1. Article 8, Section 5 (5) of the 1987 Constitution?
international law, political law, labor law and social legislation,
S5 The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleadings, practice, and procedure in all
courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and
legal assistance to the underprivileged.
Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the
same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights, Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
2. Define the practice of law
Practice of law is any activity in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience. Generally, to practice law is to give advice or to render
any kind of service which advice or service requires the use in any
degree of legal knowledge or skill.
Hence, the SC declared that a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-
manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts,
and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and poor are engaged in
the practice of law. CAYETANOvMONSOD
3.what is the nature of the practice of law? PAC-P
1. Practice of law is not a matter of right but merely a
PRIVELEGE bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned
in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character
(TANvSABANDLA)
Note: however, it becomes a right once a person is admitted to the
practice of law, valid reasons must exist before a lawyer may be
prevented from practicing law and can only be deprived of such
right for misconduct duly ascertained and after due process has
been afforded him (in the matter of the petition for authority to
continue use of the firm name OZAETA,ROMULO,De LEON,
MABANTA & REYES)
2. it cannot be ASSIGNED or inherited (In Re:Clifton)
3. It is a privilege burdened with CONDITIONS
4. It is a PROFESSION and not a business. The duty to serve the
public and aid in the administration of justice should be the
primary consideration of lawyers and not their personal interests
or what they owe to themselves (burbeVmagulta)
Note: in view of the broad definition in CAYETANOvMONSOD,
when lawyers teach law, they are considered engaged in the
practice of law. Unlike professors in other disciplines, and more
than lawyers who do not teach law, respondents are bound by their
oath to uphold the ethical standards of the legal profession. Thus,
their actions as law professors must be measured against the same
canons of professional responsibility applicable to acts of members
of the Bar as the fact of their being law professors inextricably
entwined with the fact that they are lawyers (Re:Letter of the UP
Law Faculty entitled Restoring Integrity: A statement by the
Faculty of the UP College of Law on the allegations of plagiarism
and misrepresentation in the SC)
4. who are qualified/ allowed to practice law in the PHs?
Persons entitled to practice law
Persons duly admitted as members of the bar and who are in good
and regular standing are entitled to practice law (ROC RULE
138,S1)
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR:
(GRACE-MoR-LAB)
1. GOOD MORAL CHARACTER, is not only a condition precedent
relating to his admission into the practice of law, but is also a
continuing imposition in order for him to maintain his membership
in the bar (ONGvATTY.WILLIAMDELOSSANTOS)
2. RESIDENT in the Philippines
3. at least 21 years of AGE
4. Citizen of the PHs
5. Must produce before the SC satisfactory EVIDENCE of good
moral character;
6. No charges against him, involving MORAL turpitude, have been
filed or are pending in any court in the PHs (ROC Rule 132, S2)
7. Sing the ROLL of ATTORNEYS and receive from the Clerk of
Court of the SC a certificate of license to practice;
8. Take the LAWYER’S OATH
9. must have complied with the ACADEMIC requirements:
A had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and
recognized university or college which requires for admission the
completion of a 4 year high school course;
B a bachelor’s degree in arts or sciences with Political Science, or
Logic, or English, or Spanish, or History, or Economics as a major
or field of concentration; and
C a 4 year bachelor’s degree in law with completed courses in civil
law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private
medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics (ROC, Rule 138 S5
and 6)
Note: applicant who began his law studies 6 months before
obtaining his associate in arts degree is not qualified to take the bar
examinations. But if due to his false representations, he was allowed
to fake it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Barm
such admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be
revoked. The fact the hed hurdled the Bar Examinations is
immaterial. Passing such examinations is not the only qualification
to become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal
study in the regular manner is equally Essential (in the matter of
the petition for disbarment of TELESFORODIAOvMARTINEZ)
10. Pass the BAR examinations
Filipino Citizen who graduated abroad may take the PH BAR exam
In the bar matter 1153 dated 3/9/2100, the court approved the
proposed amendment to S5 and 6, Rule 138 of the rules of court
The Main amendments to S5 is that a Filipino Citizen who
graduated from a forein law school shall be admitted to the bar
examinations only upon submission to the SC of certifications
showing:
a) completion of all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of laws
or its equivalent degree;
b) recognition or accreditation of the law shool by the proper
authority; and
c) completion of all the 4th years subjects in the Bachelor of Laws
academic progress in a law school duly recognized by the PH GOV.
in SEC 6, the requirement before commencement of the study of law
is explicitly stated that an applicant had pursued and satisfactorily
completed in a recognized university or college, the completion of a
4-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for
a Bachelor’s degree in Arts or Sceinces. Now the courses were
specified. In addition, a Filipino who completed and obtained his or
her Bachelor of Laws degree or its equivalent in a foreign law school
must present proof of having completed a separated bachelor’s
degree course
6. continuing requirements for the practice of law
TIP-SM-GC
1. Payment of professional TAX
2. membership in the IBP
3. PAYMENT of IBP dues
4. good and regular STANDING
5. compliance with the MCLE
6. possession of GOOD MORAL CHARACTER; and
Note: the purposes of the requirement are:
a. to protect the public;
b. to protect public image of lawyers;
c. to protect prospective clients; and
d. to protect errant lawyers from themselves (dantesvdantes)
7. CITIZENSHIP (petition for leave to resume practice of law)
7. effect/s if a lawyer subsequently loses his/her ph citizenship
The practice of all profession in the PHs shall be limited to Filipino
citizens, save in cases prescribed by law (1987cons, A12 S14). Hence,
the loss of PH citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to
practice law in the PHs.
However, purusuant to RA 9225, or the Citizenship retention and
re-acquisition act of 2003 a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of
another country is deemed never to have lost his PH citizenship if
he REACQUIRES it in accordance with said law. Nevertheless, his
right to practice law doesn’t automatically accrue. He Must first
secure authority from the SC upon compliance w/ the ff conditions:
1. the updating and payment in full of annual membership dues in
the IBP;
2. payment of professional tax;
3. completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing
legal education (MCLE) and
4. retaking of the lawyer’s oath.
In 2012, SC resolved to approve the petition for reaquisition of the
privilege to practice law filed by Epifanio Muneses who lost his
Filipino citizenship and reacquired the same in accordance with the
provisions of RA 9225. Also in this petition, the SC directed the office
of the bar confidant (OBC) to draft the necessary guidelines for the
re-acquisition of the privilege to resume the practice of law (in REL
Petition to re-acquire the privilege to practice law in the PH. BM
2112)
Guidelines for re-acquisition of the privilege to resume practice of
law
A verified petition must be filed w/ the OBC in 6 copies the petition
state among others the ff
1. full name of the petitioner
2. year admitted to the PH bar
3. circumstances relating to petitioner’s loss of PH citizenship as
well as his/her subsequent re-acquisition thereof;
4. he possesses the good moracl character required from a member
of the Bar;
5. that the petitioner has not been charged with violation of any law,
decree, ordinance, administrative issuance by any government
office, agency, or instrumentality in the PHs or in any foreign
country involving moral turpitude; and
6. that the petitioner has not been found liable for guilty of or
imposed a sanction or penalty for violation of any law, decree,
ordinance, administrative issuance or regulation by any court,
tribunal, bar association, disciplinary committee, or any other
government office, agency or instrumentality in the PH or any
foreign country involving moral turpitude and giving the particulars
thereof, if any
LAWYERS OATH
1. I, __________ OF _________ DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I
WILL MAINTAIN ALLEGIANCE TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES;
2. I WILL SUPPORT ITS CONSTITUTION AND OBEY THE
LAWS AS WELL AS THE LEGAL ORDERS OF THE DULY
CONSTITUTED AUTHORITIES THEREIN;
3. I WILL DO NO FASLEHOOD; NOR CONSENT TO THE
DOING OF ANY IN COURT;
4. I WILL NOT WITTINGLY NOR WILLINGLY PROMOTE OR
SUE ANY GROUNDLESS, FALSE OR UNAWLFUL SUIT, OR
GIVE AID NOR CONSENT TO THE SAME;
5. I WILL DELAY NO MAN FOR MONEY OR MALICE, AND
WILL CONDICT MYSELF AS A LAWYER ACCORDING TO
THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND DISCRETION, WITH
ALL GOOD FIDELITY AS WELL TO THE COURTS AS TO MY
CLIENTS; AND
6. I IMPOSE UPON MYSELF THIS VOLUNTARY OBLIGATION
WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE
AVASION.
7. SO HELP ME GOD
The lawyer’s oath is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing
law. Every lawyer should at all times weigh his actions according to
the sworn promises he makes when taking the lawyer’s oath
Significance: it does not only impress upon the attorney his
responsibilities but also stamps him as an officer of the court w/
rights, powers, and duties as important as those fo the judges
themselves. It is a source of his boligations and its violation is a
ground for suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action
4 DUTIES of a lawyer PC-BC
1. PUBLIC – should not violate his responsibility to society,
exemplar for uprighteousness, ready to render legal aid, foster social
reforms, guardian of due process, aware of special role in the
solution of special problems and be always ready to lend assistance
in the study and solution of social problems.
2. COURT- respect or defend it against criticisms, uphold authority
and dignity, obey its orders and processes, assists in the
administration of justice.
3. BAR – candor, fairness, courtesy and truthfulness, avoid
encroachment in the business of other lawyers, uphold the honor of
the profession.
4. CLIENT – entire devotion to client’s interest.
Duties of a LAWYER CCAARREED
1 to COUNSEL and maintain only such actions or proceedings
which appear to him to be just, and only such defenses which he
believes to be honestly debatable under the law;
2. to maintain inviolate the Confidence, and at every peril to
himself, to preserve the secrets in connection w/ his client, and to
accept no compensation in connection with his client’s business
except from the client or with his client’s knowledge and approval;
3. to maintain ALLEGIANCE to the Republic of the PHs and to
support the Cons and obey the laws of the PHs;
4. to ABSTAIN from all offensive personality and to advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor and reputation of a party or witness, unless
required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;
5. to observe and maintain the RESPECT due to the courts of justice
and judicial officers;
6. never REJECT, for any consideration personal to himself, the
cause of the defenseless or oppressed;
7. to EMPLOY, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confied to
him, only such means which are consistent with truth and honor,
and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an
artifice or false statement of fact or law;
8 not to ENCOURAGE either the commencement or the continuance
of an action of proceeding, or delay any man’s cause, for nay corrupt
motive or interest; and
9. to DEFEND a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable
means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt o the
accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end
that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, w/o due process of
law
Duty of counsel de oficio is expected to render effective service and
to exert his best efforts on behalf of an indigent accused. He ahs the
same duty to a poor litigant as to a paying client. He should have a
bigger does of social conscience and a little less of self-interest.
Expectation to maintain a high degree of legal proficiency and
attention remains the same whether the represented party is a high
paying client or an indigent litigant
IN RE CUNANAN
FACTS: Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the
Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The title of the law was, “An Act to Fix
the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and
including 1955.”
Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
1946-1951………………70%
1952 …………………….71%
1953……………………..72%
1954……………………..73%
1955……………………..74%
Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than
50%.
Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a
grade of 75% in any subject shall be deemed to have already passed
that subject and the grade/grades shall be included in the
computation of the general average in subsequent bar
examinations.”
ISSUE: w/r, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
RULING: Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal
defect of not being embraced in the title of the Act. As per its title,
the Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar
examinations. Section2 establishes a permanent system for an
indefinite time. It was also struck down for allowing partial
passing, thus failing to take account of the fact that laws and
jurisprudence are not stationary.
As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared
unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to 1955 was declared in force
and effect. The portion that was stricken down was based under the
following reasons:
The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who flunked
the bar from 1946 to 1952 had inadequate preparation due to the
fact that this was very close to the end of World War II;
The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court
on the petitions of the said candidates;
The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary prerogative to
determine who may be admitted to practice of law and, therefore, in
excess of legislative power to repeal, alter and supplement the Rules
of Court. The rules laid down by Congress under this power are only
minimum norms, not designed to substitute the judgment of the
court on who can practice law; and
The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class
legislation.
As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not
muster enough votes to declare it void. Moreover, the law was
passed in 1952, to take effect in 1953. Hence, it will not revoke
existing Supreme Court resolutions denying admission to the bar of
an petitioner. The same may also rationally fall within the power
to Congress to alter, supplement or modify rules of admission to the
practice of law.
RENATO CAYETANOvMONSOD
In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Chairman of the
Commission on Elections. His appointment was affirmed by the
Commission on Appointments. Monsod’s appointment was opposed
by Renato Cayetano on the ground that he does not qualify for he
failed to meet the Constitutional requirement which provides that
the chairman of the COMELEC should have been engaged in the
practice law for at least ten years.
Monsod’s track record as a lawyer:
Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%.
Immediately after passing, worked in his father’s law firm for one
year.
Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he had a degree in
economics and held various positions in various foreign
corporations.
In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for
various local corporations until 1986.
In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.
ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the
COMELEC. What constitutes practice of law?
HELD: Yes. Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-
economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the
rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional
requirement — that he has been engaged in the practice of law for
at least ten years.
As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to
court appearances. The members of the bench and bar and the
informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in most
developed societies today, substantially more legal work is
transacted in law offices than in the courtrooms. General
practitioners of law who do both litigation and non-litigation work
also know that in most cases they find themselves spending more
time doing what is loosely described as business counseling than in
trying cases. In the course of a working day the average general
practitioner wig engage in a number of legal tasks, each involving
different legal doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal
institutions, clients, and other interested parties. Even the
increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized practice wig usually
perform at least some legal services outside their specialty. By no
means will most of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer
is one of the relatively rare types — a litigator who specializes in
this work to the exclusion of much else. Instead, the work will
require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of traditional
lawyer skills of client counseling, advice-giving, document drafting,
and negotiation.
RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED
“RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF
LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND
MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT”
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, 08 March 2011, EN BANC, (Leonardo-De
Castro, J.)
Sanction awaits a subordinate who misbehaves.
The right to criticize the courts and judicial officers must be
balanced against the equally primordial concern that the
independence of the Judiciary be protected from due influence or
interference. In cases where the critics are not only citizens but
members of the Bar, jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the
authority of this Court to discipline lawyers whose statements
regarding the courts and fellow lawyers, whether judicial or
extrajudicial, have exceeded the limits of fair comment and
common decency.
Shortly after the promulgation of the Supreme Court
decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary (the Vinuya decision),
the case involving the Filipino comfort women during the Japanese
occupation, the counsel for the petitioners therein filed, first, a
Motion for Reconsideration reiterating the fundamental
responsibility of states in protecting its citizens’ human rights
specifically pertaining to jus cogens norms and, second, a
supplement thereto asserting that the Vinuya decision was
plagiarized from different sources and that the true intents of the
plagiarized sources were twisted by the ponente, Justice Mariano
del Castillo (Justice del Castillo), to suit the arguments laid down
in said decision.
Vis-a-vis the Court’s formation of an ethics committee
tasked to investigate the veracity of the alleged plagiarism, the
authors who were purportedly plagiarized sent their respective
letters to the Supreme Court, noting the misreading and/or
misrepresentation of their articles. Hence, in their articles, they
argue that the crimes of rape, torture and sexual slavery can be
classified as crimes against humanity, thus attaining the jus
cogens status; consequently, it shall be obligatory upon the State
to seek remedies on behalf of its aggrieved citizens. However, the
Vinuya decision cited them to support the contrary stand.
In response to this controversy, the faculty of UP College
of Law came up with a statement entitled “Restoring Integrity: A
Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines
College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and
Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court” (Restoring Integrity
Statement), which statement alleged plagiarism against Justice
del Castillo, treating the same not only as an established fact, but
as a truth. Said statement was posted online and at the College’s
bulletin board and was submitted to the Supreme Court. The
manner in presenting the arguments and the language used
therein, the Court believed, were inappropriate considering its
signatories are lawyers. Thus, the Supreme Court issued a Show
Cause Resolution directing respondents to show cause why they
should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for violations of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Conversely, compliance to
such resolution was unsatisfactory, except for one respondent.
ISSUES:
1.) Whether or not the Show Cause Resolution denies
respondents their freedom of expression
2.) Whether or not the Show Cause Resolution violates
respondents’ academic freedom as law professors
HELD:
Petition DENIED.
The Show Cause Resolution does not deny respondents their
freedom of expression
A reading of the Show Cause Resolution will plainly show
that it was neither the fact that respondents had criticized a
decision of the Court nor that they had charged one of its members
of plagiarism that motivated the said Resolution. It was the
manner of the criticism and the contumacious language by which
respondents, who are not parties nor counsels in the Vinuya case,
have expressed their opinion in favor of the petitioners in the said
pending case for the “proper disposition” and consideration of the
Court that gave rise to said Resolution. The Show Cause
Resolution painstakingly enumerated the statements that the
Court considered excessive and uncalled for under the
circumstances surrounding the issuance, publication, and later
submission to this Court of the UP Law faculty’s Restoring
Integrity Statement.
The right to criticize, which is guaranteed by the freedom of speech
and of expression in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, must be
exercised responsibly, for every right carries with it a
corresponding obligation. Freedom is not freedom from
responsibility, but freedom with responsibility. Thus, proscribed
are the use of unnecessary language which jeopardizes high
esteem in courts, creates or promotes distrust in judicial
administration, or tends necessarily to undermine the confidence
of people in the integrity of the members of the Court. In other
words, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and
courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and
abusive language. Language abounds with countless possibilities
for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not
derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.
In a long line of cases, the Court has held that the right to criticize
the courts and judicial officers must be balanced against the
equally primordial concern that the independence of the Judiciary
be protected from due influence or interference. In cases where
the critics are not only citizens but members of the Bar,
jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the authority of this Court
to discipline lawyers whose statements regarding the courts and
fellow lawyers, whether judicial or extrajudicial, have exceeded the
limits of fair comment and common decency.
The Show Cause Resolution does not violate respondents’ academic
freedom as law professors
There is nothing in the Show Cause Resolution that dictates upon
respondents the subject matter they can teach and the manner of
their instruction. Moreover, it is not inconsistent with the
principle of academic freedom for this Court to subject lawyers who
teach law to disciplinary action for contumacious conduct and
speech, coupled with undue intervention in favor of a party in a
pending case, without observing proper procedure, even if
purportedly done in their capacity as teachers.
Academic freedom cannot be successfully invoked by
respondents in this case. The constitutional right to freedom of
expression of members of the Bar may be circumscribed by their
ethical duties as lawyers to give due respect to the courts and to
uphold the public’s faith in the legal profession and the justice
system. The Court believes that the reason that freedom of
expression may be so delimited in the case of lawyers applies with
greater force to the academic freedom of law professors.
The Court reiterates that lawyers when they teach law are
considered engaged in the practice of law. Unlike professors in
other disciplines and more than lawyers who do not teach law,
respondents are bound by their oath to uphold the ethical
standards of the legal profession. Thus, their actions as law
professors must be measured against the same canons of
professional responsibility applicable to acts of members of the Bar
as the fact of their being law professors is inextricably entwined
with the fact that they are lawyers.
In Re: Garcia
Facts:
Arturo E. Garcia has applied for admission to the practice of law in
the Philippines without submitting to the required bar
examinations. In his verified petition, he avers, among others, that
he is a Filipino citizen born in Bacolod City, of Filipino parentage;
that he had taken and finished in Spain the course of "Bachillerato
Superior"; that he was approved, selected and qualified by the
"Instituto de Cervantes" for admission to the Central University of
Madrid where he studied and finished the law course graduating
as "Licenciado en derecho"; and thereafter he was allowed to
practice the law profession in Spain; and that under the provisions
of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Profession
between the RP and Spain, he is entitled to practice the law
profession in the Philippines without submitting to the required
bar examinations.
Issue:
Whether or not the treaty can modify regulations governing
admission to the Philippine Bar?
Held:
The court resolved to deny the petition.
Ratio Decidendi:
The provision of the treaty on Academic Degrees and Exercise of
Profession between the RP and Spain cannot be invoked by the
applicant. Said treaty was intended to govern Filipino citizens
desiring to practice thair profession in Spain, and the citizens of
Spain desiring to practice their profession in the Philippines.
Applicant is a Filipino citizen desiring to practice profession in the
Philippines. He is therefore subject to the laws of his own country
and is not entitled to the privileges extended to Spanish nationals
desiring to practice in the Philippines. The privileges provided in
the treaty invoked by the applicant are made expressly subject to
the laws and regulations on the contracting state in whose
territory it is desired to exercise the legal profession.
The aforementioned Treaty, concluded between the RP and Spain
could not have been intended to modify the laws and regulations
governing admission to the practice of law in the Philippines, for
the reason that the Executive Department may not encroach upon
the constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court to promulgate
rules for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines, the
power to repeal, alter or supplement such rules being reserved
only to the Congress of the Philippines.
Alawi v Alauya
Facts: Sophia Alawi was a sales representative of E.B. Villarosa &
Partners Co., Ltd. of Davao City, a real estate and housing
company. Ashari M. Alauya is the incumbent executive clerk of
court of the 4th Judicial Shari’a District in Marawi City, They
were classmates, and used to be friends.
Through Alawi’s agency, a contract was executed for the purchase
on installments by Alauya of one of the housing units of Villarosa.
In connection, a housing loan was also granted to Alauya by the
National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).
Not long afterwards, Alauya addressed a letter to the President of
Villarosa & Co. advising of the termination of his contract with the
company. He claimed that his consent was vitiated because Alawi
had resorted to gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty
and abuse of confidence. He laso wrote similar letters to the Vice
President of Villarosa and the Vice President of NHMFC.
On learning of Alauya’s letters, Alawi filed an administrative
complaint against him. One of her grounds was Alauya’s
usurpation of the title of “attorney,” which only regular members
of the Philippine Bar may properly use.
Alauya justified his use of the title, “attorney,” by the assertion
that it is “lexically synonymous” with “Counsellors-at-law.” a title
to which Shari’a lawyers have a rightful claim, adding that he
prefers the title of “attorney” because “counsellor” is often
mistaken for “councilor,” “konsehal” or the Maranao term “consial,”
connoting a local legislator beholden to the mayor. Withal, he does
not consider himself a lawyer.
Issue:
Whether or not Alauya, a member of the Shari’a bar, can use the
title of Attorney
Held:
He can’t. The title is only reserved to those who pass the regular
Philippine bar.
As regards Alauya’s use of the title of “Attorney,” this Court has
already had occasion to declare that persons who pass the Shari’a
Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar, hence may
only practice law before Shari’a courts. While one who has been
admitted to the Shari’a Bar, and one who has been admitted to the
Philippine Bar, may both be considered “counsellors,” in the sense
that they give counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only the
latter is an “attorney.” The title of “attorney” is reserved to those
who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and
successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof
in good standing; and it is they only who are authorized to practice
law in this jurisdiction
Tan vs. Sabandal, 206 SCRA 473 (1992)
DOCTRINES: The practice of law is not a matter of right.
No moral qualification for bar membership is more important than
truthfulness or candor.
FACTS: Respondent Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations
but was denied to take his oath in view of the finding of the Court
that he was guilty of unauthorized practice of law. Since then, he
had filed numerous petitions for him to be allowed to take his
lawyer's oath.
Acting to his 1989 petition, the Court directed the executive judge
of the province where Sabandal is domiciled to submit a comment
on respondent's moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. In
compliance therewith, the executive judge stated in his comment
that he is not aware of any acts committed by the respondent as
would disqualify him to from admission to the Bar. However, he
added that respondent has a pending civil case before his court for
cancellation/reversion proceedings, in which respondent, then
working as Land Investigator of the Bureau of Lands, is alleged to
have secured a free patent and later a certificate of title to a parcel
of land which, upon investigation, turned out to be a swampland
and not susceptible of acquisition under a free patent, and which
he later mortgaged to the bank. The mortgage was later foreclosed
and the land subsequently sold at public auction and respondent
has not redeemed the land since then.
The case was however been settled through amicable settlement.
The said amicable settlement canceled the OCT under Free Patent
in the name of Sabandal and his mortgage in the bank; provided
for the surrender of the certificate of title to the RD for proper
annotation; reverted to the mass of public domain the land covered
by the aforesaid certificate of title with respondent refraining from
exercising acts of possession or ownership over the said land.
Respondent also paid the bank a certain sum for the loan and
interest.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent may be admitted to the practice of
law considering that he already submitted three (3) testimonials
regarding his good moral character, and his pending civil case has
been terminated.
HELD:
His petition must be denied.
Time and again, it has been held that practice of law is not a
matter of right. It is a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are
not only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good
moral character.
It should be recalled that respondent worked as Land Investigator
at the Bureau of Lands. Said employment facilitated his
procurement of the free patent title over the property which he
could not but have known was a public land. This was
manipulative on his part and does not speak well of his moral
character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in the
public service, which cannot be erased by the termination of the
case and where no determination of guilt or innocence was made
because the suit has been compromised. This is a sad reflection of
his sense of honor and fair dealings.
Moreover, his failure to reveal to the Court the pendency of the
civil case for Reversion filed against him during the period that he
was submitting several petitions and motions for reconsiderations
reveal his lack of candor and truthfulness.
Although, the term "good moral character" admits of broad
dimensions, it has been defined as "including at least common
dishonesty." It has also been held that no moral qualification for
membership is more important than truthfulness or candor.
DOMINADOR P. BURBE vs. ATTY. ALBERTO C. MAGULTA
AC No. 99-634. June 10, 2002
FACTS: On September 1998, respondent agreed to legally
represent petitioner Dominador Burbe in a money claim and
possible civil case against certain parties for breach of contract. In
consequence to such agreement, Atty. Alberto C. Magulta prepared
the demand letter and some other legal papers, for which services
he was accordingly paid and an amount of P25,000.00 for the
required filing fee. A week later, petitioner was informed by the
respondent that the complaint had already been filed in court, and
that he should receive notice of its progress. The petitioner waited
for several months for the notice from the court but there was no
progress in the case, he was also inquired repeatedly in the
respondent’s Law Office, however he was told to just wait.
The petitioner decided to go to the Office of the Clerk of Court with
the draft of Atty. Magulta’s complaint to personally verify the
progress of the case, and there told that there was no record at all
of a case filed by Atty. Alberto C. Magulta on his behalf, copy of the
Certification dated May 27, 1999. As such, the petitioner
confronted the latter. The respondent admitted that he has not at
all filed the complaint because he had spent the money for the
filing fee for his own purpose he offered to reimburse him by
issuing two (2) checks, postdated June 1 and June 5, 1999, in the
amounts of P12,000.00 and P8,000.00.
The petitioner filed a case against Atty. Magulta for
misrepresentation, dishonesty and oppressive conduct. The
respondent denied the allegations and alleged that he was never
been paid by complainant for his acceptance and legal fees and
that the amount he had paid was a deposit for the acceptance fee
ISSUE : Whether or not respondent Atty. Magulta is liable for
misrepresentation of funds given to him for the filing fee.
HELD:
YES. Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states
that lawyers shall hold in trust all moneys of their clients and
properties that may come into their possession.
Lawyers who convert the funds entrusted to them are in gross
violation of professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public
confidence in the legal profession. It may be true that they have a
lien upon the client’s funds, documents and other papers that have
lawfully come into their possession; that they may retain them
until their lawful fees and disbursements have been paid; and that
they may apply such funds to the satisfaction of such fees and
disbursements. However, these considerations do not relieve them
of their duty to promptly account for the moneys they received.
Their failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct. In any
event, they must still exert all effort to protect their client’s
interest within the bounds of law.
Respondent fell short of this standard when he converted into his
legal fees the filing fee entrusted to him by his client and thus
failed to file the complaint promptly. The fact that the former
returned the amount does not exculpate him from his breach of
duty.
Petition for Leave to Reclaim Practice of Law of Benjamin Dacanay
In 1998, Atty. Benjamin Dacanay went to Canada to seek medical
help. In order for him to take advantage of Canada’s free medical
aid program he became a Canadian citizen in 2004. In 2006
however, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to
Republic Act 9225 of the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition
Act of 2003. In the same year, he returned to the Philippines and
he now intends to resume his practice of law.
ISSUE: Whether or not Benjamin Dacanay may still resume his
practice of law.
HELD: Yes. As a rule, the practice of law and other professions in
the Philippines are reserved and limited only to Filipino citizens.
Philippine citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar. So
when Dacanay became a Canadian citizen in 2004, he ceased to
have the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. However,
under RA 9225, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another
country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if
he reacquires his Filipino citizenship in accordance with RA 9225.
Hence, when Dacanay reacquires his Filipino citizenship in 2006,
his membership to the Philippine bar was deemed to have never
been terminated.
But does this also mean that he can automatically resume his
practice of law right after reacquisition?
No. Dacanay must still comply with several conditions before he
can resume his practice of law, to wit:
(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership
dues in the IBP;
(b) the payment of professional tax;
(c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory
continuing legal education; this is especially significant to refresh
the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws and update
him of legal developments and
(d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind
him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer
of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines.
Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as
a member of the Philippine bar.