Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Petition
for Leave
to Resume
Practice
of
Law,
Benjamin
M.
Dacanay, 540 SCRA 424
HELD:
YES. Petition granted.
RATIO:
Given the fact that Mr. Argosino had
exhibited competent proof that he
possessed the required good moral
character as required before taking the
Lawyers Oath and to sign the Rolls of
Attorneys, the Supreme Court considered
the premises that he is not inherently in
bad moral fiber. In giving the benefit of
the doubt, Mr. Argosino was finally
reminded that the Lawyers Oath is not
merely a ceremony or formality before
the practice of law, and that the
community assistance he had started is
expected to continue in serving the more
unfortunate members of the society.
IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE
ROLL OF ATTORNEYS
BM No. 2540 September 24, 2013
Statement of Facts:
Petitioner Michael Medado, who
obtained his law degree in the year 1979,
took and passed the same years bar
examinations and took the Attorneys
Issue:
WON the petitioner be allowed to
sign in the roll of attorneys?
Ruling:
Yes,
the
Court
allowed
the
petitioner to sign the Roll of Attorneys
subject to the payment of a fine and the
imposition of a penalty equivalent to
suspension from the practice of law.
The Court cannot forbid the
petitioner from signing the Roll of
Attorneys
because
such
action
constitutes disbarment. Such penalty is
reserved to the most serious ethical
transgressions of members of the Bar.
The Court cited three main points
which demonstrate Medados worth to
become a full-fledged member of the
Philippine
Bar.
First,
Medado
demonstrated good faith and good moral
character when he finally filed the instant
3|Page
qualifications,
particularly a license,
as required by law.
The matter of allowing a law student to
appear before the court unaccompanied
by a supervising lawyer cannot be left to
the discretion of the presiding judge. The
rule clearly states that the appearance of
the law student shall be under the direct
control and supervision of a member of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly
accredited by law schools. The rule must
be strictly construed because public
policy demands that legal work should be
entrusted only to those who possess
tested qualifications, are sworn to
observe the rules and ethics of the legal
profession and subject to judicial
disciplinary control. 4 We said in Bulacan
v. Torcino: 5
Court procedures are often
technical and may prove like
snares to the ignorant or the
unwary. In the past, our law has
allowed non-lawyers to appear for
party litigants in places where duly
authorized members of the bar are
not available (U.S. vs. Bacansas, 6
Phil. 539). For relatively simple
litigation before municipal courts,
the Rules still allow a more
educated or capable person in
behalf of a litigant who cannot get
a lawyer. But for the protection of
the parties and in the interest of
justice, the requirement for
appearances in regional trial courts
and higher courts is more
stringent.
The Law Student Practice Rule is only an
exception to the rule. Hence, the
presiding judge should see to it that the
law student appearing before the court is
properly guided and supervised by a
member of the bar.
The rule, however, is different if the law
student appears before an inferior court,
UI vs. BONIFACIO
Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000
Facts:
A complaint for disbarment
was filed by the complainant, Leslie Ui
against respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio
before the Commission on Bar Discipline
of the IBP on the grounds of immorality,
for carrying on an illicit relationship with
the complainants husband, Carlos Ui. It
is respondents contention that her
relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit
because they were married abroad and
that after June 1998 when respondent
discovered Carlos Uis true civil status,
she cut off all her ties with him.
Issue:
Did the respondent conduct
herself in an immoral manner for which
she deserves to be barred from the
practice of law?
Held: NO. The practice of law is a
privilege. A bar candidate does not have
the right to enjoy the practice of the legal
profession simply by passing the bar
examinations. It is a privilege that can be
revoked, subject to the mandate of due
process, once a lawyer violates his oath
and the dictates of legal ethics. If good
moral character is a sine qua non for
admission to the bar, then the continued
possession of good moral character is
also requisite for retaining membership
in the legal profession.
Membership in the bar may be
terminated when a lawyer ceases to have
good moral character. A lawyer may be
disbarred for grossly immoral conduct or
by reason of his conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude. A member of
the bar should have moral integrity in
addition to professional probity.
Circumstances existed which
should
have
aroused
respondents
suspicion that something was amiss in
7|Page
8|Page