Petition for Leave to resume practice of Law, Benjamin M.

Dacanay
FACTS:
Benjamin M. Dacanay was admitted to Philippine Bar in March 1960. He practiced law in the country but migrated to
Canada to seek medical attention for his ailments to which he applied and was approved for Canadian citizenship in order to
avail the country's free medical program.
On 2006, He re-acquired his Philippine citizenship through RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003)
and returned to the Philippines because he wants to resume his law practice.
ISSUE:WON Benjamin Dacanay may still resume his practice of law?
HELD:
Yes, Benjamin Dacanay may still resume his practice of law.
Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states:
Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one
years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme
Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude,
have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.
Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates membership in the Philippine bar
and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure
terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners. The
exception however, is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of another country but
subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is because "all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another
country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA 9225]." Therefore a Filipino
lawyer, who became a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in
accordance with RA 9225 however, it doesn't mean that he will automatically resume his practice of law.
In this case as provided under RA 9225, before Dacanay can resume his practice of law he must first secure from the Court
the authority to do so by:
-updating and payment in full of annual membership dues in the IBP
-paying professional tax
-completing at least 36 hours of mandatory continuing legal education and
-retaking of the lawyer's oath which will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and an
officer of Court but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to Republic of the Philippines.
Upon compliance with the conditions, it will restore his good standing as a member of the Philippine Bar.

CHAM v. ATTY. EVA PAITA-MOYA

FACTS:
Atty. Eva Paita-Moya entered into a contract of lease with Greenville Realty and Development Corp. represented by
Wilson Cham as President and General Manager, involving a residential apartment unit for P8,000.00 per month for a term of
one year.
Upon expiration of lease contract, Atty. Paita-Moya informed Cham that she will no longer renew but requested an extension
to stay in the apartment unit with a commitment that she will be paying the monthly rental. Cham approved the request but
increased the rental rate to P8650.00 per month. Atty. Paita-Moya indeed stayed at the leased premises but did not pay the
rentals and failed as well to settle her electric bills then a report reached Cham's office that Atty. Eva Paita-Moya secretly
vacated the apartment unit bringing with her the door keys. Atty. Eva Paita-Moya also did not heed to Cham's repeated
written demands for payment of her obligations despite receiving the said written demands.
Atty. Eva Paita-Moya however contended that she has religiously paid her monthly rentals and denied the allegation that she
vacated the apartment secretly and further contended that she vacated the unit because she was given notice by Cham to
vacate the unit allegedly in order to give way to the repair and renovation of the same.
ISSUE:
WON the alleged act of respondent constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility?
HELD:
Yes, the alleged act of non-payment of monthly rentals constitute a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
A review of the records reveal that Atty. Paita-Moya is indeed guilty of willful failure to pay just debt as shown by the letters of
demand sent by Cham. The first letter shows that Cham demanded Atty. Paita-Moya to settle her three-month unpaid rentals
which appears to have been received by a Purificacion Flores. The second letter shows Cham reiterating the earlier demand
for Atty. Paita-Moya to settle her unpaid rentals as well as unpaid Meralco bills and was also received by a Nonie Catindig.
Atty. Paita-Moya however did not expressly deny receipt of both letters of demand but failed to rebut the allegations which is
then deemed that she has admitted them as provided in Section 11, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court.
Moreover, it is a settled rule of evidence that one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it even if it is the plaintiff
who alleges non-payment, general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment. Applying the rule in this
case, it is Atty. Paita-Moya who has to prove that she paid the monthly rentals and Meralco bills instead of Cham to which
Atty. Paita-Moya failed to do so.
Having incurred just debts, Atty. Paita-Moya has the moral duty and legal responsibility to settle them when they became
due. She should have complied with her just obligations, and acted fairly and should have adhered to high ethical standards
to preserve the court's integrity since she is an employee thereof. When she backtracked her duty to pay debts, it
constitutes a violation of Code of Professional Responsibility particularly Canon1 (A lawyer shall uphold the constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.) and Rule 1.01 (A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.)
Lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to their clients. As part of those
duties, they must promptly pay their financial obligations. Their conduct must always reflect the values and norms of the legal
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility. On these considerations, the Court may disbar or
suspend lawyers for any professional or private misconduct showing them to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity
and good demeanor or to be unworthy to continue as officers of the Court. The Court stresses that membership in the
legal profession is a privilege. It demands a high degree of good moral character, not only as a condition precedent to
admission, but also as a continuing requirement for the practice of law. In this case, respondent fell short of the
exacting standards expected of her as a guardian of law and justice and therefore deserves the administrative sanction of 3month suspension.