1. Cayetano vs.

Monsod
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
Facts: Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon
C. Aquino to the position of chairman of the COMELEC. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod
does not posses required qualification of having been Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The 1987
constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be 8:30am – 6:00pm
a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six
Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the 7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-
five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not GUAM DIVORCE
have been candidates for any elective position in the
immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, DON PARKINSON
including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine
Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam
ten years. Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday
during office hours.
Issue: Whether the respondent does not posses the required
qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems,
least ten years. Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree’s Visa.
Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees.
Held: In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina
Agrava, stated: The practice of law is not limited to the Spouse/Children.
conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the
preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions Call Marivic.
and special proceeding, the management of such actions and
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all
action taken for them in matters connected with the law 7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy
incorporation services, assessment and condemnation
services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body, Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767
the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim
in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above
proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and reproduced are champterous, unethical, demeaning of the law
guardianship have been held to constitute law practice. profession, and destructive of the confidence of the
community in the integrity of the members of the bar and that,
Definition: Practice of law means any activity, in or out of as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and
court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, offended by the said advertisements, hence the reliefs sought
knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice in his petition as hereinbefore quoted.
of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of
profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or publication of said advertisement at its instance, but claims
render any kind of service, which service requires the use in that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering
any degree of legal knowledge or skill. of "legal support services" through paralegals with the use of
modern computers and electronic machines.
The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the
required qualification of having engaged in the practice of law It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article
for at least ten years is incorrect since Atty. Monsod’s past entitled “Rx for Legal Problems” in Star Week of Philippine
work experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is
lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of composed of specialists that can take care of a client’s
contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor – problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is as
verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement for the complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion
position of COMELEC chairman, The respondent has been situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years does In doctors, are “specialists” in various fields, can take care of it.
the view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED. 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,
2. MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner, vs.THE LEGAL CLINIC, counselors and attorneys.
INC., respondent.
Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993 As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in
view of the jurisprudence in the US which now allows it (John
Facts: Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the
n 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio advertisement is merely making known to the public the
Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was to move toward services that The Legal Clinic offers.
specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the
services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a Issue:
complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latter’s whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal
advertisements which contain the following: 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.
SECRET MARRIAGE?
Held:
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Carelo, Federico |PALE1|1
Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law also others who have sought simply the reconsideration of
however, such practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is their grades without, however, invoking the law in question. To
composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include avoid injustice to individual petitioners, the court first reviewed
various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal the motions for reconsideration, irrespective of whether or not
services from simple documentation to complex litigation and they had invoked Republic Act No. 972.
corporate undertakings. Most of these services are
undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are ISSUE: Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law.
Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being RULING: Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the
offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot fatal defect of not being embraced in the title of the Act. As per
be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a its title, the Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to
member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is 1955 Bar examinations. Section2 establishes a permanent
entitled to practice law. system for an indefinite time. It was also struck down for
allowing partial passing, thus failing to take account of the fact
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned that laws and jurisprudence are not stationary.
advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared
provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to 1955 was declared in
use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information force and effect. The portion that was stricken down was
or statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession based under the following reasons:
condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his talents. A lawyer 1. The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who
cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise flunked the bar from 1946 to 1952 had inadequate preparation
his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant due to the fact that this was very close to the end of World
advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal War II;
Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous 2. The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of
marriage, and other circumventions of law which their experts the court on the petitions of the said candidates;
can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible. 3. The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary
prerogative to determine who may be admitted to practice of
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to repeal,
are allowed. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a alter and supplement the Rules of Court. The rules laid down
well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to by Congress under this power are only minimum norms, not
trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and designed to substitute the judgment of the court on who can
conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the practice law; and
community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public 4. The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to
attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective class legislation.
service which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could
needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his not muster enough votes to declare it void. Moreover, the law
success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by- was passed in 1952, to take effect in 1953. Hence, it will not
product of able service and the unwholesome result of revoke existing Supreme Court resolutions denying admission
propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the to the bar of an petitioner. The same may also rationally fall
following as allowed forms of advertisement: within the power to Congress to alter, supplement or modify
rules of admission to the practice of law.
Advertisement in a reputable law list
Use of ordinary simple professional card Held: RA No. 972 has for its object, according to its author, to
Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his admit to the Bar, those candidates who suffered from
specialization insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparation.

In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the
3.IN RE CUNANAN admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of
attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their
FACTS: supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and
Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the responsibility. We have said that in the judicial system from
Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The title of the law was, “An Act to which ours has been derived, the admission, suspension,
Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice
and including 1955.” of the profession is concededly judicial.
Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
1946-1951………………70% On this matter, there is certainly a clear distinction between
1952 …………………….71% the functions of the judicial and legislative departments of the
1953……………………..72% government.
1954……………………..73%
1955……………………..74% It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license
Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and
lower than 50%. the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive
Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who character, or as other authorities may say, merely to fix the
obtained a grade of 75% in any subject shall be deemed to minimum conditions for the license.
have already passed that subject and the grade/grades shall
be included in the computation of the general average in (Ito lang yung history sinama ko lang)
subsequent bar examinations.” R.A. No. 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover
After its approval, many of the unsuccessful postwar initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. The Act
candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its is a consolidation of House Bill No. 21505 and Senate Bill No.
provisions, while other motions for the revision of their 17. The former was prepared by the committee on Suffrage
examination papers were still pending also invoked the and Electoral Reforms of Representatives on the basis of two
aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. There are 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 The reasons of Meling in not disclosing the criminal cases filed
No. 988, which dealt with the subject matter of House Bill No. against him in his petition to take the Bar Examinations are
497, as well as with initiative and referendum under Section 3 ludicrous. He should have known that only the court of
of Article XVII of the Constitution. Senate Bill No. 17 solely, competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases, not a retired judge
dealt with initiative and referendum concerning ordinances or nor a law professor. In fact, the cases filed against Meling are
resolutions of local government units. The Bicameral still pending. Furthermore, granting arguendo that these
Conference Committee consolidated Senate Bill No. 17 and cases were already dismissed, he is still required to disclose
House Bill No. 21505 into a draft bill, which was subsequently the same for the Court to ascertain his good moral character.
approved on 8 June 1989 by the Senate and by the House of Petitions to take the Bar Examinations are made under oath,
Representatives. This approved bill is now R.A. No. 6735. and should not be taken lightly by an applicant.

Issue: WON the imposition of appropriate sanctions upon

4. In re: Meling Haron S. Meling is proper and shall subsequently barred him
ATTY. FROILAN R. MELENDREZ, petitioner, from taking his lawyer’s oath and signing on the Roll of
B.M. No. 1154. June 8, 2004 Attorneys

Facts: Held:

On October 14, 2002, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez (Melendrez) The Petition is GRANTED insofar as it seeks the imposition of
filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to appropriate sanctions upon Haron S. Meling as a member of
disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar the Philippine Shari’a Bar. Accordingly, the membership of
Examinations and to impose on him the appropriate Haron S. Meling in the Philippine Shari’a Bar is hereby
disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar. SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court, the
suspension to take effect immediately. Insofar as the Petition
In the Petition, Melendrez alleges that Meling did not disclose seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from taking the Lawyer’s
in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the
three (3) pending criminal cases before the Municipal Trial Philippine Bar, the same is DISMISSED for having become
Court in Cities (MTCC), Cotabato City, namely: Criminal moot and academic.
Cases Noa. 15685 and 15686, both for Grave Oral
Defamation, and Criminal Case No. 15687 for Less Serious Rationale:
Physical Injuries.
Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari’a
Court, is not a matter of right but merely a privilege bestowed
The above-mentioned cases arose from an incident which upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who
occurred on May 21, 2001, when Meling allegedly uttered are also known to possess good moral character. The
defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife in front of requirement of good moral character is not only a condition
media practitioners and other people. Meling also purportedly precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued
attacked and hit the face of Melendrez’ wife causing the possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of
injuries to the latter. law.

Furthermore, Melendrez alleges that Meling has been using The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to
the title “Attorney” in his communications, as Secretary to the determine whether there is satisfactory evidence of good
Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a moral character of the applicant. The nature of whatever
member of the Bar. Attached to the Petition is an indorsement cases are pending against the applicant would aid the Court in
letter which shows that Meling used the appellation and determining whether he is endowed with the moral fitness
appears on its face to have been received by the demanded of a lawyer. By concealing the existence of such
Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cotabato City on November 27, cases, the applicant then flunks the test of fitness even if the
2001. cases are ultimately proven to be unwarranted or insufficient
to impugn or affect the good moral character of the applicant.
Pursuant to this Court’s Resolution dated December 3, 2002,
Meling filed his Answer with the OBC. 5. PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF
LAW, BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, PETITIONER 540 SCRA
In his Answer, Meling explains that he did not disclose the 424
criminal cases filed against him by Melendrez because retired
Judge Corocoy Moson, their former professor, advised him to Facts:
settle his misunderstanding with Melendrez. Believing in good Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960.
faith that the case would be settled because the said Judge He practiced law until he migrated to Canada in December
has moral ascendancy over them, he being their former 1998 to seek medical attention for his ailments. He
professor in the College of Law, Meling considered the three subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of
cases that actually arose from a single incident and involving Canada's free medical aid program. Became a Canadian
the same parties as “closed and terminated.” Moreover, citizen in May 2004. On July 14, 2006, pursuant to RA 9225,
Meling denies the charges and adds that the acts complained petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. He took his
of do not involve moral turpitude. oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine
consulate general in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, he returned
As regards the use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that to the Philippines and now intends to resume his law practice
some of his communications really contained the word
“Attorney” as they were, according to him, typed by the office Issue:
clerk. Whether petitioner lost his membership in the Philippine bar
when he gave up his Philippine citizenship in May 2004
In its Report and Recommendation dated December 8, 2003,
the OBC disposed of the charge of non-disclosure against Ruling:
Meling in this wise: 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 On 12 May 1964, the Court of Industrial Relations awarded
protect and promote the public welfare. 25% of the backwages as compensation for professional
Any breach by a lawyer of any of the conditions makes him services rendered in the case
unworthy of the trust and confidence which the courts and
client repose in him for the continued exercise of his The award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a lawyer
professional privilege. according to the order, is sought to be voided in the present
Admission to the bar requires certain qualifications. The rules petition.
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 Respondent Muning moved in this Court to dismiss the
Philippines. present petition on the ground of late filing but his motion was
The constitution provides that the practice of all professions in overruled on 20 January 1965.1 He asked for reconsideration,
the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens save in but, considering that the motion contained averments that go
cases prescribed by law. Since Filipino citizenship is a into the merits of the case, this Court admitted and considered
requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates the motion for reconsideration for all purposes as respondent's
membership in the Philippine bar and consequently the answer to the petitioner for review.2 The case was considered
privilege to engage in the practice of law. The practice of law submitted for decision without respondent's brief.3
is a privileged denied to foreigners.
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of Issue:
naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal services
acquired pursuant to RA9225. This is because all Philippine rendered?
citizens who become citizens of another country shall be
deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship. Held:

Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another On the present issue, the rule in American jurisdictions is
country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship persuasive. There, it is stated:
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 But in practically all jurisdictions statutes have now been
accrues. He must first secure from the court the authority to do enacted prohibiting persons not licensed or admitted to the bar
so. 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
6. G.R. No. L-23959 November 29, 1971 services were rendered. 5

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS No one is entitled to recover compensation for services as an
(PAFLU), ENRIQUE ENTILA & VICTORIANO attorney at law unless he has been duly admitted to practice ...
TENAZAS petitioners,  and is an attorney in good standing at the time.6
vs.
BINALBAGAN ISABELA SUGAR COMPANY, COURT OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, & QUINTIN The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession should
MUNING respondents. 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
Facts: 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
The above-named petitioners were complainants in Case No. leave the public in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult
72-ULP-Iloilo entitled, "PAFLU et al. vs. Binalbagan Isabela in case of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic
Sugar Co., et al." After trial, the Court of Industrial Relations condition, aside from the fact that non-lawyers are not
rendered a decision, on 29 March 1961, ordering the amenable to disciplinary measures. 10
reinstatement with backwages of complainants Enrique Entila
and Victorino Tenazas. Said decision became final. On 18 And the general rule above-stated (referring to non-recovery
October 1963, Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of record of attorney's fees by non-lawyers) cannot be circumvented
for the winning complainants, filed a notice of attorney's lien when the services were purely legal, by seeking to recover as
equivalent to 30% of the total backwages. On 22 November an "agent" and not as an attorney. 11
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- The weight of the reasons heretofore stated why a non-lawyer
objection to an award of attorney's fees for 25% of their may not be awarded attorney's fees should suffice to refute
backwages, and, on the same day, Quentin Muning filed a the possible argument that appearances by non-lawyers
"Petition for the Award of Services Rendered" equivalent to before the Court of Industrial Relations should be excepted on
20% of the backwages. Munings petition was opposed by the ground that said court is a court of special jurisdiction;
Cipriano Cid & Associates the ground that he is not a lawyer. such special jurisdiction does not weigh the aforesaid reasons
and cannot justify an exception.
The records of Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo show that the charge
was filed by Cipriano Cid & Associates through Atty. Atanacio 7. CATU vs. RELLOSA (A.C. No. 5738 02/19/2008)
Pacis. All the hearings were held in Bacolod City and
appearances made in behalf of the complainants were at first Facts: Petitioner initiated a complaint against Elizabeth Catu
by Attorney Pacis and subsequently by respondent Quintin and Antonio Pastor who were occupying one of the units in a
Muning. 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 * Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
been summoned for conciliation proceedings and failing to immoral or deceitful conduct.
arrive at an amicable settlement, were issued by the
respondent a certification for the filing of the appropriate action For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with
in court. Petitioner, thus, filed a complaint for ejectment the exacting ethical standards of the legal profession,
against Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial Court of respondent failed to comply with Canon 7 of the Code of
Manila where respondent entered his appearance as counsel Professional Responsibility:
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 * CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD
public officer when he stood as counsel for the defendants THE INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL
despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE
proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay. In his INTEGRATED BAR.
defense, respondent claimed that as punong barangay, he
performed his task without bias and that he acceded to A lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he
Elizabeth’s request to handle the case for free as she was disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legal
financially distressed. The complaint was then referred to the profession. Every lawyer should act and comport himself in a
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) where after evaluation, manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the
they found sufficient ground to discipline respondent. legal profession. A member of the bar may be disbarred or
According to them, respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code suspended from his office as an attorney for violation of the
of Professional Responsibility and, as an elective official, the lawyer's oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal
prohibition under Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713. Consequently, profession as embodied in the Code of Professional
for the violation of the latter prohibition, respondent committed Responsibility.
a breach of Canon 1. Consequently, for the violation of the
latter prohibition, respondent was then recommended WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa is hereby
suspension from the practice of law for one month with a stern found GUILTY of professional misconduct for violating his oath
warning that the commission of the same or similar act will be as a lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
dealt with more severely. Professional Responsibility. He is therefore SUSPENDED
from the practice of law for a period of six months effective
ISSUE: Whether or not the foregoing findings regarding the from his receipt of this resolution. He is sternly WARNED that
transgression of respondent as well as the recommendation any repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
on the imposable penalty of the respondent were proper.
Respondent is strongly advised to look up and take to heart
HELD: No. First, respondent cannot be found liable for the meaning of the word delicadeza.
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 8. A.M. No. P-220 December 20, 1978
service. In the case at bar, respondent was an incumbent
punong barangay. Apparently, he does not fall within the JULIO ZETA, complainant, vs. FELICISIMO
purview of the said provision. MALINAO, respondent.

Second, it is not Section 90 of RA 7160 but Section 7(b) (2) of Facts:

RA 6713 which governs the practice of profession of elective
local government officials. While RA 6713 generally applies
Administrative complaint against Felicisimo Malinao court
to all public officials and employees, RA 7160, being a special
interpreter of the Court of First Instance of Catbalogan, Samar
law, constitutes an exception to RA 6713 .Moreover, while
charging as follows:
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 l — ILLEGALLY APPEARING IN COURT. — MR. Malinao has
practice their profession or engage in any occupation, no been appearing in the municipal court of this town for parties
such interdiction is made on the punong barangay and the like attorney when he is not an attorney. Reliable information
members of the sangguniang barangay. Expressio unius est also says he has been appearing in the municipal courts of
exclusio alterius since they are excluded from any prohibition, Daram, Zumarraga, Talalora and even Sta. Rita. He is not
the presumption is that they are allowed to practice their authorized to do so we believe. He makes it his means of
profession. Respondent, therefore, is not forbidden to practice livelihood as he collects fees from his clients. He competes
his profession. 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.
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 2 — GRAVE MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE. — Being employed
regulations. The failure of respondent to comply with Section in the Court of First Instance he would instigate persons,
12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules constitutes a especially in his barrio to grab land rob or coerce. In fact he
violation of his oath as a lawyer: to obey the laws. In acting as has cases in the municipal court in this town involving himself
counsel for a party without first securing the required written and his men. He incite them telling them not to be afraid as he
permission, respondent not only engaged in the unauthorized is a court employee and has influence over the judges. Those
practice of law but also violated a civil service rules which is a persons being ignorant would believe him and so would
breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional commit crimes. This act of Mr. Malinao is contrary to good
Responsibility: 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 9. In Re: Al C. Argosino 246 SCRA 14 (1995)
is unfaithfully filing his time record in the CFI. Even he has
been out practicing in the municipal courts sometimes he FACTS:
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 On February 4, 1992 ,Argosino, together with 13 others, was
try to cure it by submitting application for leave but this should charged with the crime of homicide in connection with the
not be allowed as he has already committed crime. 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
4 — VIOLATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER AND CIVIL fraternity initiation rites. On February 11, 1993, the accused
SERVICE LAW.-WE have reliable information it is prohibited were consequently sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a
for a civil service employee to engage in private practice any period ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1)
profession or business without permission from the day to four (4) years.
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 Eleven (11) days later, Mr. Argosino and his colleagues filed
Executive Order and Civil Service Law and we are urgently an application for probation with the lower court. The
and earnestly requesting the Commissioner of Civil Service to application was granted on June 18 1993. The period of
investigate him on this. If warranted he should be given the probation was set at two (2) years, counted from the
corresponding penalty as dismissal because we believe he probationer's initial report to the probation officer assigned to
deserve it. supervise him.

Issue: 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.
Is the respondent, as a court interpreter, allowed to practice
law?
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.
Held: No. He averred that his probation period had been terminated. It is
noted that his probation period did not last for more than 10
We have carefully reviewed the record, and We find the months.
conclusions of fact of the Investigator to be amply supported
by the evidence, particularly the documents consisting of ISSUE: Whether Argosino should be allowed to take the oath
public records and the declarations of the judges before whom of attorney and be admitted to the practice of law
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 HELD:
service rules and regulations, falsified his time record of
service by making it appear therein that he was present in his Mr. Argosino must submit to this Court evidence that he may
office on occasions when in fact he was in the municipal now be regarded as complying with the requirement of good
courts appearing as counsel, without being a member of the moral character imposed upon those who are seeking
bar, which, furthermore, constitutes illegal practice of law. We, admission to the bar. He should show to the Court how he has
therefore, adopt the above findings of fact of the Investigator. tried to make up for the senseless killing of a helpless student
to the family of the deceased student and to the community at
The defense of respondent that "his participation (sic) for large. In short, he must show evidence that he is a different
defendants' cause was gratuitous as they could not engage person now, that he has become morally fit for admission to
the services of counsel by reason of poverty and the absence the profession of law.
of one in the locality" cannot, even if true, carry the day for
him, considering that in appearing as counsel in court, he did Given the fact that Mr. Argosino had exhibited competent
so without permission from his superiors and, worse, he proof that he possessed the required good moral character as
falsified his time record of service to conceal his absence from required before taking the Lawyer’s Oath and to sign the Rolls
his office on the dates in question. Indeed, the number of of Attorneys, the Supreme Court considered the premises that
times that respondent acted as counsel under the above he is not inherently in bad moral fiber. In giving the benefit of
circumstances would indicate that he was doing it as a regular the doubt, Mr. Argosino was finally reminded that the Lawyer’s
practice obviously for considerations other than pure love of Oath is not merely a ceremony or formality before the practice
justice. of law, and that the community assistance he had started is
expected to continue in serving the more unfortunate
In the premises, it is quite obvious that the offense committed members of the society.
by respondent is grave, hence it warrants a more drastic
sanction than that of reprimand recommended by Judge Zosa. He is already directed to inform the Court, by appropriate
We find no alternative than to separate him from the service, written manifestation, of the names of the parents or brothers
with the admonition that he desist from appearing in any court and sisters of Camaligan from notice
or investigative body wherein Only members of the bar are
allowed to practice. Definitions:

WHEREFORE, respondent Felicisimo Malinao is hereby * The practice of law is a high personal privilege limited to
ordered dismissed from his position as interpreter in the Court citizens of good moral character, with special education
of First Instance, CFI, Zumarraga, Western Samar with qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.
prejudice to reemployment in the judicial branch of the
government.

Carelo, Federico |PALE1|6

* Requirement of good moral character is of greater respondent's use of the name "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan"
importance so far as the general public and proper continued to hound him. In July 2013, PSC received a letter
administration of justice is concerned. from Quasha Ancheta Pena & Nolasco Law Offices requesting
that they be furnished with complainant's contact details or, in
* All aspects of moral character and behavior may be inquired the alternative, schedule a meeting with him to discuss certain
into in respect of those seeking admission to the Bar. 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
* Requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by (church-member's) relatives. Complainant also received a
those who would seek admission to the bar must be a phone call from a certain Mrs. Loyda L. Reyes (Reyes), who
necessity more stringent than the norm of conduct expected narrated how respondent tricked her into believing that he was
from members of the general public. authorized to sell a parcel of land in Taguig City when in fact,
he was not. Further, he learned that respondent was arrested
* Participation in the prolonged mindless physical beatings for gun-running activities, illegal possession of explosives, and
inflicted upon Raul Camaligan constituted evident rejection of violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (BP) 22.
that moral duty and was totally irresponsible behavior, which
makes impossible a finding that the participant was possessed Due to the controversies involving respondent's use of the
of good moral character. name "Patrick A. Caronan," complainant developed a fear for
his own safety and security.26 He also became the subject of
* Good moral character is a requirement possession of which conversations among his colleagues, which eventually forced
must be demonstrated at the time of the application for him to resign from his job at PSC. Hence, complainant filed
permission to take the bar examinations and more importantly the present Complaint-Affidavit to stop respondent's alleged
at the time of application for admission to the bar and to take use of the former's name and identity, and illegal practice of
the attorney's oath of office. law.

Since respondent falsely assumed the name, identity, and

academic records of complainant and the real "Patrick A.
10. A.C. No. 11316, July 12, 2016 Caronan" neither obtained the bachelor of laws degree nor
PATRICK A. CARONAN, Complainant, v. RICHARD A. took the Bar Exams, the Investigating Commissioner
CARONAN A.K.A. "ATTY. PATRICK A. CARONAN," recommended that the name "Patrick A. Caronan" with Roll of
Respondent. 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
Facts: Complainant and respondent are siblings born to a member of the Bar; and finally, for making a mockery of the
Porferio2 R. Caronan, Jr. and Norma A. Caronan. Respondent judicial institution, the IBP was directed to institute appropriate
is the older of the two, having been born on February 7, 1975, actions against respondent.
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 Issue:
in 1991. Upon his graduation, complainant enrolled at the
University of Makati where he obtained a degree in Business Whether or not the IBP erred in ordering that: (a) the name
Administration in 1997. He started working thereafter as a "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Attorneys; and
Sales Associate for Philippine Seven Corporation (PSC), the (b) the name "Richard A. Caronan" be barred from being
operator of 7-11 Convenience Stores. admitted to the Bar.

Meanwhile, upon graduating from high school, respondent Held:

enrolled at the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM),
where he stayed for one (1) year before transferring to the After a thorough evaluation of the records, the Court finds no
Philippine Military Academy (PMA) in 1992. In 1993, he was cogent reason to disturb the findings and recommendations of
discharged from the PMA and focused on helping their father the IBP.
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 As correctly observed by the IBP, complainant has established
earn a college degree. 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,
In 1999, during a visit to his family in Metro Manila, identity, and academic records to enroll at the St. Mary's
respondent told complainant that the former had enrolled in a University's College of Law, obtain a law degree, and take the
law school in Nueva Vizcaya. Subsequently, in 2004, their Bar Examinations.
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. As pointed out by the IBP, respondent admitted that he and
Mary's University's College of Law in Bayombong, Nueva complainant are siblings when he disclosed upon his arrest on
Vizcaya and take the Bar Examinations. Complainant brushed August 31, 2012 that his parents are Porferio Ramos Caronan
these aside as he did not anticipate any adverse and Norma Atillo.49 Respondent himself also stated that he is
consequences to him. 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
Realizing that respondent had been using his name to Moreover, the photograph taken of respondent when he was
perpetrate crimes and commit unlawful activities, complainant arrested as "Richard A. Caronan" on August 16, 2012 shows
took it upon himself to inform other people that he is the real the same person as the one in the photograph in the IBP
"Patrick A. Caronan" and that respondent's real name is records of "Atty. Patrick A. Caronan."52 Meanwhile,
Richard A. Caronan. However, problems relating to complainant submitted numerous documents showing that he
Carelo, Federico |PALE1|7
is the real "Patrick A. Caronan," among which are: (a) his 11. BM No. 2112 In re: petition to re acquire the privelege
transcript of records from the University of Makati bearing his to practice law in the phil
photograph;53 (b) a copy of his high school yearbook with his
photograph and the name "Patrick A. Caronan" under it;54 Facts: On June 8, 2009, petitioner Epifanio B. Muneses with
and (c) NBI clearances obtained in 2010 and 2013. the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) praying that he be
granted the privilege to practice law in the Philippines.
To the Court's mind, the foregoing indubitably confirm that
respondent falsely used complainant's name, identity, and Petitioner became a member of the IBP in 1966 but lost his
school records to gain admission to the Bar. Since privilege to practice law when he became a American citizen
complainant - the real "Patrick A. Caronan" - never took the in 1981. In 2006, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship
Bar Examinations, the IBP correctly recommended that the pursuant to RA 9225 or the “Citizenship Retention and Re-
name "Patrick A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of Acquisition Act of 2003” by taking his oath of allegiance as a
Attorneys. Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate in Washington,
D.C. He intends to retire in the Philippines and if granted, to
The IBP was also correct in ordering that respondent, whose resume the practice of law.
real name is "Richard A. Caronan," be barred from admission
to the Bar. Under Section 6, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, Issue: whether or not the petition of Muneses praying that he
no applicant for admission to the Bar Examination shall be be granted the privelege to practice law in the Philippines.
admitted unless he had pursued and satisfactorily completed a
pre-law course, viz.:
Ruling: The Court reiterates that Filipino citizenship is a
requirement for admission to the bar and is, in fact, a
Section 6. Pre-Law. - No applicant for admission to the bar continuing requirement for the practice of law. The loss thereof
examination shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate means termination of the petitioner’s membership in the bar;
that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he ipso jure the privilege to engage in the practice of law. Under
began the study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily R.A. No. 9225, natural-born citizens who have lost their
completed in an authorized and recognized university or Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as
college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired
four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance
therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of to the Republic. Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen
the following subject as major or field of concentration: political of another country and later re-acquires his Philippine
science, logic, english, Spanish, history, and economics. citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a member of
(Emphases supplied) the Philippine Bar. However, as stated in Dacanay, the right
to resume the practice of law is not automatic. R.A. No. 9225
In the case at hand, respondent never completed his college provides that a person who intends to practice his profession
degree. While he enrolled at the PLM in 1991, he left a year in the Philippines must apply with the proper authority for a
later and entered the PMA where he was discharged in 1993 license or permit to engage in such practice.
without graduating. Clearly, respondent has not completed the
requisite pre-law degree. Thus, in pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the Court
for the practice of law, the OBC required, and incompliance
The Court does not discount the possibility that respondent thereof, petitioner submitted the following:
may later on complete his college education and earn a law
degree under his real name. However, his false assumption of 1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
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 2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
everyone who demands it. Rather, it is a privilege limited to
citizens of good moral character. 3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;

Here, respondent exhibited his dishonesty and utter lack of 4. Certificate of Re-Acquisition/Retention of Philippine
moral fitness to be a member of the Bar when he assumed the Citizenship issued by the Bureau of Immigration, in lieu of the
name, identity, and school records of his own brother and IC;
dragged the latter into controversies which eventually caused
him to fear for his safety and to resign from PSC where he had 5. Certification dated May 19, 2010 of the IBP-Surigao City
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 Chapter attesting to his good moral character as well as his
between him and his client, as well as between him and the updated payment of annual membership dues;
court.
6. Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) for the year 2010;
Finally, respondent made a mockery of the legal profession by
pretending to have the necessary qualifications to be a lawyer. 7. Certificate of Compliance with the MCLE for the 2nd
He also tarnished the image of lawyers with his alleged compliance period; and
unscrupulous activities, which resulted in the filing of several
criminal cases against him. Certainly, respondent and his acts
8. Certification dated December 5, 2008 of Atty. Gloria
do not have a place in the legal profession where one of the
Estenzo-Ramos, Coordinator, UC-MCLE Program,
primary duties of its members is to uphold its integrity and
dignity.
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 Held:
compliance, particularly with the MCLE. After all the
requirements were satisfactorily complied with and finding that Yes.
the petitioner has met all the qualifications, the OBC
recommended that the petitioner be allowed to resume his
practice of law. 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
WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney Epifanio B. Muneses is money-making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that
hereby GRANTED, subject to the condition that he shall re- necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be
take the Lawyer's Oath on a date to be set by the Court and a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to
subject to the payment of appropriate fees. the administration of justice should be the primary
consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal
interests or what they owe to themselves.3

12. A.C. No. 10164               March 10, 2014 Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that:
STEPHAN BRUNET and VIRGINIA ROMANILLOS
BRUNET, Complainants, vs. CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
ATTY. RONALD L. GUAREN, Respondent and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him.
Facts:
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence
Complainants alleged that in February 1997, they engaged the and diligence.
services of Atty. Guaren for the titling of a residential lot they
acquired in Bonbon, Nueva Caseres; that Atty. Guaren asked In the present case, Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted
for a fee of Ten Thousand Pesos ( 竄 ｱ 10,000.00) including the amount of ₱7,000.00 as partial payment of his acceptance
expenses relative to its proceeding; that it was agreed that full fee. He, however, failed to perform his obligation to file the
payment of the fee shall be made after the delivery of the title; case for the titling of complainants' lot despite the lapse of 5
that Atty. Guaren asked for an advance fee of One Thousand years. Atty. Guaren breached his duty to serve his client with
Pesos (Pl,000.00) which they gave; that Atty. Guaren took all competence and diligence when he neglected a legal matter
the pertinent documents relative to the titling of their lot- entrusted to him.1âwphi1
certified true copy of the tax declaration, original copy of the
deed of exchange, sketch plan, deed of donation, survey plan, WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ronald L. Guaren is found
and original copy of the waiver; that on March 10, 1997, Atty. GUILTY of having violated Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of
Guaren asked for additional payment of Six Thousand Pesos Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from
( 竄 ｱ 6,000.00) which they dutifully gave; that from 1997 to the practice of law for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS effective
2001, they always reminded Atty. Guaren about the case and from receipt of this Resolution, with a warning that a similar
each time he would say that the titling was in progress; that infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
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 13. A.C. No. 5377 June 30, 2014
amount of Five Thousand Pesos (竄ｱ 5,000.00) be deducted
to answer for his professional fees. VICTOR C. LINGAN, Complainant, vs.ATTYS. ROMEO
CALUBAQUIB and JIMMY P. BALIGA, Respondents.
 the Report and Recommendation,1 dated August 24, 2012,
the Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Guaren to have Facts:A complaint for disbarment was filed by Victor Lingan
violated the Canon of Professional Responsibility when he against Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy Baliga on
accepted the titling of complainants’ lot and despite the November 16, 2000. Complainant alleged that respondents,
acceptance of ₱7,000.00, he failed to perform his obligation both notaries public, falsified certain public documents, as
and allowed 5 long years to elapse without any progress in the follows:
titling of the lot. Atty. Guaren should also be disciplined for
appearing in a case against complainants without a written 1. A complaint for annulment of title with damages filed by
consent from the latter. The CBD recommended that he be Isaac Villegas against complainant with the Regional Trial
suspended for six (6) months. Court of Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Respondent Calubaquib
signed the verification and certification of non-forum shopping
In its May 20, 2013 Resolution, 2 the IBP Board of Governors, of the complaint as notary public and entered the same as
adopted and approved with modification the Report and Doc. No. 182; Page No. 38; Book No. CLXXII; Series of 1996,
Recommendation of the CBD, suspending Atty. Guaren from which according to the records of the National Archives, the
the practice of law for three (3) months only. 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.
The Court adopts the findings of the IBP Board of Governors
on the unethical conduct of Atty. Guaren, except as to the
penalty. 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
Issue:
under such terms and conditions acceptable to him” which
was notarized by respondent Baliga and entered as Doc. No.
Whether or not respondent violated the code of professional 548, Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996, which
responsibility according to respondentBaliga’snotarial register, Doc. No.

Carelo, Federico |PALE1|9

548; Page No. 110; Book No. VIII; Series of 1996 pertains to On 21 May 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath-
an affidavit of loss of one Pedro Telan, dated August 26, 1996. taking of successful bar examinees as members of the
Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre
3. A petition for reappointment as notary public for and in (complainant) filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of
Tuguegarao,Cagayan by respondent Baliga, which was Admission to the Bar. Complainant charged respondent with
notarized by respondent Calubaquib and entered in his unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of
notarial register as Doc. No. 31, Page No. 08, Book No. law, and grave misrepresentation.
CXXX, Series of 1995. However, Notarial Register Book No.
CXXX was for the year 1996 and entered there as Doc. No. The Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member of
31, Page No. 08 was a cancellation of real estate mortgage the Bar during the scheduled oath-taking on 22 May 2001 at
dated January 11, 1996. Respondents Calubaquib and Baliga the Philippine International Convention Center. However, the
both admitted the incorrectness of the entries and simply Court ruled that respondent could not sign the Roll of
attributed them to the inadvertence in good faith of their Attorneys pending the resolution of the charge against him.
secretary and legal assistants to whom they had left the task Thus, respondent took the lawyers oath on the scheduled date
of entering all his notarial documents. but has not signed the Roll of Attorneys up to now.

ISSUE: Complainant charges respondent for unauthorized practice of

law and grave misconduct. Complainant alleges that
Whether or not respondents violated the Notarial Practice Law 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.
RULING: Complainant further alleges that respondent filed with the
MBEC a pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal
This court suspended Atty. Baliga from the practice of law for Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some
one year on June 15, 2006, "effective immediately."75 From Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor. In this pleading,
the time Atty. Baliga received the court's order of suspension respondent represented himself as counsel for and in behalf of
on July 5, 2006,76 he has been without authority to practice Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan, and signed the
law. He lacked a necessary qualification to his position as pleading as counsel for George Bunan (Bunan).
Commission on Human Rights Regional Director/ Attorney VI.
As the Commission on Human Rights correctly resolved in its On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that
resolution dated January 16, 2007: respondent is a municipal government employee, being a
secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate.
WHEREAS, this suspension under ethical standards, in effect, As such, respondent is not allowed by law to act as counsel
prevents Atty. Baliga from assuming his post, for want of for a client in any court or administrative body.
eligibility in the meantime that his authority to practice law is
suspended. This is without prejudice to the investigation to be On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation,
conducted to the practice of law of Atty. Baliga, which in the complainant accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice
case of all Regional Human Rights Directors is not generally mayoralty candidate George Bunan (Bunan) without the latter
allowed by the Commission; engaging respondents services. Complainant claims that
respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the
In ordering Atty. Baliga suspended from office as Regional proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty candidate.
Director, the Commission on Human Rights did not violate
Atty. Baliga's right to due process. First, he was only On 22 May 2001, the Court issued a resolution allowing
suspended after: investigation by the Commission on Human respondent to take the lawyers oath but disallowed him from
Rights Legal and Investigation Office.78Second, the signing the Roll of Attorneys until he is cleared of the charges
Commission gave Atty. Baliga an opportunity to be heard against him. In the same resolution, the Court required
when he filed his motion for reconsideration. respondent to comment on the complaint against him.

Atty. Baliga's performance of generally managerial functions In his Comment, respondent admits that Bunan sought his
was not supported by the record. It was also specific assistance to represent him before the MBEC.
immaterial.1âwphi1 He held the position of Commission on Respondent claims that he decided to assist and advice
Human Rights Regional Director because of his authority to Bunan, not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law.
practice law. Without this authority, Atty. Baliga was Respondent admits signing the 19 May 2001 pleading that
disqualified to hold that position. objected to the inclusion of certain votes in the canvassing. He
explains, however, that he did not sign the pleading as a
All told, performing the functions of a Commission on Human lawyer or represented himself as an attorney in the pleading.
Rights Regional Director constituted practice of law. Atty.
Baliga should have desisted from holding his position as On his employment as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan,
Regional Director. respondent claims that he submitted his resignation on 11
May 2001 which was allegedly accepted on the same date. He
14. [B. M. No. 1036. June 10, 2003] submitted a copy of the Certification of Receipt of Revocable
Resignation dated 28 May 2001 signed by Vice-Mayor
DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, complainant, vs. EDWIN L. Napoleon Relox. Respondent further claims that the complaint
RANA, respondent. 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
Facts: be dismissed for lack of merit and that he be allowed to sign
the Roll of Attorneys.
Respondent Edwin L. Rana (respondent) was among those
who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations.
Carelo, Federico |PALE1|10
On 22 June 2001, complainant filed her Reply to respondents True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations
Comment and refuted the claim of respondent that his and took the lawyer’s oath. However, it is the signing in the
appearance before the MBEC was only to extend specific Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer.
assistance to Bunan. Complainant alleges that on 19 May The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is
2001 Emily Estipona-Hao (Estipona-Hao) filed a petition for immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to
proclamation as the winning candidate for mayor. Respondent become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two
signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in this petition. When essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be
respondent appeared as counsel before the MBEC, performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by
complainant questioned his appearance on two grounds: (1) this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
respondent had not taken his oath as a lawyer; and (2) he was
an employee of the government.
15. B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013
Issue: IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS
Whether or not respondent engaged in the unauthorized MICHAEL A. MEDADO, Petitioner.
practice of law and thus does not deserve admission to the
Philippine FACTS:
Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with
Held: the degree of Bachelor of Laws in 1979, and
Yes. passed the same year’s bar examinations with a general
We agree with the findings and conclusions of the OBC that weighted average of 82.7. On 7
respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and May 1980, he took the Attorney’s Oath
thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar. at the Philippine International Convention Center
Respondent took his oath as lawyer on 22 May 2001. (PICC) together with the successful bar examinees. He was
However, the records show that respondent appeared as scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980, but
counsel for Bunan prior to 22 May 2001, before respondent he failed to do so on his scheduled date,
took the lawyers oath. In the pleading entitled Formal allegedly because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the
Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Roll of Attorneys given by the Bar Office when he went home
Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor dated 19 May 2001, to his province for a vacation. Several years later, while
respondent signed as counsel for George Bunan. In the first rummaging through his old college files, Medado found the
paragraph of the same pleading respondent stated that he Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. It was then that he
was the (U)ndersigned Counsel for, and in behalf of Vice realized that he had not signed in the roll, and that
Mayoralty Candidate, GEORGE T. BUNAN. Bunan himself what he had signed at the
wrote the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he had authorized Atty. entrance of the PICC was probably just an attendance record.
Edwin L. Rana as his counsel to represent him before the By the time Medado found the notice, he was already working.
MBEC and similar bodies. He stated that he was mainly doing corporate and taxation
work, and that he was not actively involved in litigation
On 14 May 2001, mayoralty candidate Emily Estipona-Hao practice. Thus, he operated “under the mistaken belief [that]
also retained respondent as her counsel. On the same date, since he
14 May 2001, Erly D. Hao informed the MBEC that Atty. Edwin ha[d] already taken the oath, the signing of
L. Rana has been authorized by REFORMA LM-PPC as the the Roll of Attorneys was not as urgent, nor as crucial to his
legal counsel of the party and the candidate of the said party. status as a lawyer”; and “
Respondent himself wrote the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he the matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys lost its urgency
was entering his appearance as counsel for Mayoralty and compulsion, and was subsequently forgotten.” In 2005,
Candidate Emily Estipona-Hao and for the REFORMA LM- when Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal
PPC. On 19 May 2001, respondent signed as counsel for Education (MCLE) seminars, he was required to
Estipona-Hao in the petition filed before the MBEC praying for provide his roll number in order for his MCLE compliances to
the proclamation of Estipona-Hao as the winning candidate for be credited. Not having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was
mayor of Mandaon, Masbate. unable to provide his roll number. About seven years later, or
on 6 February 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition, praying
All these happened even before respondent took the lawyers that he be allowed
oath. Clearly, respondent engaged in the practice of law to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. The Office of the Bar Confidant
without being a member of the Philippine Bar. (OBC) recommended that the instant petition be denied for
he Court held that “practice of law” means any activity, in or petitioner’s gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack
out of court, which requires the application of law, legal of merit.
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in
the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually ISSUE: WON Medado should be allowed to sign the roll of
performed by members of the legal profession. Generally, to attorney’s
practice law is to render any kind of service which requires the
use of legal knowledge or skill. HELD: YES. Not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys would be akin to imposing upon him the ultimate
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right penalty of disbarment, a penalty that we have reserved for the
but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral most serious ethical transgressions of members of the Bar. In
character with special qualifications duly ascertained and this case, the records do not show that this action is
certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes warranted. petitioner demonstrated good faith and good moral
possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational character when he finally filed the instant Petition to Sign in
attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the Roll of Attorneys.
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.

Carelo, Federico |PALE1|11

Carelo, Federico |PALE1|12