1/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

B.M. No. 2540. September 24, 2013.*

IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS

MICHAEL A. MEDADO, petitioner.

Administrative Law; Mistake of Fact; Mistake of Law; While an honest

mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal
consequences of his acts as it negates malice or evil motive, a mistake of
law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is
presumed to know the law and its consequences.―While an honest mistake
of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal consequences of his
acts as it negates malice or evil motive, a mistake of law cannot be utilized
as a lawful justification, because everyone is

_______________

* EN BANC.

265

VOL. 706, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 265

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Rol of Attorneys

presumed to know the law and its consequences. Ignorantia facti excusat;
ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
Practice of Law; Indirect Contempt; Under the Rules of Court, the
unauthorized practice of law by one’s assuming to be an attorney or officer
of the court, and acting as such without authority, may constitute indirect
contempt of court, which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or
both.―Under the Rules of Court, the unauthorized practice of law by one’s
assuming to be an attorney or officer of the court, and acting as such without
authority, may constitute indirect contempt of court, which is punishable by
fine or imprisonment or both. Such a finding, however, is in the nature of
criminal contempt and must be reached after the filing of charges and the
conduct of hearings. In this case, while it appears quite clearly that
petitioner committed indirect contempt of court by knowingly engaging in
unauthorized practice of law, we refrain from making any finding of liability
for indirect contempt, as no formal charge pertaining thereto has been filed
against him.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fc8c4fd959f12053003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
1/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

Same; Attorneys; Code of Professional Responsibility; While a reading

of Canon 9, Code of Professional Responsibility appears to merely prohibit
lawyers from assisting in the unauthorized practice of law, the unauthorized
practice of law by the lawyer himself is subsumed under this provision,
because at the heart of Canon 9 is the lawyer’s duty to prevent the
unauthorized practice of law.―Knowingly engaging in unauthorized
practice of law likewise transgresses Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides: CANON 9 – A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law. While a reading of
Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit lawyers from assisting in the
unauthorized practice of law, the unauthorized practice of law by the lawyer
himself is subsumed under this provision, because at the heart of Canon 9 is
the lawyer’s duty to prevent the unauthorized practice of law. This duty
likewise applies to law students and Bar candidates. As aspiring members of
the Bar, they are bound to comport themselves in accordance with the
ethical standards of the legal profession.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Petition to

Sign the Roll of Attorneys.
   The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.

266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Rol of Attorneys

  Datu Omar S. Sinsuat and Gilbert Karl T. Sison for petitioner.

RESOLUTION

SERENO, CJ.:
We resolve the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys
filed by petitioner Michael A. Medado (Medado).
Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with
the degree of Bachelor of Laws in 19791 and passed the same year’s
bar examinations with a general weighted average of 82.7.2
On 7 May 1980, he took the Attorney’s Oath at the Philippine
International Convention Center (PICC) together with the successful
bar examinees.3 He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys
on 13 May 1980,4 but he failed to do so on his scheduled date,
allegedly because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of
Attorneys5 given by the Bar Office when he went home to his
province for a vacation.6
Several years later, while rummaging through his old college
files, Medado found the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. It was
then that he realized that he had not signed in the roll, and that what
he had signed at the entrance of the PICC was probably just an
attendance record.7
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fc8c4fd959f12053003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
1/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

By the time Medado found the notice, he was already working.

He stated that he was mainly doing corporate and taxation work, and
that he was not actively involved in litigation

_______________
1 Rollo, p. 1; Petition dated 6 February 2012.
2 Id.
3 Id., at p. 2.
4 Id.
5 Id., at p. 10.
6 Id., at p. 2.
7 Id.

267

VOL. 706, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 267

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Rol of Attorneys

practice. Thus, he operated “under the mistaken belief [that] since he

ha[d] already taken the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys
was not as urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer”;8 and “the
matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys lost its urgency and
compulsion, and was subsequently forgotten.”9
In 2005, when Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education (MCLE) seminars, he was required to provide his roll
number in order for his MCLE compliances to be credited.10 Not
having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to provide his
roll number.
About seven years later, or on 6 February 2012, Medado filed the
instant Petition, praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys.11
The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) conducted a clarificatory
conference on the matter on 21 September 201212 and submitted a
Report and Recommendation to this Court on 4 February 2013.13
The OBC recommended that the instant petition be denied for
petitioner’s gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of
merit.14 It explained that, based on his answers during the
clarificatory conference, petitioner could offer no valid justification
for his negligence in signing in the Roll of Attorneys.15
After a judicious review of the records, we grant Medado’s
prayer in the instant petition, subject to the payment of a fine

_______________
8  Id.
9  Id.
10 Id., at p. 3.
11 Id., at p. 4.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fc8c4fd959f12053003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
1/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

12 Id., at p. 20; TSN, 21 September 2012.

13 Id., at pp. 35-43; Report and Recommendation of the OBC dated 24 January
2013.
14 Id., at p. 42.
15 Id.

268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Rol of Attorneys

and the imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the

practice of law.
At the outset, we note that not allowing Medado to sign in the
Roll of Attorneys would be akin to imposing upon him the ultimate
penalty of disbarment, a penalty that we have reserved for the most
serious ethical transgressions of members of the Bar.
In this case, the records do not show that this action is warranted.
For one, petitioner demonstrated good faith and good moral
character when he finally filed the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll
of Attorneys. We note that it was not a third party who called this
Court’s attention to petitioner’s omission; rather, it was Medado
himself who acknowledged his own lapse, albeit after the passage of
more than 30 years. When asked by the Bar Confidant why it took
him this long to file the instant petition, Medado very candidly
replied:

Mahirap hong i-explain yan pero, yun bang at the time, what can you
say? Takot ka kung anong mangyayari sa ‘yo, you don’t know what’s
gonna happen. At the same time, it’s a combination of apprehension
and anxiety of what’s gonna happen. And, finally it’s the right thing
to do. I have to come here … sign the roll and take the oath as
necessary.16

For another, petitioner has not been subject to any action for
disqualification from the practice of law,17 which is more than what
we can say of other individuals who were successfully admitted as
members of the Philippine Bar. For this Court, this fact demonstrates
that petitioner strove to adhere to the strict requirements of the ethics
of the profession, and

_______________
16 Rollo, p. 28; Report and Recommendation of the OBC dated 24 January 2013.
17 Id., at p. 3; Petition dated 6 February 2012.

269

VOL. 706, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 269

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fc8c4fd959f12053003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
1/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Rol of Attorneys

that he has prima facie shown that he possesses the character

required to be a member of the Philippine Bar.
Finally, Medado appears to have been a competent and able legal
practitioner, having held various positions at the Laurel Law
Office,18 Petron, Petrophil Corporation, the Philippine National Oil
Company, and the Energy Development Corporation.19
All these demonstrate Medado’s worth to become a full-fledged
member of the Philippine Bar. While the practice of law is not a
right but a privilege,20 this Court will not unwarrantedly withhold
this privilege from individuals who have shown mental fitness and
moral fiber to withstand the rigors of the profession.
That said, however, we cannot fully exculpate petitioner Medado
from all liability for his years of inaction.
Petitioner has been engaged in the practice of law since 1980, a
period spanning more than 30 years, without having signed in the
Roll of Attorneys.21 He justifies this behavior by characterizing his
acts as “neither willful nor intentional but based on a mistaken belief
and an honest error of judgment.”22
We disagree.
While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person
from the legal consequences of his acts23 as it negates malice or evil
motive,24 a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful
justification, because everyone is presumed to know

_______________
18 Id., at p. 22; TSN, 21 September 2012, p. 3.
19 Id., at p. 34; id., at p. 15.
20 Barcenas v. Alvero, A.C. No. 8159, 23 April 2010, 619 SCRA 1, 11.
21 Rollo, p. 35; TSN, 21 September 2012, p. 16.
22 Id., at p. 3; Petition dated 6 February 2012.
23 Wooden v. Civil Service Commission, 508 Phil. 500, 515; 471 SCRA 512, 530
(2005).
24 Manuel v. People, 512 Phil. 818, 836; 476 SCRA 461, 479 (2005).

270

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Rol of Attorneys

the law and its consequences.25 Ignorantia facti excusat; ignorantia

legis neminem excusat.
Applying these principles to the case at bar, Medado may have at
first operated under an honest mistake of fact when he thought that
what he had signed at the PICC entrance before the oath-taking was
already the Roll of Attorneys. However, the moment he realized that

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fc8c4fd959f12053003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
1/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

what he had signed was merely an attendance record, he could no

longer claim an honest mistake of fact as a valid justification. At that
point, Medado should have known that he was not a full-fledged
member of the Philippine Bar because of his failure to sign in the
Roll of Attorneys, as it was the act of signing therein that would
have made him so.26 When, in spite of this knowledge, he chose to
continue practicing law without taking the necessary steps to
complete all the requirements for admission to the Bar, he willfully
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
Under the Rules of Court, the unauthorized practice of law by
one’s assuming to be an attorney or officer of the court, and acting as
such without authority, may constitute indirect contempt of court,27
which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.28 Such a
finding, however, is in the nature of criminal contempt29 and must be
reached after the filing of charges and the conduct of hearings.30 In
this case, while it appears quite clearly that petitioner committed
indirect contempt of court by knowingly engaging in unauthorized
practice of law, we refrain from making any finding of liability for
indirect contempt, as no formal charge pertaining thereto has been
filed against him.

_______________
25 Id.
26 Aguirre v. Rana, 451 Phil. 428, 435; 403 SCRA 342, 348 (2003).
27 RULES OF COURT, Rule 71, Sec. 3(e).
28 Tan v. Balajadia, 519 Phil. 632; 484 SCRA 659 (2006).
29 Id.
30 RULES OF COURT, Rule 71, Sec. 3.

271

VOL. 706, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 271

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Rol of Attorneys

Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise

transgresses Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which provides:

CANON 9 – A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the

unauthorized practice of law.

While a reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit lawyers

from assisting in the unauthorized practice of law, the unauthorized
practice of law by the lawyer himself is subsumed under this
provision, because at the heart of Canon 9 is the lawyer’s duty to
prevent the unauthorized practice of law. This duty likewise applies
to law students and Bar candidates. As aspiring members of the Bar,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fc8c4fd959f12053003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
1/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

they are bound to comport themselves in accordance with the ethical

standards of the legal profession.
Turning now to the applicable penalty, previous violations of
Canon 9 have warranted the penalty of suspension from the practice
of law.31 As Medado is not yet a full-fledged lawyer, we cannot
suspend him from the practice of law. However, we see it fit to
impose upon him a penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to
sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of this
Resolution. For his transgression of the prohibition against the
unauthorized practice of law, we likewise see it fit to fine him in the
amount of P32,000. During the one year period, petitioner is warned
that he is not allowed to engage in the practice of law, and is sternly
warned that doing any act that constitutes practice of law before he
has signed in the Roll of Attorneys will be dealt with severely by
this Court.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of
Attorneys is hereby GRANTED. Petitioner Michael A.

_______________
31  See Tapay v. Bancolo, A.C. No. 9604, 20 March 2013, 694 SCRA 1; Noe-
Lacsamana v. Busmente, A.C. No. 7269, 23 November 2011, 661 SCRA 1; and
Cambaliza v. Cristal-Tenorio, 478 Phil. 378; 434 SCRA 288 (2004).

272

272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Rol of Attorneys

Medado is ALLOWED to sign in the Roll of Attorneys ONE (1)

YEAR after receipt of this Resolution. Petitioner is likewise
ORDERED to pay a FINE of P32,000 for his unauthorized practice
of law. During the one year period, petitioner is NOT ALLOWED
to practice law, and is STERNLY WARNED that doing any act that
constitutes practice of law before he has signed in the Roll of
Attorneys will be dealt with severely by this Court.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of
the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, Abad,

Perez, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Brion and Villarama, Jr., JJ., On leave.
Peralta, Bersamin and Mendoza, JJ., On official leave.

Petition granted, petitioner allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys

one (1) year after receipt of this resolution. During the one (1) year

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fc8c4fd959f12053003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
1/16/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

period, petitioner not allowed to practice law, with stern warning

against doing so before signing the Roll of Attorneys.

Notes.―The Court has held that a disbarred lawyer, who

continues to represent himself as a lawyer with the authority to
practice law commits a contumacious act and is liable for indirect
contempt. (Sarmiento vs. Oliva, 599 SCRA 1 [2009])
Sections 3 and 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, specifically
outlines the procedural requisites before the accused may be
punished for indirect contempt. (Esperida vs. Jurado, Jr., 671 SCRA
66 [2012])
――o0o――

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000160fc8c4fd959f12053003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8