Duties of Attorneys:

1. To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the

Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines;
2. To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial
officers;
3. To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be
just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the
law;
4. To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such
means only as 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;
5. To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve
the secrets of his client and to accept no compensation in connection with his
client’s business except from him or with his knowledge and approval;
6. To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the
honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the
cause with which he is charged;
7. Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or
proceeding, or delay any man’s cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;
8. Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the
defenceless or oppressed;
9. In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honourable means,
regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every
defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or
liberty, but by due process of law.

The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.2 It is so delicately affected

with public interest that it is both a power and a duty of the State (through this Court)
to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare.3

Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of

morality, faithful observance of the rules of the legal profession, compliance with the
mandatory continuing legal education requirement and payment of membership fees to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for membership
in good standing in the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. Any breach
by a lawyer of any of these conditions makes him unworthy of the trust and confidence
which the courts and clients repose in him for the continued exercise of his professional
privilege.4

Section 1, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:

SECTION 1. Who may practice law. – Any person heretofore duly admitted as a
member of the bar, or thereafter admitted as such in accordance with the
provisions of this Rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to
practice law.

Pursuant thereto, any person admitted as a member of the Philippine bar in accordance
with the statutory requirements and who is in good and regular standing is entitled to
practice law.

Stated otherwise, before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA

9225 can resume his law practice, he must first secure from this Court the authority to
do so, conditioned on:

(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 specially 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.

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 petitioner’s 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.1 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.2 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.3
----------------------------------------------------

Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer
is allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student. As succinctly clarified in
Bar Matter No. 730, by virtue of Section 34, Rule 138, a law student may appear, as an
agent or a friend of a party litigant, without the supervision of a lawyer before inferior
courts.

----------------------------------------------------

Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, clearly provides that in the municipal court a
party may conduct his litigation in person with the aid of an agent appointed by him for
the purpose. Thus, in the case of Laput vs. Bernabe, 55 Phil. 621, a law student was
allowed to represent the accused in a case pending before the then Municipal Court, the
City Court of Manila, who was charged for damages to property through reckless
imprudence. "It is accordingly our view that error was committed in the municipal
court in not allowing Crispiniano V. Laput to act as an agent or friend of Catalino Salas
to aid the latter in conducting his defense." The permission of the fiscal is not necessary
for one to enter his appearance as private prosecutor. In the first place, the law does not
impose this condition. What the fiscal can do, if he wants to handle the case personally
is to disallow the private prosecutor's participation, whether he be a lawyer or not, in
the trial of the case. On the other hand, if the fiscal desires the active participation of the
private prosecutor, he can just manifest to the court that the private prosecutor, with its
approval, will conduct the prosecution of the case under his supervision and control.
Further, We may add that if a non-lawyer can appear as defense counsel or as friend of
the accused in a case before the municipal trial court, with more reason should he be
allowed to appear as private prosecutor under the supervision and control of the trial
fiscal.

In the two criminal cases filed before the Municipal Court of Parañaque, petitioner
Cantimbuhan, as the offended party, did not expressly waive the civil action nor
reserve his right to institute it separately and, therefore, the civil action is deemed
impliedly instituted in said criminal cases. Thus, said complainant Romulo
Cantimbuhan has personal interest in the success of the civil action and, in the
prosecution of the same, he cannot be deprived of his right to be assisted by a friend
who is not a lawyer.

--------------------------------------

Since complainant was charged with engaging in a private vocation or profession when
she appeared on her own behalf in court, the necessary implication was that she was in
the practice of law. We clarify. A party’s right to conduct litigation personally is
recognized by law. Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
"SEC. 34. By whom litigation conducted. -- In the court of a justice of the peace a party
may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by
him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may
conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be
either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar."

This provision means that in a litigation, parties may personally do everything during
its progress -- from its commencement to its termination.41 When they, however, act as
their own attorneys, they are restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as
those qualified to practice law; otherwise, ignorance would be unjustifiably
rewarded.42 Individuals have long been permitted to manage, prosecute and defend
their own actions; and when they do so, they are not considered to be in the practice of
law.43 "One does not practice law by acting for himself any more than he practices
medicine by rendering first aid to himself."44

The practice of law, though impossible to define exactly, involves the exercise of a
profession or vocation usually for gain, mainly as attorney by acting in a representative
capacity and as counsel by rendering legal advise to others.45 Private practice has been
defined by this Court as follows:

"x x x. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or

customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent
habitual exercise. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute [referring to the
prohibition for judges and other officials or employees of the superior courts or of the
Office of the Solicitor General from engaging in private practice] has been interpreted as
customarily or habitually holding one's self out to the public, as a lawyer and
demanding payment for such services. x x x."46 (Citations omitted)

Clearly, in appearing for herself, complainant was not customarily or habitually

holding herself out to the public as a lawyer. Neither was she demanding payment for
such services. Hence, she cannot be said to be in the practice of law.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines profession in the collective sense as referring to "the
members of such a vocation."47 In turn, vocation is defined as "a person’s regular
calling or business; one’s occupation or profession."48

The law allows persons who are not lawyers by profession to litigate their own case in
court. The right of complainant to litigate her case personally cannot be taken away
from her. Her being an employee of the judiciary does not remove from her the right to
proceedings in propria persona or to self-representation. To be sure, the lawful exercise
of a right cannot make one administratively liable. Thus, we need not go into a
discussion of the Court’s ruling in Cayetano v. Monsod49 regarding the extent of the
practice of law.
However, it was also clearly established that complainant had appeared on behalf of her co-
plaintiff in the case below, for which act the former cannot be completely exonerated.
Representing oneself is different from appearing on behalf of someone else.

The raison d’etre for allowing litigants to represent themselves in court will not apply when a
person is already appearing for another party. Obviously, because she was already defending the
rights of another person when she appeared for her co-plaintiff, it cannot be argued that
complainant was merely protecting her rights. That their rights may be interrelated will not give
complainant authority to appear in court. The undeniable fact remains that she and her co-
plaintiff are two distinct individuals. The former may be impairing the efficiency of public service
once she appears for the latter without permission from this Court.

---------------------------------