BAR MATTER 1678

B.M. No. 1678 December 17, 2007

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW,
BENJAMIN M. DACANAY, petitioner.

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 Canada’s 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.
A.C. No. 244 March 29, 1963
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF TELESFORO A. DIAO,
vs.
SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ, petitioner.
BENGZON, C.J.:

After successfully passing the corresponding examinations held in 1953, Telesforo A. Diao was admitted to the Bar.
About two years later, Severino Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his application for such
Bar examination, that he had the requisite academic qualifications. The matter was in due course referred to the
Solicitor General who caused the charge to be investigated; and later he submitted a report recommending that
Diao's name be erased from the roll of attorneys, because contrary to the allegations in his petition for examination
in this Court, he (Diao) had not completed, before taking up law subjects, the required pre-legal education
prescribed by the Department of Private Education, specially, in the following particulars:

(a) Diao did not complete his high school training; and
(b) Diao never attended Quisumbing College, and never obtained his A.A. diploma therefrom — which
contradicts the credentials he had submitted in support of his application for examination, and of his
allegation therein of successful completion of the "required pre-legal education".

Answering this official report and complaint, Telesforo A. Diao, practically admits the first charge: but he claims
that although he had left high school in his third year, he entered the service of the U.S. Army, passed the General
Classification Test given therein, which (according to him) is equivalent to a high school diploma, and upon his
return to civilian life, the educational authorities considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year
high school.

We have serious doubts, about the validity of this claim, what with respondent's failure to exhibit any certification to
that effect (the equivalence) by the proper school officials. However, it is unnecessary to dwell on this, since the
second charge is clearly meritorious. Diao never obtained his A.A. from Quisumbing College; and yet his
application for examination represented him as an A.A. graduate (1940-1941) of such college. Now, asserting he
had obtained his A.A. title from the Arellano University in April, 1949, he says he was erroneously certified, due to
confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing College, in his school records.

Wherefore, the parties respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and approved by this
Honorable Court, without prejudice to the parties adducing other evidence to prove their case not covered by this
stipulation of facts. 1äwphï1.ñët

This explanation is not acceptable, for the reason that the "error" or "confusion" was obviously of his own making.
Had his application disclosed his having obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it would also have disclosed that
he got it in April, 1949, thereby showing that he began his law studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months
before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. And then he would not have been permitted to take the bar tests,
because our Rules provide, and the applicant for the Bar examination must affirm under oath, "That previous to the
study of law, he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal education(A.A.) as prescribed
by the Department of Private Education," (emphasis on "previous").

Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations; but due to his false
representations, he was allowed to take it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar. Such admission
having been obtained under false pretenses must be, and is hereby revoked. The fact that he hurdled the Bar
examinations is immaterial. Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law;
taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally essential..

The Clerk is, therefore, ordered to strike from the roll of attorneys, the name of Telesforo A. Diao. And the latter is
required to return his lawyer's diploma within thirty days. So ordered.

IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS MICHAEL A. MEDADO, PETITIONER.

(DIGEST)
B.M. No. 2540
September 24, 2013

TOPIC:
Admission to the Bar, Unauthorized Practice of Law, Canon 9, Signing of the Roll of Attorneys
FACTS:
Michael A. Medado passed the Philippine bar exams in 1979. On 7 May 1980, he took the Attorney’s Oath at the
PICC. He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980, but failed to do so allegedly because he
had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. Several years later, while rummaging through his things, he
found said Notice. He then 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.

He thought that since he already took the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not as important. The matter
of signing in the Roll of Attorneys was subsequently forgotten.

In 2005, when Medado attended MCLE seminars, he was required to provide his roll number for his MCLE
compliances to be credited. Not having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to provide his roll number.

About seven years later, in 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition, praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys. Medado justifies this lapse by characterizing his acts as “neither willful nor intentional but based on a
mistaken belief and an honest error of judgment.

The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the instant petition be denied for petitioner’s gross negligence,
gross misconduct and utter lack of merit, saying that petitioner could offer no valid justification for his negligence in
signing in the Roll of Attorneys.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner may be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.

RULING:
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition subject to the payment of a fine and the imposition of a penalty
equivalent to suspension from the practice of law.

Not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys would be akin to imposing upon him the ultimate penalty of
disbarment, a penalty reserved for the most serious ethical transgressions. In this case, said action is not warranted.

The Court considered Medado’s demonstration of good faith in filing the petition himself, albeit after the passage of
more than 30 years; that he has shown that he possesses the character required to be a member of the Philippine Bar;
and that he appears to have been a competent and able legal practitioner, having held various positions at different
firms and companies.

However, Medado is not free from all liability for his years of inaction.

A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed to know the law and its
consequences.
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 what
he had signed was just an attendance record, he could no longer claim an honest mistake of fact as a valid
justification. At that point, he should have known that he was not a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar, as it
was the act of signing therein that would have made him so. When, in spite of this knowledge, he chose to continue
practicing law, he willfully engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgresses Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. 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 conduct
themselves in accordance with the ethical standards of the legal profession.

Medado cannot be suspended as he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer. However, the Court imposed upon him a penalty
akin to suspension by allowing him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of the Resolution. He
was also made to pay a fine of P32,000. Also, during the one-year period, petitioner was not allowed to engage in
the practice of law.