ZetavsMalinao
BonifacioMaceda
FelicisiomoMalinao,Courtinterpreterwaschargedwith,illegally
appearingincourt,gravemisconductinoffice,falsification,and
violationofcivilservice.ItwasallegedthatMr.Malinaoappeared
inthemunicipalcourtofhistown,inZumarraga,TalaloraandSta
Ritaasanattorneywhenheisnotanattorney.Itwasallegedthathe custodyoverprivaterespondentAvelinoT.JavellanatotheClerk
instigatedpersonstellingthemtocommitcrimesandtellsthemnot
tobeafraidsincehehasinfluenceoverjudges.Heisunfaithfully
filinghistimerecord.Evenwhenhehasbeenoutpracticinginthe
municipalcourts,hewouldfillhistimerecordaspresent.He
receivessalaryforthoseabsentdays.Itwasalsoallegedthathe
violatedcivilservicelawwhichprohibitedacivilserviceemployee
toengageinprivatepracticeanyprofessionorbusinesswithout
permissionfromtheDepartmentHead.
ISSUE:ISTHERESPONDENTASCOURTINTERPRETER
ALLOWEDTOPRACTICELAW?
HELDNO.
Onlymembersofthebarareallowedtopracticelaw.Thefactthat
respondentcourtinterpreterappearedanumberoftimesascounsel
indicatesthathewasdoingitasaregularpracticeobviouslyfor
considerationsotherthanpureloveofjustice;andhisappearanceas
counsel,withoutbeingamember
Theappearanceascounselinvariousmunicipalcourtsbyacourt
interpreter,withoutpriorpermissionofhissuperiorsinviolationof
civilservicerulesandregulations,andthefalsificationofhisdaily
timerecordtomakeitappearthereinthathewaspresentinhis
officewheninfacthewasnot,aregraveoffenseswhichwarranthis
separationfromtheservice.
RespondentFelicisimo Malinao isdismissedfromhispositionas
interpreterintheCourtofFirstInstance,CFI,Zumarraga,Western
Samar,withprejudicetoreemploymentinthejudicialbranchofthe
government.
Syllabus:
Attorneys;Courts;Alowercourtemployeewhohasbeenappearing
ascounselincourtcasesandfalsifyinghistimerecordisdismissed
fromtheservicetheactscommittedbeinggraveinnature.The
defenseofrespondentthathisparticipation(sic)fordefendants
causewasgratuitousastheycouldnotengagetheservicesof
counselbyreasonofpovertyandtheabsenceofoneinthelocality
cannot,eveniftrue,carrythedayforhim,consideringthatin
appearingascounselincourt,hedidsowithoutpermissionfromhis
superiorsand,worse,hefalsifiedhistimerecordofserviceto
concealhisabsencefromhisofficeonthedatesinquestion.Indeed,
thenumberoftimesthatrespondentactedascounselunderthe
abovecircumstanceswouldindicatethathewasdoingitasa
regularpracticeobviouslyforconsiderationsotherthanpureloveof
justice.
Inthepremises,itisquiteobviousthattheoffensecommittedby
respondentisgrave,henceitwarrantsamoredrasticsanctionthan
thatofreprimandrecommendedbyJudgeZosa.Wefindno
alternativethantoseparatehimfromtheservice,withthe
admonitionthathedesistfromappearinginanycourtor
investigativebodywhereinonlymembersofthebarareallowedto
practice.Wherefore,respondentFelicisimoMalinaoishereby
Peoplev.Hon.
ThiscasestemsfromdenialbytheSCofthePeoplesmotion
seekingreconsiderationofourAugust13,1990decisionholding
thatrespondentJudgeBonifacioSanzMacedacommittednograve
abuseofdiscretioninissuingtheorderofAugust8,1989giving
ofCourtoftheAntiqueRTC,Atty.DeograciasdelRosario,during
thependencyofCriminalCasesNos.33503355.Atthattime,
sufficientreasonwasshownwhyJavellanashouldnotbedetained
attheAntiqueProvincialJail.Thetrialcourtsorderspecifically
providedforprivaterespondentsdetentionattheresidenceofAtty.
delRosario.However,privaterespondentwasnottobeallowed
libertytoroamaroundbutwastobeheldasdetentionprisonerin
saidresidence.Itwashoweverefoundthattheorderwasnotstrictly
compliedwithbecauseJavellanawasnotdetainedintheresidence
ofAtty.DelRosario.Hewentabouthisnormalactivitiesasifhe
wereafreeman,includingengaginginthepracticeoflaw.
Held:
PrivaterespondentJavellanahasbeenarrestedbasedonthefilingof
criminalcasesagainsthim.Bysucharrest,heisdeemedtobeunder
thecustodyofthelaw.ThetrialcourtgaveAtty.Deograciasdel
RosariothecustodyofprivaterespondentJavellanawiththe
obligationtoholdanddetain himinAtty.delRosariosresidence
inhisofficialcapacityastheclerkofcourtoftheregionaltrial
court.Hence,whenAtty.delRosariowasappointedjudge,he
ceasedtobethepersonalcustodianofaccusedJavellanaandthe
succeedingclerkofcourtmustbedeemedthecustodianunderthe
sameundertaking.
Inourmind,theperceivedthreatstoprivaterespondentJavellanas
lifenolongerexist.Thus,thetrialcourtsorderdatedAugust8,
1989givingcustodyoverhimtotheclerkofcourtmustberecalled,
andheshallbedetainedattheProvincialJailofAntiqueatSan
Jose,Antique.
Regardinghiscontinuedpracticeoflaw,asadetentionprisoner
privaterespondentJavellanaisnotallowedtopracticehis
professionasanecessaryconsequenceofhisstatusasadetention
prisoner.Thetrialcourtsorderwasclearthatprivaterespondentis
nottobeallowedlibertytoroamaroundbutistobeheldasa
detentionprisoner.Theprohibitiontopracticelawreferrednot
onlytoCriminalCaseNo.4262,buttoallothercasesaswell,
exceptincaseswhereprivaterespondentwouldappearincourtto
defendhimself.
Asamatteroflaw,whenapersonindictedforanoffenseis
arrested,heisdeemedplacedunderthecustodyofthelaw.Heis
placedinactualrestraintoflibertyinjailsothathemaybeboundto
answerforthecommissionoftheoffense.Hemustbedetainedin
jailduringthependencyofthecaseagainsthim,unlessheis
authorizedbythecourttobereleasedonbailoronrecognizance.
Letitbestressedthatallprisonerswhetherunderpreventive
detentionorservingfinalsentencecannotpracticetheirprofession
norengageinanybusinessoroccupation,orholdoffice,electiveor
appointive,whileindetention.
counselsfailuretoattendthepretrialconferenceonApril6,1972,
butlikewiseonhisownfailuretoattendthesame,without
justifiablereason.Toallowthispetitionduecourseisto
countenancefurtherdelayinaproceedingwhichhadalreadytaken
welloversixyearstoresolve.
Alawyerisprohibitedfromtakingaspartnerorassociateany
personwhoisnotauthorizedtopracticelaw toappearincourtor
tosignpleadings.Alawyer,whoisundersuspensionfrompractice
oflawisnotamemberoftheBaringoodstanding.Alawyer
whoseauthoritytopracticehasbeenwithdrawnduetoachangein
citizenshiporallegiancetothecountrycannotappearbeforethe
courts.
BeltranJrvsAbad
FACTS:CourtheldrespondentElmoS.Abadasuccessfulbar
examineebuthasnotbeenadmittedtothePhilippineBarin
contemptofCourtforunauthorizedpracticeoflawandhewas
finedP500.00withsubsidiaryimprisonmentincasehefailedtopay
thefine.(121SCRA217).Hepaidthefine.Atty.ProcopioS.
Beltran,Jr.,thecomplainant,filedaMOTIONTOCIRCULARIZE
TOALLMETROMANILACOURTSTHEFACTTHATELMO
S.ABADISNOTAUTHORIZEDTOPRACTICELAW.The
Reporthasfoundasafact,overthedenialsoftherespondentunder
oath,thathesignedExhibitsB,C,andD,andthathemade
appearancesinMetroManilacourts.Thisaspectopensthe
respondenttoachargeforperjury.TheReportalsorevealsthat
Atty.RubenA.Jacobecollaboratedwiththerespondentascounsels
forAntonioS.MaravillaoneoftheaccusedinCriminalCaseNos.
26084,26085and26086oftheRegionalTrialCourtofQuezon
City.(ExhibitD.)Atty.Jacobeshouldbecalledtoaccountforhis
associationwiththerespondent.
Respondent,whenaskedabouttheaforesaidmotions,Exhibits"B"
and"D",andthesignaturestherein,deniedthathefiledthesame
andthatthesignaturesthereinarehis.Healsodeniedthathe
appearedinthehearingintheafternoonofDecember8,1983inthe
saidtrialcourt.Accordingtohim,hewasinBatangasatthetime.
Healsotestifiedthattheonlyexplanationhecouldgiveregarding
thesignaturesintheaforesaidexhibitsisthatthesamecouldhave
beeneffectedbyAtty.BeltrantoshowtheSupremeCourtthathe
(respondent)wasstillillegallypracticinglaw.Astothemotionfor
examinationandanalysisofrespondent'ssignature,theInvestigator,
toaffordrespondentfullopportunitytoprovehisdefense,sought
theassistanceoftheNationalBureauofInvestigationtocompare
respondent'ssignatureintheaforesaidexhibitswiththesignatures
appearinginthepleadingsthathefiledintheSupremeCourt,which
lattersignatureheadmitsasgenuineandashisown.Theaforesaid
documentaryandtestimonialevidence,aswellastheabovereport
oftheNBI,haveclearlyprovedthatrespondentAbadisstill
practicinglawdespitethedecisionofthisCourtofMarch28,1983.
ISSUES:WhetherornotAbadcanengageinpracticeoflaw.
WhetherornotAtty.Jacobeliableinhiscollaborationwiththe
respondent.
ordereddismissedfromhispositionasinterpreterintheCourtof
FirstInstance,CFI,Zumarraga,WesternSamar,withprejudiceto
reemploymentinthejudicialbranchofthegovernment.
Guballavs.Caguioa
Facts:Petitionerisanoperatorofapublicutilityvehiclewhichwas
involved,onOctober1,1971,inanaccidentresultingtoinjuries
sustainedbyprivaterespondentDomingoForteza,Jr.Asa
consequencethereof,acomplaintfordamageswasfiledbyForteza
againstpetitionerwiththeCourtofFirstInstanceofBulacan
(BranchVIII),docketedasCivilCaseNo.680V.AnAnswer
theretowasfiledonbehalfofpetitionerbyIrineoW.Vida,Jr.,of
thelawfirmofVida,Enriquez,Mercado&Associates.1
Becausepetitionerandcounselfailedtoappearatthepretrial
conferenceonApril6,1972,despiteduenotice,petitionerwas
treatedasindefaultandprivaterespondentwasallowedtopresent
hisevidenceexparte.Adecisionwasthereafterrenderedbythe
trialcourtinfavorofprivaterespondentForteza,Jr.AMotionfor
Reconsiderationwasthenfiledbypetitionerseekingtheliftingof
theorderofdefault,thereopeningofthecaseforthepresentationof
hisevidenceandthesettingasideofthedecisionledbypetitioner,
throughadifferentcounsel,Atty.IsabeloV.L.SantosII.Samewas
denied.Atty.IsabeloV.L.SantosIIlearnedthatIrineoW.VidaJr
wasnotamemberoftheBar,hisrightshadnotbeenadequately
protectedandhispropertiesareindangerofbeingconfiscated
and/orlevieduponwithoutdueprocessoflaw.RespondentJudge
deniedthePetitionanddirectedtheissuanceofawritofexecution
forthereasonsthatsaidPetitionis"..aclearcaseofdilatorytactic
onthepartofcounselfordefendantappellant..."hereinpetitioner,
and,thatthegroundsreliedupon".
Syllabus
Attorneys;Pleadingandpractice;Dueprocess;Factthattheperson
whorepresenteddefendantattheinitialstageofthelitigation,filing
ofanswerandpretrial,turnedouttobeonewhoisnotamemberof
theBardoesnotamounttodenialofdefendantsdayincourt,
particularlywheredefaultorderwasrenderednotonlybecauseby
counsel didnotattendthepretrial,butalsobecausedefendant
wasalsoabsentatthepretrialandsaiddefendantwasassistedby
bonafidelawyersatsubsequentstagesofthecaseswhenhesought
reversalofthejudgmentofthecourtbelow.RespondentJudges
forthrightdenialofthePetitionforRelieftofrustrateadilatory
maneuveriswelltaken;andthisPetitionmustbedeniedforlackof
merit.Theallegedfactthatthepersonwhorepresentedpetitionerat
theinitialstageofthelitigation,i.e.,thefilingofanAnswerandthe
pretrialproceedings,turnedouttobenotamemberoftheBardid
notamounttoadenialofpetitionersdayincourt.Itshouldbe
notedthatinthesubsequentstagesoftheproceedings,afterthe
renditionofthejudgmentbydefault,petitionerwasduly
representedbybonafidemembersoftheBarinseekingareversal
ofthejudgmentforbeingcontrarytolawandjurisprudenceandthe
existenceofvalid,legalandjustifiabledefenses.Inotherwords,
petitionersrightshadbeenamplyprotectedintheproceedings
beforethetrialandappellatecourtsashewassubsequentlyassisted
bycounsel.Moreover,petitionerhimselfwasatfaultastheorderof
treatmentasindefaultwaspredicated,notonlyonthealleged
practicelawinthiscountry.Thus,hemustnottakeaspartneror
associateinhislawfirmapersonwhoisnotalawyer,alawyerwho
hasbeendisbarredandalawyerwhohasbeensuspendedfrom
practiceoflaw.Thelawyerwhoassistsinanunauthorizedpractice
oflawwhetherdirectlyorindirectlyissubjecttodisciplinary
action.Finally,Atty.RubenA.Jacobeisrequiredtoexplainwithin
ten(10)daysfromnoticewhyheshouldnotbedisciplinedfor
collaboratingandassociatinginthepracticeofthelawwiththe
respondentwhoisnotamemberofthebar.
Syllabus:
Attorneys;ThereportoftheClerkofCourtfoundasafactthat
respondentAbadstillcontinuedtopracticelawdespiteCourts
prohibition.PenaltyofP2,000.00fineimposed.TheReporthas
foundasafact,overthedenialsoftherespondentunderoath,that
hesignedExhibitsB,C,andD,andthathemadeappearancesin
MetroManilacourts.Thisaspectopenstherespondenttoacharge
forperjury.
Same;Same.WHEREFORE,ElmoS.Abadisherebyorderedto
payafineofP2,000.00withinten(10)daysfromnotice,failing
whichheshallbeimprisonedfortwenty(20)days.Heisalso
warnedthatifhepersistsintheunauthorizedpracticeoflawhe
shallbedealtwithmoreseverely.
Same;Attorneymaybeaskedtoexplainwhyhecollaboratedto
practicelawwithonenotauthorizedtodoso.Finally,Atty.
RubenA.Jacobeisrequiredtoexplainwithinten(10)daysfrom
noticewhyheshouldnotbedisciplinedforcollaboratingand
associatinginthepracticeofthelawwiththerespondentwhoisnot
amemberofthebar.
HELD:No.OnlythoselicensedbytheSupremeCourtmaypractice
lawinthiscountry.Therighttopracticelawisnotanaturalor
constitutionalrightbutisaprivilege.Itislimitedtopersonsofgood
moralcharacterwithspecialqualificationsdulyascertainedand
certified.Theexerciseofthisprivilegepresupposespossessionof
integrity,legalknowledge,educationalattainmentandevenpublic
trust,sincealawyerisanofficerofthecourt.Abarcandidatedoes
notacquiretherighttopracticelawsimplybypassingthebar
examinations.Thepracticeoflawisaprivilegethatcanbewithheld
evenfromonewhohaspassedthebarexaminations,iftheperson
seekingadmissionhadpracticedlawwithoutlicense.Respondent
Abadshouldknowthatthecircumstanceswhichhehasnarrateddo
notconstitutehisadmissiontothePhilippineBarandtherightto
practicelawthereafter.Heshouldknowthattwoessentialrequisites
forbecomingalawyerstillhadtobeperformed,namely:his
lawyer'soathtobeadministeredbythisCourtandhissignaturein
theRollofAttorneys.(Rule138,Secs.17and19,RulesofCourt.)
Theregulationofthepracticeoflawisunquestionablystrict.Under
Section3(e)ofRule71oftheRulesofCourt,apersonwho
engagesintheunauthorizedpracticeoflawisliableforindirect
contemptofcourt.Mr.ElmoS.AbadisherebyfinedFiveHundred
(P500.00)pesospayabletothisCourtwithinten(10)daysfrom
noticefailingwhichheshallservetwentyfive(25)days
imprisonment.
Yes.HeviolatedCanon9Rule9.01 Alawyershallnotdelegate
toanyunqualifiedpersontheperformanceofanytaskwhichbylaw
mayonlybeperformedbyamemberoftheBar.ingoodstanding.
AlawyershallnotassistanyonewhoisnotamemberoftheBarto