THE ANIMAL WELFARE LAW AS AMENDED

(RA 8485 as amended by RA10631.)

SECTION 1. It is the purpose of this Act to protect and promote the welfare of all terrestrial,
aquatic and marine animals in the Philippines by supervising and regulating the establishment
and operations of all facilitiesutilized for breeding, maintaining, keeping, treating or training of all
animals either as objects of trade or as household pets. For this purpose of this Act, pet animal
shall include birds.
For purposes of this Act, animal welfare pertains to the physical and psychological wellbeing of animals. It includes, but not limited to, the avoidance of abuse, maltreatment, cruelty
and exploitation of animals by humans by maintaining appropriate standards of accommodation,
feeding and general care, the prevention and treatment of decease and the assurance of
freedom from fear, distress, harassment, and unnecessary discomfort and pain, and allowing
animals to express normal behavior.
SECTION 2. No Person, association, partnership, corporation, cooperative or any government
agency or instrumentality including slaughter houses shall establish, maintain and operate any
pet shop, kennel, veterinary clinic, veterinary hospital, stockyard, corral, stud farm or stock farm
or zoo for the breeding, treatment, sale or trading, or training of animals without first securing
from the Bureau of Animal Industry a certificate of registration therefore.
The certificate shall be issued upon proof that the facilities of such establishment for
animals are adequate, clean and sanitary and will not be used for, nor cause pain and/or
suffering to the animals. The certificate shall be valid for a period of one (1) year unless earlier
cancelled for just cause before the expiration of its term by the Director of the Bureau of Animal
Industry and may be renewed from year to year upon compliance with the conditions imposed
hereunder. The Bureau shall charge reasonable fees for the issuance or renewal of such
certificate.
The condition that such facilities be adequate, clean and sanitary, and that they will not be
used for nor cause pain and/or suffering to the animals is a continuing requirement for the
operation of these establishments. The Bureau may revoke or cancel such certificate of
registration for failure to observe these conditions and other just causes.
SECTION 3. The Director of the Bureau of Animal Industry shall supervise and regulate the
establishment, operation and maintenance of pet shops, kennels, veterinary clinics, veterinary
hospitals, stockyards, corrals, stud farms and zoos and any other for or structure for the
confinement of animals where they are bred, treated, maintained, or kept either for sale or trade
or for training as well as the transport of such animals in any form of public or private
transportation facility in order to provide maximum comfort while in transit and minimize if not
totally eradicate, incidence of sickness and death and prevent any cruelty from being inflicted
upon the animals.

The Director may call upon any government agency for assistance consistent with its
powers, duties, and responsibilities for the purpose of ensuring the effective and efficient
implementation of this Act and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
It shall be the duty of such government agency to assist said Director when called upon
for assistance using available fund in its budget for the purpose.
SECTION 4. It shall be the duty of the owner or operator of any land, air or water public utility
transporting pet, wildlife and all other animals to provide in all cases adequate, clean and
sanitary facilities for the safe conveyance and delivery thereof to their consignee at the place of
consignment. They shall provide sufficient food and water for such animals while in transit for
more than twelve (12) hours or whenever necessary.
No public utility shall transport any such animal without a written permit from the Director
of the Bureau of Animal Industry or his/her authorized representative. No cruel confinement or
restraint shall be made on such animals while being transported.
Any form of cruelty shall be penalized even if the transporter has obtained a permit from
the Bureau of Animal Industry. Cruelty in transporting includes overcrowding, placing of animals
in the trunks or under the food trunks of the vehicles.
SECTION 5. There is hereby created a Committee on Animal Welfare attached to the
Department of Agriculture which shall, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the
Department of Agriculture, issue the necessary rules and regulations for the strict
implementation of the provisions of this Act, including the settling of safety and sanitary
standards with thirty (30) calendar days following its approval. Such guidelines shall be
reviewed by the Committee every three (3) years from its implementation or whenever
necessary.
The Committee shall be composed of the official representatives of the following:
1. The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG);
2. Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS);
3. Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI) of the Department of Agriculture (DA);
4. Protected Areas and Wildlife Bureau (PAWB) of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources
(DENR);
5. National Meat Inspection Commission (NMIC) of the DA;
6. Agriculture Training Institute (ATI) of the DA;
7. Philippine Veterinary Medical Association (PVMA);
8. Veterinary Practitioners Association of the Philippines (VPAP);
9. Philippine Animal Hospital Association of the Philippines (PAHA);
10. Philippine Animal Welfare Society (PAWS);
11. Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA);

12. Philippine Society of Swine Practitioners (PSSP);

13. Philippine College of Canine Practitioners (PCCP); and
14. Philippine Society of Animal Science (PSAS).
The Committee shall meet quarterly or as often as the need arises. The Committee members
shall not receive any compensation but may receive reasonable honoraria from time to time.
SECTION 6. It shall be unlawful for any person to torture any animal, to neglect to provide
adequate care, subject any dog or horse to dogfights or horsefights, kill or cause or procure to
be tortured or deprived of adequate care, sustenance or shelter, or maltreat or use the same in
research or experiments not expressly authorized by the Committee on Animal Welfare.
The killing of any animal other than cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, poultry, rabbits, carabaos and
horses (* NOTE: "deer" and "crocodiles" were delisted) is likewise hereby declared unlawful
except in the following instances:
1. When it is done as part of the religious rituals of an established religion or sect or a ritual
required by tribal or ethnic custom of indigenous cultural communities; however, leaders shall
keep records in cooperation with the Committee on Animal Welfare;
2. When the pet animal is afflicted with an incurable communicable disease as determined and
certified by a duly licensed veterinarian;
3. When the killing is deemed necessary to put an end to the misery suffered by the animal as
determined and certified by a duly licensed veterinarian;
4. When it is done to prevent an imminent danger to the life or limb of a human being;
5. When done for the purpose of animal population control;
6. When the animal is killed after it has been used in authorized research of experiments; and
7. Any other ground analogous to the foregoing as determined and certified licensed
veterinarian.
In all the above mentioned cases, including those of cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, poultry, rabbits,
carabaos and horses (* NOTE: "deer" and "crocodiles" were delisted) the killing of the animals
shall be done through humane procedures at all times.
For this purpose, humane procedures shall mean the use of the most scientific methods
available as may be determined and approved by the committee.
Only those procedures approved by the Committee shall be used in the killing of animals.

SECTION 7. It shall be unlawful for any person who has custody to an animal to abandon
the animal.
If any person being the owner or having charge or control of any animal shall without
reasonable cause or excuse abandon it, whether permanently or not, without providing for the
care of that animal, such act shall constitute maltreatment under Section 9.
If the animal is left in circumstances likely to cause the animal any unnecessary suffering,
or if this abandonment results in the death of the animal, the person liable shall suffer the
maximum penalty.
Abandonment means the relinquishment of all right, title, claim, or possession of the animal
with the intention of not reclaiming its ownership or possession.
SECTION 8. It shall be the duty of every person to protect the natural habitat of the
wildlife. The destruction of said habitat shall be considered as a form of cruelty to animals and
its preservation is a way of protecting the animals.
SECTION 9. Any person who subjects any animal to cruelty, maltreatment or neglect
shall, upon conviction by final judgment, be punished by imprisonment and/or fine, as indicated
in the following graduated scale:
1) Imprisonment of one (1) year and six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and/or fine
not exceeding One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) if the animal subjected to cruelty,
maltreatment, or neglect dies;
2) Imprisonment of one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and six (6) months and/or a
fine not exceeding Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) if the animal subjected to cruelty,
maltreatment or neglect survives but is severely injured with loss of its natural faculty to survive
on its own and needing human intervention to sustain its life; and
3) Imprisonment of six (6) months to one (1) year and/or fine not exceeding Thirty thousand
pesos (P30,000.00) for subjecting any animal to cruelty, maltreatment or neglect but without
causing its death or incapacitating it to survive on its own.
If the violation is committed by a juridical person, the officer responsible thereof shall serve the
imprisonment. If the violation is committed by an alien, he or she shall be immediately deported
after the service of sentence without any further proceeding.
The foregoing penalties shall also apply for any other violation of this Act, depending upon the
effect or result of the act or omission as defined immediately in the preceding sections.
However, regardless of the resulting condition to the animals, the penalty of two (2) years and
one (1) day to three (3) years ad/or a fine not exceeding Two hundred fifty thousand pesos

(P250,000.00) shall be imposed if the offense is committed by any of the following: (1) a
syndicate; (2) an offender who makes business out of cruelty to an animal; (3) a public officer or
employee; or (4) where at least three (3) animals are involved.
In any of the foregoing situations, the offender shall suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency and the inability to pay the fine.
SECTION 10. The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture shall deputize animal welfare
enforcement officers from nongovernment organizations, citizens groups, community
organizations and other volunteers who have undergone the necessary training for this
purpose. The Philippine National Police, the National Bureau of Investigation and other law
enforcement agencies shall designate animal welfare enforcement officers. As such, animal
welfare enforcement officers shall have the authority to seize and rescue illegally traded and
maltreated animals and to arrest violators of this Act subject to the guidelines of existing laws
and rules and regulations on arrest and detention.
The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture shall upon the recommendation of the
Committee on Animal Welfare:
1) Promulgate the guidelines on the criteria and training requirements for the deputization of
animal welfare enforcement officers; and
2) Establish a mechanism for the supervision monitoring and reporting of these enforcement
officers.
(SECTION 11.) If for any reason, any provision of this Act is declared to be unconstitutional or
invalid, the other sections or provisions hereof which are not affected shall continue to be in full
force and effect.
All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations and other issuances or parts thereof which are
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby deemed repealed, amended or modified
accordingly.
This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days from its publication in the Official Gazette, or in at
least two (2) newspapers of general circulation, whichever comes earlier.
Republic Act 8485
JOSE DE VENECIA, JR.
Speaker House of Representatives
NEPTALI A. GONZALES
President of the Senate

FIDEL V. RAMOS
President of the Philippines
Approved: February 11, 1998
Republic Act 10631
FELICIANO BELMONTE JR.
Speaker House of Representatives
JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA
Acting President of the Senate
BENIGNO S. AQUINO III
President of the Philippines
Approved: October 03, 2013

EN BANC

[B. M. No. 1036. June 10, 2003]

DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, complainant, vs. EDWIN L. RANA, respondent.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Before one is admitted to the Philippine Bar, he must possess the requisite moral
integrity for membership in the legal profession. Possession of moral integrity is of
greater importance than possession of legal learning. The practice of law is a privilege
bestowed only on the morally fit. A bar candidate who is morally unfit cannot practice
law even if he passes the bar examinations.
The Facts
Respondent Edwin L. Rana (respondent) was among those who passed the
2000 Bar Examinations.
On 21 May 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar
examinees as members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre
(complainant) filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the
Bar. Complainant charged respondent with unauthorized practice of law, grave
misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation.
The Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member of the Bar during the
scheduled oath-taking on 22 May 2001 at the Philippine International Convention
Center. However, the Court ruled that respondent could not sign the Roll of Attorneys
pending the resolution of the charge against him. Thus, respondent took the lawyers
oath on the scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of Attorneys up to now.
Complainant charges respondent for unauthorized practice of law and grave
misconduct. Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as
counsel for a candidate in the May 2001 elections before the Municipal Board of
Election Canvassers (MBEC) of Mandaon, Masbate. Complainant further alleges that
respondent filed with the MBEC a pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal
Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of
Vice-Mayor. In this pleading, respondent represented himself as counsel for and in
behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan, and signed the pleading as counsel
for George Bunan (Bunan).
On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that respondent is a
municipal government employee, being a secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Mandaon, Masbate. As such, respondent is not allowed by law to act as counsel for a
client in any court or administrative body.
On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant accuses
respondent of acting as counsel for vice mayoralty candidate George Bunan (Bunan)
without the latter engaging respondents services. Complainant claims that respondent
filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty
candidate.

On 22 May 2001, the Court issued a resolution allowing respondent to take the
lawyers oath but disallowed him from signing the Roll of Attorneys until he is cleared of
the charges against him. In the same resolution, the Court required respondent to
comment on the complaint against him.
In his Comment, respondent admits that Bunan sought his specific assistance to
represent him before the MBEC. Respondent claims that he decided to assist and
advice Bunan, not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law. Respondent admits
signing the 19 May 2001 pleading that objected to the inclusion of certain votes in the
canvassing. He explains, however, that he did not sign the pleading as a lawyer or
represented himself as an attorney in the pleading.
On his employment as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan, respondent claims
that he submitted his resignation on 11 May 2001 which was allegedly accepted on the
same date. He submitted a copy of the Certification of Receipt of Revocable
Resignation dated 28 May 2001 signed by Vice-Mayor Napoleon Relox. Respondent
further claims that the complaint is politically motivated considering that complainant is
the daughter of Silvestre Aguirre, the losing candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate.
Respondent prays that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and that he be
allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
On 22 June 2001, complainant filed her Reply to respondents Comment and
refuted the claim of respondent that his appearance before the MBEC was only to
extend specific assistance to Bunan. Complainant alleges that on 19 May 2001 Emily
Estipona-Hao (Estipona-Hao) filed a petition for proclamation as the winning candidate
for mayor. Respondent signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in this petition. When
respondent appeared as counsel before the MBEC, complainant questioned his
appearance on two grounds: (1) respondent had not taken his oath as a lawyer; and (2)
he was an employee of the government.
Respondent filed a Reply (Re: Reply to Respondents Comment) reiterating his
claim that the instant administrative case is motivated mainly by political vendetta.
On 17 July 2001, the Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC)
for evaluation, report and recommendation.
OBCs Report and Recommendation
The OBC found that respondent indeed appeared before the MBEC as counsel
for Bunan in the May 2001 elections. The minutes of the MBEC proceedings show that
respondent actively participated in the proceedings. The OBC likewise found that
respondent appeared in the MBEC proceedings even before he took the lawyers oath
on 22 May 2001. The OBC believes that respondents misconduct casts a serious doubt
on his moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. The OBC also believes that respondents
unauthorized practice of law is a ground to deny his admission to the practice of
law. The OBC therefore recommends that respondent be denied admission to the
Philippine Bar.

On the other charges, OBC stated that complainant failed to cite a law which
respondent allegedly violated when he appeared as counsel for Bunan while he was a
government employee. Respondent resigned as secretary and his resignation was
accepted. Likewise, respondent was authorized by Bunan to represent him before the
MBEC.
The Courts Ruling
We agree with the findings and conclusions of the OBC that respondent engaged
in the unauthorized practice of law and thus does not deserve admission to the
Philippine Bar.
Respondent took his oath as lawyer on 22 May 2001. However, the records show that
respondent appeared as counsel for Bunan prior to 22 May 2001, before respondent
took the lawyers oath. In the pleading entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the
Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor dated 19 May 2001,
respondent signed ascounsel for George Bunan. In the first paragraph of the same
pleading respondent stated that he was the (U)ndersigned Counsel for, and in behalf of
Vice Mayoralty Candidate, GEORGE T. BUNAN. Bunan himself wrote the MBEC on 14
May 2001 that he had authorized Atty. Edwin L. Rana as his counsel to represent him
before the MBEC and similar bodies.
On 14 May 2001, mayoralty candidate Emily Estipona-Hao also retained
respondent as her counsel. On the same date, 14 May 2001, Erly D. Hao informed the
MBEC that Atty. Edwin L. Rana has been authorized by REFORMA LM-PPC as the
legal counsel of the party and the candidate of the said party. Respondent himself wrote
the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he was entering his appearance as counsel for
Mayoralty Candidate Emily Estipona-Hao and for the REFORMA LM-PPC. On 19 May
2001, respondent signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in the petition filed before the
MBEC praying for the proclamation of Estipona-Hao as the winning candidate for mayor
of Mandaon, Masbate.
All these happened even before respondent took the lawyers oath. Clearly,
respondent engaged in the practice of law without being a member of the Philippine Bar.
In Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava,[1] the Court elucidated that:
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it
embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special
proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients
before judges and courts, and in addition, conveyancing. In general, all advice to clients,
and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law,incorporation services,
assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial
body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and
insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of
estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the
preparation and drafting of legal instruments,where the work done involves the

determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. (5 Am.
Jur. p. 262, 263). (Italics supplied) x x x
In Cayetano v. Monsod,[2] the Court held that practice of law means any activity,
in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which are
usually performed by members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice law is to
render any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill.
Verily, respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the
proceedings before the MBEC and filed various pleadings, without license to do so.
Evidence clearly supports the charge of unauthorized practice of law. Respondent
called himself counsel knowing fully well that he was not a member of the Bar. Having
held himself out as counsel knowing that he had no authority to practice law, respondent
has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar.[3]
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is
limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained
and certified.The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal
knowledge, educational attainment, and even public trust[4] since a lawyer is an officer
of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing
the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from
one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had
practiced law without a license.[5]
The regulation of the practice of law is unquestionably strict. In Beltran, Jr. v.
Abad,[6] a candidate passed the bar examinations but had not taken his oath and
signed the Roll of Attorneys. He was held in contempt of court for practicing law even
before his admission to the Bar. Under Section 3 (e) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a
person who engages in the unauthorized practice of law is liable for indirect contempt of
court.[7]
True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyers
oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a fullfledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial.
Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law.
[8] Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had
to be performed, namely: his lawyers oath to be administered by this Court and his
signature in the Roll of Attorneys.[9]
On the charge of violation of law, complainant contends that the law does not allow
respondent to act as counsel for a private client in any court or administrative body
since respondent is the secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan.
Respondent tendered his resignation as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan
prior to the acts complained of as constituting unauthorized practice of law. In his letter
dated 11 May 2001 addressed to Napoleon Relox, vice- mayor and presiding officer of
the Sangguniang Bayan, respondent stated that he was resigning effective upon your

acceptance.[10] Vice-Mayor Relox accepted respondents resignation effective 11 May

2001.[11] Thus, the evidence does not support the charge that respondent acted as
counsel for a client while serving as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan.
On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, evidence shows that
Bunan indeed authorized respondent to represent him as his counsel before the MBEC
and similar bodies. While there was no misrepresentation, respondent nonetheless had
no authority to practice law.
WHEREFORE, respondent Edwin L. Rana is DENIED admission to the Philippine Bar.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo,
Sr., and Azcuna, JJ.,concur.