LEGAL ETHICS MIDTERMS REVIEWER ATTY.
FERNANDO practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the
LAWYERS OATH
I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as
well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will
do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not
wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful
suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money
or malice, and will conduct 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 I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
LEGAL ETHICS branch of moral science// which treats of the duties//
which an attorney owes to the
1. Court
2. Client
3. Colleagues in the profession
4. Public
BASIS OF PHILIPPINE LEGAL ETHICS
1. The Code of Professional Responsibility guidelines and standards
on the rule of conduct of lawyers from: (Csquared-R-Ssquared-T-D)
a. Constitution
b. Canons of Professional Responsibility
c. Rules of Court
d. Statutes
e. Special Law
f. Treaties
g. Decisions
2. The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
supersedes Canons of Judicial Conduct from universal declaration of
standards for ethical conduct of judges in Bangalore Draft
A. PRACTICE OF LAW
a. ADMISSION
SECTION 5, PAR. 5, ARTICLE VIII, 1987 CONSTITUTION
Supreme Court has the power to:
Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission 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.
Case # 1: 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.
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:
Is the Act constitutional?
HELD:
An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of
the law that should be developed constantly and maintained firmly. The
Judicial system from which ours has been derived, the act of admitting,
suspending, disbarring, and reinstating attorneys at law in the practice of the
profession is concededly judicial. The Constitution, has not conferred on
Congress and the S.C. equal responsibilities concerning the admission to the
practice of law. The primary power and responsibility which the constitution
recognizes continue to reside in this court. Its retroactivity is invalid in such a
way, that what the law seeks to cure are not the rules set in place by the
S.C. but the lack of will or the defect in judgment of the court, and this power
is not included in the power granted by the Const. to Congress, it lies
exclusively w/in the judiciary.
b. CONCEPT
i. Privilege
ii. Profession not a business
PRACTICE OF LAW
1. any activity in or out of court
2. which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experience. (LaLeProKnoTrainEx)
How to practice law?
1. give advice
2. any use of legal knowledge or skill
General Coverage of Practice of Law (Ulep vs. Legal Clinic)
1. Legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their
rights
2. Preparation of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles
not possessed by ordinary layman
3. Appearance for clients before public tribunals
Criteria for the Practice of Law (Ha-Co-Ap-At)
1. Habituality habitually holding oneself out to the public as a lawyer
2. Compensation presented himself to be in the active practice and
his services are available to public for compensation
3. Application of law
4. Attorney-Client-Relationship
NATURE OF PRACTICE OF LAW
1. It is NOT a right but a PRIVILEGE to those who have
a. Learned the law
b. Have good moral character
Note: IT BECOMES A RIGHT ONCE A PERSON IS ADMITTED TO
THE PRACTICE OF LAW. For a lawyer to be prevented in practicing,
and deprived of such right is when he has committed a
MISCONDUCT duly ascertained (after due process)
2. It cannot be assigned or inherited
3. It is a privilege burdened with CONDITIONS
4. It is a profession NOT a business
duty to serve the public and aid in the administration of justice =
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION OF LAWYERS // NOT their personal
interests or what they owe to themselves
Case # 2: Cayetano v. Monsod
FACTS:
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C.
Aquino to the position of chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the
nomination because allegedly Monsod does not posses required qualification
of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The
1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a
Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners
who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their
appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree,
and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the
immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof, including the
Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged
in the practice of law for at least ten years.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent does not posses the required qualification of having
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
HELD:
In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: The
practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it
embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions
and special proceeding, the management of such actions and proceedings
on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In
general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters
connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and
condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body,
the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditors claim in bankruptcy
and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and
in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law
practice. Practice of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires
the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.
The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification
of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years is incorrect
since Atty. Monsods past work experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-
manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts,
and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement for the position of COMELEC chairman, The
respondent has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years
does In the view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.
Case # 3: Ulep v. Legal Clinic
FACTS:
The petitioner contends that the advertisements reproduced by the
respondents are champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession,
and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the
members of the bar and that, to which as a member of the legal profession,
he is ashamed and offended by the following advertisements. In its answer to
the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements
at its instance, but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in
the rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals with the use of
modern computers and electronic machines. Respondent further argues that
assuming that the services advertised are legal services, the act of
advertising these services should be allowed supposedly in the light of the
case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, reportedly
decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.
ISSUE:
Whether or not, the advertised services offered by the Legal Clinic, Inc.,
constitutes practice of law and whether the same are in violation of the Code
of Professional responsibility
HELD:
Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such
practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making
known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and
objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the legal
profession condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A lawyer
cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or
skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further,
the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage,
bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law which their experts can
facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed.
The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the
outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as
well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public
attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is
right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to
generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference
between a normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of
propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the following as allowed
forms of advertisement:
1. Advertisement in a reputable law list
2. Use of ordinary simple professional card
3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his
specialization
Case # 4: Ledesma v. Climaco
FACTS:
Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an accused in a
case pending in the sala of the respondent judge. On October 13, 1964,
Ledesma was appointed Election Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz,
Negros Occidental. He commenced discharging his duties, and filed a motion
to withdraw from his position as counsel de parte. The respondent Judge
denied him and also appointed him as counsel de oficio for the two
defendants. On November 6, Ledesma filed a motion to be allowed to
withdraw as counsel de oficio, because the Comelec requires full time
service which could prevent him from handling adequately the defense.
Judge denied the motion. So Ledesma instituted this certiorari proceeding.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the order of the respondent judged in denying the motion of
the petitioner is a grave abuse of discretion?
HELD:
No, Ledesma's withdrawal would be an act showing his lack of fidelity to the
duty required of the legal profession. He ought to have known that
membership in the bar is burdened with conditions. The legal profession is
dedicated to the ideal of service, and is not a mere trade. A lawyer may be
required to act as counsel de oficio to aid in the performance of the
administration of justice. The fact that such services are rendered without
pay should not diminish the lawyer's zeal.
The only attorneys who cannot practice law by reason of their office are
Judges, or other officials or employees of the superior courts or the office of
the solicitor General (Section 32 Rule 127 of the Rules of Court [Section
35 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court]. The lawyer involved not
being among them, remained as counsel of record since he did not file a
motion to withdraw as defendant-appellants counsel after his appointment as
Register of Deeds. Nor was substitution of attorney asked either by him or by
the new counsel for the defendant-appellant (People vs. Williams CA G.R.
Nos. 00375-76, February 28, 1963)
To avoid any frustration thereof, especially in the case of an indigent
defendant, a lawyer may be required to act as counsel de officio (People v.
Daban) Moreover, The right of an accused in a criminal case to be
represented by counsel is a constitutional right of the highest importance,
and there can be no fair hearing with due process of law unless he is fully
informed of his rights in this regard and given opportunity to enjoy them
(People vs. Holgado, L-2809, March 22, 1950)
The trial court in a criminal case has authority to provide the
accused with a counsel de officio for such action as it may deem fit to
safeguard the rights of the accused (Provincial Fiscal of Rizal vs. Judge
Muoz Palma, L-15325, August 31, 1930)
Case # 5: In Re: Al C. Argosino
FACTS:
Al Caparros Argosino had passed the bar examinations but was denied of
taking the Lawyers Oath and to sign the Rolls of Attorneys due to his
conviction of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide from a hazing
incident. Later in his sentence, he was granted probation by the court. He
filed a petition to the Supreme Court praying that he be allowed to take the
Lawyers Oath and sign the Rolls of Attorneys. As a proof of the required
good moral character he now possess, he presented no less than fifteen (15)
certifications among others from: two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges,
and six (6) members of religious order. In addition, he, together with the
others who were convicted, organized a scholarship foundation in honor of
their hazing victim.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Mr. Argosino should be allowed to take the Lawyers Oath,
sign the Rolls of Attorneys, and practice law.
HELD:
YES. Petition granted. 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.
Case # 6: Canlas v. CA
FACTS:
The private respondent own several parcels of land located in Quezon City
for which he is the registered owner. He secured loans from L and R
corporations and executed deeds of mortgage over the parcels of land for the
security of the same. Upon the maturity of said loans, the firm initiated an
extrajudicial foreclosure of the properties in question after private respondent
failed to pay until maturity. The private respondent filed a complaint for
injunction over the said foreclosure and for redemption of the parcels of land.
Two years after the filing of the petition, private respondent and L and R
corporation entered into a compromise agreement that renders the former to
be insured another year for the said properties. Included in the stipulations
were the attorneys fees amounting to Php 100,000.00. The private
respondent however, remained to be in turmoil when it came to finances and
was apparently unable to pay and secure the attorneys fees, more so the
redemption liability. Petitioner discussed relief and private respondent
executed a document to redeem the parcels of land and to register the same
to his name. Allegations were made by the private respondent claiming the
parcels of land to his name but without prior notice, the properties were
already registered under the petitioners name. The private respondent calls
for a review and for the court to act on the said adverse claim by petitioner on
said certificates for the properties consolidated by the redemption price he
paid for said properties. The private respondent filed a suit for the annulment
of judgment in the Court of appeals which ruled over the same.
ISSUE:
whether the petitioner is on solid ground on the reacquisition over the said
properties.
HELD:
By Atty. Canlas' own account, "due to lack of paying capacity of respondent
Herrera, no financing entity was willing to extend him any loan with which to
pay the redemption price of his mortgaged properties
and petitioner's P100,000.00 attorney's fees awarded in the Compromise
Judgment," a development that should have tempered his demand for his
fees. For obvious reasons, he placed his interests over and above those of
his client, in opposition to his oath to "conduct himself as a lawyer ... with all
good fidelity ... to [his] clients." The Court finds the occasion fit to stress that
lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not merchants, a
fundamental standard that has, as a matter of judicial notice, eluded not a
few law advocates. The petitioner's efforts partaking of a shakedown" of his
own client are not becoming of a lawyer and certainly, do not speak well of
his fealty to his oath to "delay no man for money." We are not, however,
condoning the private respondent's own shortcomings. In condemning Atty.
Canlas monetarily, we cannot overlook the fact that the private respondent
has not settled his liability for payment of the properties. To hold Atty. Canlas
alone liable for damages is to enrich said respondent at the expense of his
lawyer. The parties must then set off their obligations against the other.
Case # 7: In Re: Ozaeta
FACTS:
The surviving parters of Atty. Herminio Ozaeta filed a petition praying that
they be allowed to continue using, in the name of their firm, the names of
their partner who passed away. One of the petitioners arguments stated that
no local custom prohibits the continued use of a deceased partners name in
a professional firms name in so far as Greater Manila Area is concerned. No
custom exists which recognizes that the name of a law firm necessarily
identifies the individual members of the firm. They also stated that the
continued use of a deceased partners name in the firm name of law
partnerships has been consistently allowed by U.S. Courts and is an
accepted practice in the legal profession of most countries in the world.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the law firm Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta & Reyes is
allowed to sustain the name of their deceased partner, Atty. Herminio
Ozaeta, in the name of their firm.
HELD:
NO. Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by the American
Bar Association stated the following: The continued use of the name of a
deceased or former partner when permissible by local custom, is not
unethical but care should be take that no imposition or deception is practiced
through this use. No local custom permits or allows the continued use of a
deceased or former partners name in the firm names of law partnerships.
Firm names, under Philippine custom, identify the more active or senior
partners in a firm. Firm names in the Philippines change and evolve when
partners die, leave or a new one is added. It is questionable to add the new
name of a partner and sustain the name of the deceased one since they
have never been, technically, partners in the first place. When it comes to the
arguments of the petitioners stating that U.S. Courts grant the continued use
of the deceased partners name, this is so because in the U.S., it is a
sanctioned custom as stated in the case of Mendelsohn v. Equitable Life
Assurance Society (33 N.Y.S 2d 733). This does not apply in the Philippines.
The petition filed herein is denied and petitioner is advised to drop the name
OZAETA from the firm name.
c. QUALIFICATIONS
RULE 138, RULES OF COURT QUESTIONS
1. Who may practice law? (Sec. 1)
Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or
hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this
rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice
law.
2. What are the requirements for all applicants for admission to the
bar? (Sec. 2)
a. citizen of the Philippines
b. at least twenty-one years of age
c. of good moral character
d. resident of the Philippines
e. must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of
good moral character
f. no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been
filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines
3. What are the Requirements for lawyers who are citizens of the
United States of America? (Sec. 3)
a. Citizens of the United States of America who, before July 4,
1946, were duly licensed members of the Philippine Bar
b. in active practice in the courts of the Philippines
c. in good and regular standing as such may, upon satisfactory
proof of those facts before the Supreme Court
d. be allowed to continue such practice after taking the lawyers
oath
4. What are the requirements for applicants from other jurisdictions?
(Sec. 4)
a. Applicants for admission who, being Filipino citizens, are
enrolled attorneys in good standing in the Supreme Court of the
United States or in any circuit court of appeals or district court
therein, or in the highest court of any State or Territory of the
United States
b. who can show by satisfactory certificates that they have
practiced at least five years in any of said courts, that such
practice began before July 4, 1946
c. that they have never been suspended or disbarred, may, in the
discretion of the Court, be admitted without examination.
5. What are the additional requirements for other applicants? (Sec. 5)
All applicants for admission other than those referred to in the two
preceding section shall, before being admitted to the examination,
satisfactorily show that
a. they have regularly studied law for four years, and
b. successfully completed all prescribed courses, in a law school or
university, officially approved and recognized by the Secretary of
Education.
c. The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a certificate from
the university or school of law, shall be filed as evidence of such
facts, and further evidence may be required by the court.
No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he
has satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school or
university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial
law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law,
political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence,
taxation and legal ethics.
6. What is the time for filling proof of qualifications? (Sec. 7)
All applicants for admission shall file with the clerk of the Supreme
Court the evidence required by section 2 of this rule at least fifteen
(15) days before the beginning of the examination.
NOTE THAT: Notice of applications for admission shall be published
by the clerk of the Supreme Court in newspapers published in
Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at least ten (10) days before the
beginning of the examination (Sec. 8)
7. What are the examination subjects? (Sec. 9)
Civil Law; Labor and Social Legislation; Mercantile Law; Criminal
Law; Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public Corporations, and
Public Officers); International Law (Private and Public); Taxation;
Remedial Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence);
 Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (in Pleadings and
Conveyancing).
8. What is the passing average? (Sec. 14)
In order that a candidate may be deemed to have passed his
examinations successfully, he must have obtained a general average
of 75 % in all subjects, without falling below 50 per cent in any
subjects. In determining the average, the subjects in the examination
shall be given the following relative weights: Civil Law, 1 %; Labor
and Social Legislation, 10%; Mercantile Law, 15%; Criminal Law;
10% : Political and International Law, 15%; Taxation 10%; Remedial
Law, 20% Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises, 5%.
9. What will happen if you fail? (Sec. 16)
Candidates who have failed the bar examinations for three times
shall be disqualified from taking another examination unless they
show the satisfaction of the court that they have enrolled in and
passed regular fourth year review classes as well as attended a pre-
bar review course in a recognized law school
The professors of the individual review subjects attended by the
candidates under this rule shall certify under oath that the candidates
have regularly attended classes and passed the subjects under the
same conditions as ordinary students and the ratings obtained by
them in the particular subject.
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO BAR (CAGRECAPTS)
1. Citizen of the Philippines
2. At least 21 y/o
3. Good moral character (Continuing Requirement)
4. Resident of the Philippines
5. Evidence of good moral character be presented in the SC
6. No charges against him involving moral turpitude
7. Complied with academic requirements
a. Completed in an authorized and recognized university or college
which requires for admission a 4-year HS course
b. BS or BA major in Pol Sci, Logic, English, Spanish, History,
Economics
c. Four-year Bachelors Degree in Law completed courses in Civil,
Remedial, Criminal, Public and Private Internationa, Political,
Labor Laws, Social Legislation, Medical jurisprudence, Taxation
and Legal Ethics
8. Pass the bar
9. Take lawyers oath
10. Sign the Roll of Attys and receive from the clerk of court of the SC a
certificate of license to practice
CONTINUING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAW (SIP-
TMGC)
1. Good and regular standing
2. Membership in the IBP
3. Payment of IBP dues
4. Payment of professional Tax
5. Compliance with the MCLE (Minimum Continuing Legal Education)
6. Possession of Good moral character
a. To protect the public
b. To protect the public image of lawyers
c. To protect prospective clients
d. To protect errant lawyers from themselves
7. Citizenship
EFFECTS OF LOSS AND RE-ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
The practice of ALL professions in the Philippines is LIMITED only to
Filipino citizens, so if a Philippine lawyer lost his citizenship he also loses his
right to practice in the Philippines. HOWEVER, RA 9225 (The Citizenship
Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 200) allows re-acquisition of Philippine
citizenship AS IF IT HAS NEVER BEEN LOST, so a Filipino lawyer who
reacquires his citizenship may again practice in the Philippines subject to the
following conditions:
1. 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
4. Retaking of the lawyers oath
Bar Matter No. 1153, Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing
Reforms in the Bar Examinations through Amendments to Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, March 9, 2010
Filipino law graduates abroad may now take Philippine bar exams
Amending Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the Supreme
Court now allows Filipino graduates of foreign law schools to take the
Philippine Bar, subject to certain conditions.
Section 5 of the Rule now provides that before being admitted to the
examination, all applicants for admission to the bar shall satisfactorily show
that they have successfully completed all the prescribed courses for the
degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree in a law school or
university officially recognized by the Philippine Government or by the proper
authority in the foreign jurisdiction where the degree has been granted.
Section 5 now also provides that a Filipino citizen who graduated from a
foreign law school shall be admitted to the bar examination only upon
submission to the Supreme Court 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 school by the proper
authority; and (c) completion of all fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of
Laws academic program in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine
Government.
A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her degree in Bachelor
of Laws or its equivalent in a foreign law school must also present proof of
completion of a separate bachelors degree.
Case # 8: Alawi v. Alauya
FACTS:
Sophia Alawi was a sale representative of E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd.
of Davao City. Ashari Alauya is the incumber executive of clerk of court of
the 4th Judicial Shari'a District in Marawi City. It appears that through Alawi's
agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on installments by Alauya
of one of the housing units belonging to the above mentioned firm (hereafter,
simply Villarosa & Co.); and in connection therewith, a housing loan was also
granted to Alauya by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation
(NHMFC). Not long afterwards, or more precisely on December 15, 1995,
Alauya addressed a letter to the President of Villarosa & Co. advising of the
termination of his contract with the company.
RULING:
1. 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. 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.
2. WHEREFORE, respondent Ashari M. Alauya is
hereby REPRIMANDED for the use of excessively intemperate, insulting or
virulent language, i.e., language unbecoming a judicial officer, and for
usurping the title of attorney; and he is warned that any similar or other
impropriety or misconduct in the future will be dealt with more sev
Case # 9: Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M.
Dacanay
FACTS:
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced law
until he migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for
his ailments. He subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of
Canadas free medical aid program. His application was approved and he
became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.
On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention
and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his Philippine
citizenship. On that day, he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen
before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, he
returned to the Philippines and now intends to resume his law practice.
ISSUE:
Whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in the
Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship
RULING:
The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the
Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by
law. 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 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 becomes a
citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine
citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. Although he is also
deemed never to have terminated his membership in the Philippine bar, no
automatic right to resume law practice accrues.
Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the
Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant to its
provisions (he) shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to
engage in such practice.
Case # 10: In re: Petition to Re-acquire the Privilege to Practice Law in the
Philippines, B.M. No. 2112
On June 8, 2009, petitioner Epifanio B. Muneses with the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC) praying that he be granted the privilege to practice law in
the Philippines.
Petitioner became a member of the IBP in 1966 but lost his privilege to
practice law when he became a American citizen in 1981. In 2006, he re-
acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 or the Citizenship
Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003 by taking his oath of allegiance
as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate in Washington, D.C. He
intends to retire in the Philippines and if granted, to resume the practice of
law.
The Court reiterates that Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to
the bar and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for the practice of law. The
loss thereof means termination of the petitioners membership in the bar; ipso
jure the privilege to engage in the practice of law. Under R.A. No. 9225,
natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of
their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have re-
acquired their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the
Republic. Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country
and later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, remains
to be a member of the Philippine Bar. However, as stated in Dacanay, the
right to resume the practice of law is not automatic. R.A. No. 9225 provides
that a person who intends to practice his profession in the Philippines must
apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such
practice.
Thus, in pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the Court for the
practice of law, the OBC required, and incompliance thereof, petitioner
submitted the following:
1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
4. Certificate of Re-Acquisition/Retention of Philippine Citizenship issued by
the Bureau of Immigration, in lieu of the IC;
5. Certification dated May 19, 2010 of the IBP-Surigao City
Chapter attesting to his good moral character as well as his updated
payment of annual membership dues;
6. Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) for the year 2010;
7. Certificate of Compliance with the MCLE for the 2nd compliance period;
and
8. Certification dated December 5, 2008 of Atty. Gloria Estenzo-Ramos,
Coordinator, UC-MCLE Program,
University of Cebu, College of Law attesting to his compliance with the
MCLE.
The OBC further required the petitioner to update his compliance, particularly
with the MCLE. After all the requirements were satisfactorily complied with
and finding that the petitioner has met all the qualifications, the OBC
recommended that the petitioner be allowed to resume his practice of law.
WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney Epifanio B. Muneses is hereby
GRANTED, subject to the condition that he shall re-take the Lawyer's Oath
on a date to be set by the Court and subject to the payment of appropriate
fees.
Case # 11: Aguirre v. Rana
FACTS:
Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. before the
scheduled mass oath-taking, complainant Aguirre filed against respondent a
Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. The Court allowed respondent to
take his oath. Respondent took the lawyers oath on the scheduled date but
has not signed the Roll of Attorneys up to now. Complainant alleges that
respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in
an election. On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that
respondent is a municipal government employee, being a secretary of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate. As such, respondent is not
allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or administrative
body. On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation,
complainant accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice mayoralty
candidate George Bunan without the latter engaging respondents services.
Complainant claims that respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent
the proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty candidate.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and
thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar
RULING:
The Court held that practice of law means any activity, in or out of court,
which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training
and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which are
usually performed by members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice
law is to render any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge
or skill. The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a
privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special
qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege
presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational
attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A
bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the
bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even
from one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking
admission had practiced law without a license.
 True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the
lawyers oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally
makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar
examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to
become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential
requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his
lawyers oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of
Attorneys.
Case # 12: In the matter of the disqualification of bar examinee Haron S.
Meling in the 2002 Bar Examinations, B.M. No. 1154
FACTS:
MELENDREZ filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to
disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations
and to impose on him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the
Philippine Sharia Bar. Alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to
take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3) pending criminal cases
both for Grave Oral Defamation and for Less Serious Physical Injuries.
Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife in
front of media practitioners and other people. Meling also purportedly
attacked and hit the face of Melendrez wife causing the injuries to the latter.
Alleges that Meling has been using the title Attorney in his communications,
as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a
member of the Bar. MELING explains that he did not disclose the criminal
cases because retired Judge Corocoy Moson, their former professor, advised
him to settle misunderstanding. Believing in good faith that the case would be
settled because the said Judge has moral ascendancy over them,
considered the three cases that arose from a single incident as closed and
terminated. Denies the charges and added that the acts do not involve moral
turpitude. Use of the title Attorney, Meling admits that some of his
communications really contained the word Attorney as they were typed by
the office clerk. Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the charge of non-
disclosure against Meling: Meling should have known that only the court of
competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor a law
professor. In fact, the cases filed against Meling are still pending. Even if
these cases were already dismissed, he is still required to disclose the same
for the Court to ascertain his good moral character.
ISSUE:
WON Melings act of concealing cases constitutes dishonesty. YES.
HELD:
PETITION IS GRANTED. MEMBERSHIP IS SUSPENDED until further
orders from the Court, the suspension to take effect immediately. Insofar as
the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from taking the Lawyers Oath
and signing the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar, the
same is DISMISSED for having become moot and academic (Meling did not
pass the bar).
1. Rule 7.01: A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a
false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his
application for admission to the bar.
1. He is aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there was no
valid reason why he signed as attorney whoever may have
typed the letters.
i. Unauthorized use of the appellation attorney may
render a person liable for indirect contempt of court.
2. PRACTICE OF LAW IS A HIGH PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
1. Limited to citizens of good moral character, with special
educational qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.
2. Requirement of good moral character is, in fact, of greater
importance so far as the general public and the proper
administration of justice are concerned, than the possession
of legal learning.
3. Application form of 2002 Bar Examinations requires the applicant
that applicant to aver that he or she has not been charged with any
act or omission punishable by law, rule or regulation before a fiscal,
judge, officer or administrative body, or indicted for, or accused or
convicted by any court or tribunal of, any offense or crime involving
moral turpitude; nor is there any pending case or charge against
him/her.
1. Meling did not reveal that he has three pending criminal
cases. His deliberate silence constitutes concealment, done
under oath at that.
d. APPEARANCE OF NON-LAWYERS
Prohibitions and Limitation in the practice of law
1. Appearance of Non-Lawyers in court
2. Practice of Law by a corporation
3. Practice of law by public officials
I. APPEARNCE OF NON-LAWYERS IN COURT
General Rule: Only those who are license to practice law can appear and
handle cases in court
Except:
1. Before the MTC: Party is allowed to conduct a case in person WITH
AID of an AGENT or FRIEND appointed by him.
Case # 13: Maderada v. Mediodea
FACTS:
Petitioner Imelda Y. Maderada, the Clerk of Court in 12th MCTC, charged
against Judge Ernesto H. Mediodea of the MCTC with gross ignorance of
the law amounting to grave misconduct for failing to observe and apply
the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure in a civil case. On Sep. 7, 2001,
a criminal case of Forcible Entry was charged against Maderada, and was
presided over by Judge Erlinda Tersol. Due to Maderadas occupation as
clerk of court, Tersol inhibited herself. During the case, the opposing \party
questions the appearance of Maderada as the cousel of herself and her co-
plaintiff in the criminal case. Respondent Judge refutes Maderadas assertion
that she appeared as counsel on her own behalf because she could not
afford the services of a lawyer that it does not follow that her occupation as
Clerk is not enough to pay for the services of counsel. Furthermore,
Mediodea alleges that Maderada did not secure authority from this Court to
appear as counsel, and that she failed to file her leave of absence every time
she appeared in court. OCA recommended that respondent judge be fined,
however, Maderada is also at fault for not seeking approval of the court to
appear as counsel.
ISSUE:
Is the appearance of Maderada as counsel valid?
HELD:
Yes. The OCA recommends Maderada to be fined for engaging in a private
vocation or profession when she appeared on her own behalf in court, the
necessary implication was the she was in the practiceof law. A party has right
to conduct litigation personally is recognized by law, sec. 34 of Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court. When the individuals do litigate they are not considered
to be in the practice of law. Maderada, in appearing for herself, not to the
public as a lawyer nor demanding payment for ittherefore, she cannot be in
the practice of law. However, what is prohibited is, appearing as the counsel
for her co- plaintiff. It no longer follows the raison detre of protecting ones
own rights19. A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC, August 19, 2009
2. Before ANY COURT: Party is allowed to conduct a case
PERSONALLY, but if he gets someone to aid him, that person MUST
BE AN AUTHORIZED MEMBER OF THE BAR.
Note: Same rules will apply in litigations conduct by a non-lawyer. A
lawyer who lost his license also has the right to defend himself
personally with rights equal to a non-laywer.
3. CRIMINAL CASE BEFORE MTC
Applicable only when: the locality has no available lawyer
JUDGE WILL APPOINT A NON-LAWYER WHO IS
a. Resident of that province
b. With good reputation and has the ability to aid the
accused
4. Student Practice Rule
RULE 138-A RULES OF COURT
Law Student Practice Rule
Section 1. Conditions for student practice. A law student who has
successfully completed his 3rd year of the regular four-year prescribed law
curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal
education program approved by the Supreme Court, may appear without
compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative case before any trial
court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent indigent clients accepted by the
legal clinic of the law school.
Section 2. Appearance. The appearance of the law student authorized by
this rule, shall be under the direct supervision and control of a member of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any and
all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed, must
be signed by the supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.
**DIRECT SUPERVISION AND CONTROL Physical Presence of the
supervising lawyer
Section 3. Privileged communications. The Rules safeguarding privileged
communications between attorney and client shall apply to similar
communications made to or received by the law student, acting for the legal
clinic.
Section 4. Standards of conduct and supervision. The law student shall
comply with the standards of professional conduct governing members of the
Bar. Failure of an attorney to provide adequate supervision of student
practice may be a ground for disciplinary action. (Circular No. 19, dated
December 19, 1986).
Case # 13: In re: Need that law student practicing under Rule 138-A be
actually supervised during trial, B.M. No. 730
FACTS:
The records show that the plaintiff in civil Case No. BCV-92-11 was
represented by Mr. Cornelio Carmona, Jr., an intern at the Office of Legal
Aid, UP-College of Law (UP-OLA). Mr. Carmona conducted hearings and
completed the presentation of the plaintiff's evidence-in-chief without the
presence of a supervising lawyer. Justice Barredo questioned the
appearance of Mr. Carmona during the hearing because the latter was not
accompanied by a duly accredited lawyer. On December 15, 1994, Presiding
Judge Edelwina Pastoral issued an Order requiring Mr. Carmona to be
accompanied by a supervising lawyer on the next hearing. In compliance
with said Order, UP-OLA and the Secretary of Justice executed a
Memorandum of Agreement directing Atty. Catubao and Atty. Legayada of the
Public Attorney's Office to supervise Mr. Carmona during the subsequent
hearings. Justice Barredo asserts that a law student appearing before the II. Practice of Law by a Corporation
trial court under Rule 138-A should be accompanied by a supervising lawyer. Hindi pwedeng mag practice ng law ang isang corporation DIRECTLY or
ISSUE: INDIRECTLY sa pamamagitan ng pag employ ng lawyer to practice for it or
May a non-lawyer appear without the supervision of a lawyer? mag-apear para sa iba para sa benefit nila PERO pwede sila maghire ng
HELD: attorney nila
No, Sec. 2 of Rule 138-A Rules of Court provides that the supervision is
needed. The reason behind this are: BAKIT?
1. to ensure that there will be no miscarriage of justice as a result of 1. Intervention ng corporation is destructive of the privilege and of the
incompetence or inexperience of law students, who, not having as yet confidential trust relation between attorney and client
passed the test of professional competence, are presumably not fully 2. A corporation CANNOT perform the conditions required for the
equipped to act a counsels on their own; membership in the bar
2. to provide a mechanism by which the accredited law school clinic may be
able to protect itself from any potential vicarious liability arising from some III. Practice of Law by PUBLIC OFFICIALS
culpable action by their law students; and General Rule: Appointment or election of a lawyer to a government office
3. to ensure consistency with the fundamental principle that no person is disqualifies him from engaging in the private practice of law
allowed to practice a particular profession without possessing the Except:
qualifications, particularly a license, as required by law. 1. Senators and Members of the HOR
2. Members of Sanggunian
5. Before the NLRC 3. Retired Justice or Judge
Applicable only when: 4. Civil Service Officers or Employees
a. He represents himself as party of the case
b. He represents as member of the legitimate labor organization Public Officials who are ABSOLUTELY prohibited to practice law in the
which is a party of the case Philippines
c. He represents a member of a legitimate labor organization that is 1. Judges and officials of courts
existing within the employers establishment who are parties of 2. Officials of the OSG
the case 3. Government Prosecutors
d. Member of a legal aid office 4. President, VP, Cabinet Members
e. He is the owner or president of the corporation who is a party to 5. Chairmen and Members of Constitutional Commissions
the case 6. Members of JBC
6. Before the CADASTRAL COURT 7. Governors and mayors
7. Before the DAR Adjudication Board 8. Ombudsman and deputies
9. Civil Service officers whose time is purely devoted to the
** CIVIL CASES an individual can conduct his litigation personally government
** CRIMINAL CASES an individual CANNOT conduct his litigation 10. Provided in Special Law
personally in GRAVE and LESS GRAVE offenses for due process
** JURIDICAL PERSON Must always appear in court with a lawyer e. SANCTIONS FOR APPEARANCE WITHOUT AUTHORITY
EXCEPT BEFORE MTC
Remedies against unauthorized practice of law
Limitations on Appearance of Non-lawyers DICEDA
1. a. confined in non-adversary contentions 1. Declaratory Relief
b. not take pure legal work 2. Petition for Injunction
2. his services should NOT be habitually rendered 3. Contempt of court
3. he should not collect attorneys fees 4. Estafa falsely represented himself as lawyer
 5. Disqualification and complaints for disbarment 8. Encourage never the commencement or continuance of action or
6. Administrative complaint proceeding
9. Defend a person
FOUR-FOLD DUTIES OF A LAYWER
1. Public responsibility to the society to lend assistance Duty of a counsel de officio
2. Court respect and defend it against criticisms a. render effective service
3. Bar candor, fairness, courtesy and truthfulness, avoid b. exert his best effort on behalf of the indigent accused
encroachment in the business, uphold the honor of the profession c. same duty to poor and paying litigant
4. Client entire devotion to clients interest d. bigger dose of social conscience
e. little dose of self-interest
Other duties of a lawyer (CARED CARE)
1. Counsel Appointment of counsel de officio
2. Confidence with client court considers the gravity of the offense and appoints lawyers in good
3. Allegiance to the Philippines standing with capabilities to defend the accused in areas where no lawyer is
4. Abstain from offensive personality available
5. Respect the courts
6. Reject never
7. Employ truth and honor