of law for one year.

Supporting the ruling, the Court emphasized Medado's demonstration of good faith and
moral character by acknowledging his lapse and filing the petition himself. Despite the long
delay, Medado's petition indicates his desire to rectify his omission, showing his willingness
to adhere to ethical standards. Additionally, Medado's competent legal practice over the
years further supports his suitability for Bar membership.
However, Medado's prolonged failure to sign in the Roll of Attorneys constitutes
unauthorized practice of law, which violates ethical standards and Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. While Medado operated under a mistaken belief initially, his
continued practice without completing the necessary requirements for Bar admission
constitutes willful engagement in unauthorized practice of law.

As a penalty akin to suspension, Medado is allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one year
after receiving the resolution, coupled with a fine of ₱32,000. During the suspension period,
Medado is prohibited from practicing law, with a stern warning of severe consequences for
any violation.

This resolution upholds the privilege of practicing law while enforcing ethical standards,
ensuring that members of the Bar adhere to the prerequisites for admission and maintain the
integrity of the legal profession.
—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADM. CASE No. 3319 June 8, 2000

LESLIE UI, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO, respondent.

DE LEON, JR., J.:

Doctrine:
In the Philippines, the practice of law is considered a privilege that can be revoked if a
lawyer violates their oath and legal ethics, including possessing good moral character. Good
moral character must be continuously maintained to enjoy the privilege of practicing law.
Conduct constituting "grossly immoral conduct" or involving a conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude may lead to disbarment. Grossly immoral conduct is characterized by willful,
flagrant, or shameless behavior that shows moral indifference to societal norms.

Facts:
Leslie Ui filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio, alleging
an immoral relationship between Atty. Bonifacio and Leslie's husband, Carlos Ui. Leslie and
Carlos were married in 1971 and had four children. Leslie discovered Carlos's relationship
with Atty. Bonifacio in 1987, leading to the filing of the complaint. Atty. Bonifacio admitted to
the relationship but claimed she believed Carlos was single when they met. The complaint
included allegations of false documents submitted by Atty. Bonifacio, specifically a marriage
certificate with an altered date.

Issue:
Whether Atty. Iris Bonifacio's conduct amounts to grossly immoral behavior warranting
disbarment.

Ruling:
No. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines dismissed the complaint for disbarment against
Atty. Iris Bonifacio. While acknowledging Atty. Bonifacio's imprudent behavior in managing
her personal affairs, the Commission on Bar Discipline found that her relationship with
Carlos Ui, though regrettable, did not constitute grossly immoral conduct. The commission
determined that Atty. Bonifacio immediately distanced herself from Carlos upon discovering
his true marital status, indicating no intent to flaunt moral standards. The burden of proof
rested with Leslie Ui, who failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to support her
claims of immorality. Despite Atty. Bonifacio's reprimand for submitting a falsified marriage
certificate, the commission found her conduct did not warrant disbarment. The decision
emphasizes the high moral standards expected of lawyers but concludes that Atty.
Bonifacio's behavior, while imprudent, did not rise to the level of gross immorality justifying
disbarment.

Article 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation.
Article 184. Offering false testimony in evidence.

—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bar Matter No. 1036 June 10, 2003

DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, Complainant,

v.
EDWIN L. RANA, Respondent.

CARPIO, J.:

Doctrine:
Before one is admitted to the Philippine Bar, they must possess the requisite moral integrity
for membership in the legal profession. The practice of law is a privilege bestowed only upon
those who are morally fit, with moral integrity being of greater importance than legal learning.
A bar candidate who is morally unfit cannot practice law, even if they pass the bar
examinations.

Facts:
Respondent Edwin L. Rana passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. However, before his
scheduled mass oath-taking as a member of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie
Aguirre filed a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar against respondent. The petition
alleged unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave
misrepresentation by respondent. Specifically, respondent appeared as counsel for a
candidate in the May 2001 elections before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers
(MBEC) of Mandaon, Masbate, despite not being a licensed lawyer at the time. Respondent
also held a position as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate, which
complainant argued prohibited him from acting as counsel. Respondent denied the
allegations, claiming political motivation and insisting that he assisted the candidate as a
person knowledgeable about the law.

Issue:
Whether respondent Edwin L. Rana engaged in unauthorized practice of law, grave
misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation, warranting denial of admission to
the Philippine Bar.
Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court denied respondent Edwin L. Rana's admission to the Philippine
Bar. Evidence showed that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by
representing clients before the MBEC and similar bodies before taking his lawyer's oath.
This constitutes a serious breach of legal ethics and demonstrates moral unfitness for
admission to the Bar. Despite respondent's claims of assisting the candidate as a layperson,
his actions clearly involved the application of legal knowledge and skill, falling within the
scope of legal practice. The Court emphasized that the right to practice law is a privilege
reserved for those of good moral character, with special qualifications duly ascertained and
certified. Passing the bar examinations alone does not confer this privilege; one must also
demonstrate moral integrity and adhere to ethical standards. While respondent resigned
from his position as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan, it does not absolve him of the
unauthorized practice of law. Therefore, respondent's admission to the Bar was rightfully
denied based on his moral unfitness and engagement in unauthorized legal practice.
—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. M. No. 139 March 28, 1983

RE: ELMO S. ABAD, 1978 Successful Bar Examinee. ATTY. PROCOPIO S. BELTRAN,
JR., President of the Philippine Trial Lawyers Association, Inc., complainant,
vs.
ELMO S. ABAD, respondent.

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

Doctrine:
The practice of law in the Philippines requires compliance with certain essential requisites,
including taking the lawyer's oath administered by the Supreme Court and signing the Roll of
Attorneys. Failure to fulfill these requirements constitutes contempt of court.

Facts:
Mr. Elmo S. Abad was charged by Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr., president of the Philippine
Trial Lawyers Association, Inc., with practicing law without being admitted to the Philippine
Bar. Mr. Abad admitted to the practice but attempted to justify his actions with a series of
explanations. He claimed that he had paid various fees related to bar admission, received
communications from legal authorities, and believed he was a member in good standing
based on his interactions with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Issue:
Whether Mr. Elmo S. Abad's actions constitute contempt of court for practicing law without
fulfilling the essential requisites for admission to the Philippine Bar.

Ruling:
Yes. Mr. Elmo S. Abad's actions constitute contempt of court. Despite his explanations and
beliefs, Mr. Abad failed to fulfill the essential requisites for admission to the Philippine Bar,
namely, taking the lawyer's oath administered by the Supreme Court and signing the Roll of
Attorneys. These requirements are mandated by Rule 138, Sections 17 and 19 of the Rules
of Court. Mr. Abad's attempt to justify his actions based on his interactions with the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines does not absolve him of contempt. The court emphasized
that the practice of law is a privilege that requires strict compliance with legal procedures.
Therefore, Mr. Abad is fined Five Hundred (P500.00) pesos payable to the court within ten
(10) days from notice, failing which he shall serve twenty-five (25) days imprisonment.
—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993

MAURICIO C. ULEP, Petitioner,

vs.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC., Respondent.

REGALADO, J.:

Doctrine:
The doctrine of practice of law encompasses activities requiring legal knowledge, training,
and experience, including legal advice, counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments.

Facts:
The petitioner contends that advertisements published by the respondent, The Legal Clinic,
Inc., are champertous, unethical, and undermine the integrity of the legal profession.
Respondent admits to publishing the advertisements but argues they offer "legal support
services" rather than legal services. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) opposes the
establishment of a "legal clinic" by the respondent, asserting that the advertisements give
the impression of offering legal services.

Issue:
Whether the services advertised by respondent constitute the practice of law and whether
such advertisements are permissible.

Ruling:
Yes. The activities advertised by respondent, including providing legal information and
advice, fall within the scope of the practice of law. The Court finds that respondent's activities
involve the application of legal knowledge and the provision of legal advice, which constitute
the practice of law. Additionally, the advertisements fail to adhere to the ethical standards set
forth by the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers to use truthful and
dignified means to promote their services. As such, the Court reprimands Atty. Rogelio P.
Nogales for the unethical advertisements and warns against future violations.

The ruling is supported by the principle that the practice of law is not limited to courtroom
proceedings but extends to activities involving legal advice and counsel. Furthermore, the
Code of Professional Responsibility dictates that lawyers must maintain honesty and dignity
in their advertising practices. Atty. Nogales' actions, in contravention of these principles,
warrant disciplinary action to uphold the integrity of the legal profession.
—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC Bar Matter 1153: Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito Mendoza (2010)

Doctrine:
The admission to the Bar in the Philippines is governed by strict requirements set forth by
the Supreme Court, particularly outlined in Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. These
requirements include the completion of prescribed courses for the degree of Bachelor of
Laws or its equivalent, pre-law education, and adherence to specific criteria for applicants
from foreign law schools.

Facts:
The Court En Banc issued a resolution on March 9, 2010, approving proposed amendments
to Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. These amendments pertain to
additional requirements for applicants for admission to the bar examination, including those
who obtained their law degree from foreign jurisdictions. The amendments emphasize the
need for completion of specific law courses and pre-law education before an applicant can
be admitted to the bar examination. Additionally, Filipino citizens who graduated from foreign
law schools must fulfill additional criteria, including completion of a separate bachelor's
degree course.

Issue:
Whether the approved amendments to Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
regarding the admission requirements for the bar examination are valid and enforceable.

Ruling:
Yes. The court's approval of the proposed amendments to Rule 138, particularly Sections 5
and 6, is valid and enforceable. These amendments aim to ensure that applicants for
admission to the bar examination meet stringent educational qualifications, including the
completion of specific law courses and pre-law education. The amendments also address
the unique circumstances of Filipino citizens who obtained their law degrees from foreign law
schools, requiring them to satisfy additional criteria to qualify for the bar examination. By
approving these amendments, the Supreme Court upholds the integrity and standards of the
legal profession in the Philippines, promoting competence and ethical conduct among future
lawyers.

—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EN BANC
[ B.M. No. 1678, December 17, 2007 ]
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW, BENJAMIN M. DACANAY,
PETITIONER,

CORONA, J.:

Doctrine:
The practice of law in the Philippines is a privilege governed by strict standards and
conditions set forth by the Supreme Court. It is a power and duty of the State to regulate and
control the legal profession to protect the public interest. Adherence to ethical standards,
continuous education, and payment of membership fees are among the conditions required
for membership in good standing in the bar and for the privilege to practice law.

Facts:
Attorney Benjamin M. Dacanay, who was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960,
migrated to Canada in December 1998 due to health reasons and subsequently became a
Canadian citizen in May 2004. However, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225, he reacquired
his Philippine citizenship in July 2006 and now seeks to resume his law practice in the
Philippines. The Office of the Bar Confidant opines that, by reacquiring Philippine citizenship,
Dacanay has met the qualifications for membership in the bar, subject to certain conditions.

Issue:
Whether a lawyer who lost Filipino citizenship can still practice law in the Philippines upon
reacquiring citizenship.

Ruling:
No. The Constitution mandates that the practice of all professions, including law, is limited to
Filipino citizens. Loss of Filipino citizenship terminates membership in the Philippine bar and
the privilege to practice law. However, under RA 9225, Filipino citizens who become citizens
of another country can retain or reacquire their Philippine citizenship. Nevertheless,
reacquiring citizenship does not automatically restore the privilege to practice law. A lawyer
who reacquires Filipino citizenship must secure authority from the Supreme Court to resume
law practice. This authority is conditional upon updating membership dues, paying
professional taxes, completing mandatory legal education, and retaking the lawyer's oath.
Compliance with these conditions restores the lawyer's good standing in the Philippine bar,
enabling them to practice law once again. Therefore, Attorney Dacanay's petition is granted,
subject to compliance with the specified conditions.
—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EN BANC
[ B.M. No. 2112, July 24, 2012 ]
IN RE: PETITION TO RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE
PHILIPPINES, EPIFANJO B. MUNESES, PETITIONER.

REYES, J.:

Doctrine:
The practice of law in the Philippines is a privilege that is delicately tied to public interest. It is
the responsibility of the State, specifically the Supreme Court, to regulate and control the
legal profession to ensure the protection and promotion of public welfare. Adherence to strict
standards of mental fitness, moral integrity, compliance with legal ethics, continuing legal
education, and payment of membership fees are conditions required for membership in good
standing in the bar and for the privilege to practice law.

Facts:
Attorney Epifanio B. Muneses filed a petition with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC)
seeking to regain the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. Muneses became a member
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in 1966 but lost his privilege to practice law
when he became a citizen of the United States in 1981. He re-acquired his Philippine
citizenship in 2006 through Republic Act No. 9225. Muneses intended to retire in the
Philippines and resume his law practice. He submitted various documents to support his
petition, including his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen, a petition for re-acquisition of
Philippine citizenship, and proof of compliance with the Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) program.

Issue:
Whether Attorney Epifanio B. Muneses, who lost his privilege to practice law due to
acquiring foreign citizenship but subsequently re-acquired Philippine citizenship, may
resume the practice of law in the Philippines.

Ruling:
Yes. Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar and is a continuing
requirement for the practice of law. Under Republic Act No. 9225, Filipino citizens who
become citizens of another country can re-acquire their Philippine citizenship. However, the
right to resume the practice of law is not automatic. A lawyer who re-acquires Filipino
citizenship must apply for a license or permit to engage in law practice in the Philippines.
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, including adherence to strict
ethical standards, continuous legal education, and payment of membership fees to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Upon satisfying all requirements and upon
recommendation by the Office of the Bar Confidant, the petitioner may be allowed to resume
the practice of law in the Philippines. Therefore, Attorney Epifanio B. Muneses' petition is
granted, subject to the condition that he retake the Lawyer's Oath and pay appropriate fees.
The Court also directs the Office of the Bar Confidant to draft guidelines for the re-acquisition
of the privilege to resume the practice of law for the guidance of the Bench and Bar.

—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.C. No. 5738 February 19, 2008

WILFREDO M. CATU, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA, respondent.

CORONA, J.:

Doctrine:
Public officials and employees, including lawyers in government service, are bound by
ethical standards and rules of conduct. Violations of these standards may result in
disciplinary action, including suspension from the practice of law.

Facts:
In this case, complainant Wilfredo M. Catu initiated a complaint against Atty. Vicente G.
Rellosa, who served as the punong barangay of Barangay 723, Zone 79 of the 5th District of
Manila. Complainant alleged that Rellosa, as punong barangay, presided over conciliation
proceedings between parties involved in a property dispute. Subsequently, Rellosa
represented one party in an ejectment case filed in court, which the complainant deemed as
a conflict of interest and violation of ethical standards.
Rellosa defended himself by stating that he represented one party pro bono due to financial
constraints and to prevent injustice. However, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) found Rellosa guilty of professional misconduct,
recommending a one-month suspension from the practice of law.

Issue:
Whether Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa, as punong barangay, violated ethical standards and rules
of conduct by representing one party in a legal matter after presiding over conciliation
proceedings involving the same parties.

Ruling:
Yes. Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa violated ethical standards and rules of conduct. While Rule
6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits former government lawyers
from handling matters they were involved in during their government service, does not apply
to Rellosa since he was an incumbent punong barangay, his actions still breached Section
12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules. This rule requires civil service officers and
employees, whose responsibilities do not demand full-time government service, to obtain
prior written permission from their department heads before engaging in private legal
practice. By representing one party in a legal matter without prior authorization, Rellosa
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful conduct.
Moreover, his actions undermined public confidence in the legal profession, violating Canon
7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Consequently, Rellosa is suspended from the
practice of law for six months as a disciplinary measure.

—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[A.C. NO. 6296 November 22, 2005]

ATTY. EVELYN J. MAGNO, Complainant, v. ATTY. OLIVIA VELASCO-JACOBA,

Respondent.

GARCIA, J.:

Doctrine:
In katarungan pambarangay proceedings, parties must appear in person without the
assistance of counsel, except for minors and incompetents. This requirement aims to
facilitate direct communication between parties and promote the expeditious settlement of
disputes without legal intervention.

Facts:
Atty. Evelyn J. Magno filed a disciplinary complaint against Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba,
alleging violations of Section 415 of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 and Canon
4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The dispute stemmed from a landscaping
contract disagreement between Magno and her uncle, Lorenzo Inos. Magno sought
resolution through barangay conciliation proceedings, during which Velasco-Jacoba,
representing Inos, participated despite objections.
In response, Velasco-Jacoba argued that her appearance was as Inos's attorney-in-fact, not
legal counsel. Despite her default in filing a timely answer, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline found Velasco-Jacoba guilty based on clear
evidence.

Issue:
Whether Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba's participation as attorney-in-fact in barangay
conciliation proceedings, where legal representation is prohibited, constitutes a violation of
Section 415 of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991.

Ruling:
Yes. Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba's participation as attorney-in-fact in barangay conciliation
proceedings violates Section 415 of the LGC. The provision mandates the personal
appearance of parties without legal representation, except for minors and incompetents
assisted by next of kin who are not lawyers. This requirement ensures direct communication
between parties and promotes efficient dispute resolution. Despite Velasco-Jacoba's
argument that the complaint was initially filed with the Office of the Punong Barangay and
not the Lupong Tagapamayapa, the prohibition against lawyer participation applies
universally to katarungan pambarangay proceedings. Velasco-Jacoba's repeated
appearances despite objections further aggravated the offense. Consequently, she is fined
₱5,000 for her willful violation of Section 415, with a warning of harsher penalties for future
transgressions.

—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 12, 2016

A.C. No. 11316

PATRICK A. CARONAN, Complainant

vs.
RICHARD A. CARONAN a.k.a. "ATTY. PATRICK A. CARONAN," Respondent

Doctrine:
The practice of law is a privilege limited to citizens of good moral character. Good moral
character includes honesty and integrity, essential qualities for those seeking admission to
the legal profession.

Facts:
Patrick A. Caronan filed a Complaint-Affidavit against his sibling, Richard A. Caronan, who
allegedly assumed Patrick's identity to pursue a law degree and take the Bar Examinations.
Patrick presented evidence, including educational records and personal identification,
proving his true identity. Richard, using the name "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan," faced criminal
charges and controversies, causing Patrick to fear for his safety and resign from his job.

Richard failed to appear in proceedings and did not submit any defense. The Investigating
Commissioner found Richard guilty of falsely assuming Patrick's identity and recommended
his disbarment and prohibition from legal practice.
The Issues:

Whether the IBP erred in ordering the removal of Patrick A. Caronan's name from the Roll of
Attorneys.
Whether the IBP erred in barring Richard A. Caronan from admission to the Bar.

Ruling:
Yes. The IBP did not err in ordering the removal of Patrick A. Caronan's name from the Roll
of Attorneys. The evidence overwhelmingly supports Patrick's claim of identity, and Richard's
failure to refute the allegations further validates the findings. Richard's actions constitute a
grave violation of ethical standards and justify the removal of Patrick's name from the Roll of
Attorneys.

Yes. The IBP was correct in barring Richard A. Caronan from admission to the Bar. Richard's
false assumption of Patrick's identity and lack of proper educational qualifications
demonstrate his unfitness for admission. The practice of law requires individuals of good
moral character, honesty, and integrity, qualities Richard clearly lacks due to his deceitful
actions. The Court upholds the IBP's decision to prohibit Richard from engaging in legal
practice and becoming a member of the Bar in the future.

Conclusion:
Richard A. Caronan, also known as "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan," is found guilty of falsely
assuming his brother's identity and is prohibited from practicing law. Patrick's name is
ordered to be removed from the Roll of Attorneys, and Richard is barred from admission to
the Bar. This decision upholds the integrity of the legal profession and serves as a warning
against dishonest conduct within the legal community.

—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ A.C. No. 12121 (Formerly CBD Case No. 14-4322). June 27, 2018 ]

CELESTINO MALECDAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. SIMPSON T. BALDO,

RESPONDENT.

CAGUIOA, J:

Doctrine:
The Katarungang Pambarangay Law prohibits lawyers from participating in proceedings
before the Lupon, emphasizing the importance of personal confrontation between parties for
amicable settlement. Lawyers are mandated to uphold the law and legal processes, and any
unlawful or dishonest conduct violates legal and ethical standards.

Facts:
Celestino Malecdan filed a complaint against Atty. Simpson T. Baldo for violating Presidential
Decree 1508 (P.D. 1508) by representing clients before the Lupon of Barangay Pico in La
Trinidad, Benguet. Malecdan objected to Atty. Baldo's presence during proceedings,
asserting that lawyers are barred from participating in such hearings. Atty. Baldo admitted to
appearing as counsel but claimed permission was granted by parties involved.

The IBP Baguio-Benguet Chapter initiated proceedings, and after various conferences,
Investigating Commissioner Robles recommended a warning for Atty. Baldo due to lack of
clear prohibition and propriety. The IBP Board of Governors reversed this, reprimanding Atty.
Baldo for violating P.D. 1508.

Issue:
Whether Atty. Baldo violated legal and ethical standards by representing clients before the
Lupon in contravention of P.D. 1508 and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:
Yes. Atty. Baldo's participation in proceedings before the Lupon contravened P.D. 1508,
which expressly prohibits lawyers' involvement except for minors and incompetents. This
violation extends to Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which
mandates lawyers to uphold the law and legal processes. Atty. Baldo's admission to
appearing as counsel constitutes unlawful conduct, breaching legal and ethical standards.
The Court finds him liable for violating Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. As such, Atty. Baldo is reprimanded, with a stern warning against future
transgressions.

—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPRA CASES
—------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------