PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION vs.

CELEDONIO AGRAVA
G.R. No. L-12426. February 16, 1959.
FACTS:
On may 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had scheduled an
examination for the purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys
before the Philippines Patent Office. According to the circular, members of the Philippine Bar,
engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical training are qualified to take
the said examination. The petitioner contends that one who has passed the bar examination
sand is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good
standing is duly qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office and that the
respondent Directors holding an examination for the purpose is in excess of his jurisdiction and
is in violation of the law.The respondent, in reply, maintains the prosecution of patent cases
does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the application of scientific
and technical knowledge and training as a matter of actual practice so as to include engineers
and other individuals who passed the examination can practice before the Patent office.
Furthermore, he stressed that for the long time he is holding tests, this is the first time that his
right has been questioned formally.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the
prosecution of patent application, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law.

HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent
Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of
their applications for patent, their opposition thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in
patent cases. Moreover, the practice before the patent Office involves the interpretation and
application of other laws and legal principles, as well as the existence of facts to be established
in accordance with the law of evidence and procedure. The practice of law is not limited to the
conduct of cases or litigation in court but also embraces all other matters connected with the
law and any work involving the determination by the legal mind of the legal effects of facts and
conditions. Furthermore, the law provides that any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from
any final order or decision of the director. Thus, if the transactions of business in the Patent
Office involved exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge and training, then
logically, the appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial body, but rather to a board of
scientists, engineers or technical men, which is not the case.

RENATO CAYETANO vs. CHRISTIAN MONSOD

G.R. No. 100113. September 3, 1991.
FACTS:
Monsod was nominated by President Aquino as Chairman of the Comelec. The Commission on
Appointments confirmed the appointment despite Cayetano's objection, based on Monsod's
alleged lack of the required qualification of 10 year law practice. Cayetano filed this certiorari
and prohibition. 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 naturalborn 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:
1. Whether or not Monsod has been engaged in the practice of law for 10 years.
2. Whether or not the Commission on Appointments committed grave abuse of discretion in
confirming Monsods appointment.
HELD:
1. YES. 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
proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients, and other
works where the work done involves the determination of the trained legal mind of the legal
effect of facts and conditions (PLA vs. Agrava.) The records of the 1986 constitutional
commission show that the interpretation of the term practice of law was liberal as to consider
lawyers employed in the Commission of Audit as engaged in the practice of law provided that
they use their legal knowledge or talent in their respective work. The court also cited an article
in the January 11, 1989 issue of the Business Star, that lawyers nowadays have their own
specialized fields such as tax lawyers, prosecutors, etc., that because of the demands of their
specialization, lawyers engage in other works or functions to meet them. These days, for
example, most corporation lawyers are involved in management policy formulation. Therefore,
Monsod, who passed the bar in 1960, worked with the World Bank Group from 1963-1970, then
worked for an investment bank till 1986, became member of the CONCOM in 1986, and also
became a member of the Davide Commission in 1990, can be considered to have been engaged
in the practice of law as lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, etc.
2. NO. The power of the COA to give consent to the nomination of the Comelec Chairman by the
president is mandated by the constitution. The power of appointment is essentially within the
discretion of whom it is so vested subject to the only condition that the appointee should
possess the qualification required by law. From the evidence, there is no occasion for the SC to
exercise its corrective power since there is no such grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
CA.

Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378 (1993)

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:
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE Please call:521-0767,
LEGAL 5217232,5222041
CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am-6:00 pm
7-Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Mla.
Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning
Monday to Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res.
& Special Retiree's Visa. Declaration of Absence Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption.
Investment in the Phil. US/Force Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.,
LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232; 521-7251;
522-2041; 521-0767
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
RULING: The advertisement of the respondent is covered in the term practice of law as defined
in the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod. There is a restricted concept and limited acceptance of
paralegal services in the Philippines. It is allowed that some persons not duly licensed to practice
law are or have been permitted with a limited representation in behalf of another or to render
legal services, but such allowable services are limited in scope and extent by the law, rules or
regulations granting permission therefore. Canon 3 of 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. Canon 3.01 adds that he is not
supposed to use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified,
self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. Nor shall
he pay or give something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in
return for, publicity to attract legal business (Canon 3.04). The Canons of Professional Ethics,
before the adoption of the CPR, had also warned that lawyers should not resort to indirect
advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper
comments, or procuring his photograph to be published in connection with causes in which the
lawyer have been engaged of concerning the manner of the conduct, the magnitude of the
interest involved, the importance the lawyer's position, and all other like self-laudation. There
are existing exceptions under the law on the rule prohibiting the advertisement of a lawyers
services. However, taking into consideration the nature and contents of the advertisements for
which respondent is being taken to task, which even includes a quotation of the fees charged by
said respondent corporation for services rendered, the court found and held that the same
definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the exceptions. The respondents
defense with the case of Bates vs. State Bar applies only when there is an exception to the
prohibition against advertisements by lawyers, to publish a statement of legal fees for an initial
consultation or the availability upon request of a written schedule of fees or an estimate of the
fee to be charged for the specific services. No such exception is provided for, expressly or
impliedly whether in our former Canons of Professional Ethics or the present Code of
Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case contains a
proviso that the exceptions stand therein are "not applicable in any state unless and until it is
implemented by such authority in that state. The Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN The
Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement
in any form which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of this
petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, operation or transaction
proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein.

In The Matter of the Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, January 9, 1973
FACTS:
In 1970, the Supreme Court created the Commission on Bar Integration (CBI) to ascertain the
advisability of unifying the Philippine Bar. In 1971, the Congress passed HB 3277 (An Act
Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating Funds Therefore).
President Marcos signed it and it became RA 6397.In 1972, the CBI submitted its Report with the
earnest recommendation to ordain the integration of the Philippine Bar through the adoption
and promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule. The Report, alongside the proceedings in
Administrative Case 526 and the views and sentiments of the Board of Consultants and the
Philippine Bench and Bar, prayed for such integration.
ISSUE/S:
WON the integration of the Bar is constitutional.
HELD:
Yes. The integration of the Bar is constitutional.
RATIO:
The CBI Report defines the Bar Integration as the official unification of the entire lawyer
population of the Philippines, requiring membership and financial support of every lawyer
as sine qua non to the practice of law and the retention of his name in the Roll of Attorneys. It is
based on the recognition that a lawyer is an officer of the court. It improves the position of the
Bar as an instrument of justice and rule of law. It fosters cohesion among lawyers and ensures
the promotion of the objectives of the legal profession. The constitutionality of the Bar
Integration hinges on the constitutional rights of freedom of association and freedom of speech.
As the practice of law is a privilege vested with public interest, it can best discharge its public
responsibilities through collective action. Collective actions can only be done through an
organized body. To compel a lawyer to be a member of an Integrated Bar does not violate his
constitutional freedom to associate because integration does not make a lawyer a member of
any group of which he is not already member. Integration only provides an official national
organization for the well-defined but unorganized and in cohesive group of which every lawyer
is already a member. Also, an Integrated Bar serves to elevate the educational and ethical
standards of the Bar with the goal of improving the quality of the
e States legitimate interest. Even assuming that a lawyer is compelled to join the Integrated
Bar, it is still a justified compulsion as it is an exercise of the police power of the State in
regulating and controlling the legal profession. Also, the inherent power of the Supreme Court
to regulate the Bar includes the authority to integrate it.
NOTE:
This case falls under Canon 7 but this Canon is not explicitly provided for in the case. However,
the relation can be seen. Canon 7 provides that a lawyer s hall at all times uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar. In using the
word shall, this Canon makes it mandatory for all lawyers to:
(1) uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and (2) support the activities of the
Integrated Bar. In being a member of the Integrated Bar, a lawyer has certain responsibilities,
which, if complied with, will uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Therefore, it
is neither unlawful to have a Bar Integration nor be a member of an Integrated Bar.

Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999

Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar vs. Vicente D. Ching, petitioner
Facts:
Vicente D. Ching, a legitimate child of a Filipino mother and an alien Chinese father, was born on
April 11, 1964 in Tubao La Union, under the 1935 Constitution. He has resided in the Philippines
He completed his Bachelor of Laws at SLU in Baguio on July 1998, filed an application to take the
1998 Bar Examination.
The Resolution in this Court, he was allowed to take the bar if he submit to the Court the
following documents as proof of his Philippine Citizenship:
1. Certification issued by the PRC Board of Accountancy that Ching is a certified accountant;
2. Voter Certification issued COMELEC in Tubao La Union showing that Ching is a registered
voter of his place; and
3. Certification showing that Ching was elected as member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Tubao,
La Union
On April 5, 1999, Ching was one of the bar passers. The oath taking ceremony was scheduled on
May 5, 1999.
Because of his questionable status of Ching's citizenship, he was not allowed to take oath.
He was required to submit further proof of his citizenship.
The Office of the Solicitor General was required to file a comment on Ching's petition for
admission to the Philippine Bar.
In his report:
1. Ching, under the 1935 Constitution, was a Chinese citizen and continue to be so, unless upon
reaching the age of majority he elected Philippine citizenship, under the compliance with the
provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 265 "an act providing for the manner in which the option
to elect Philippine citizenship shall be declared by a person whose mother is a Filipino citizen"
2. He pointed out the Ching has not formally elected Philippine citizenship, and if ever he does,
it would already be beyond the "reasonable time" allowed by the present jurisprudence.
Issue:
Whether or not he has elected Philippine citizenship within "a reasonable time".
Rulings:
No. Ching, despite the special circumstances, failed to elect Philippine citizenship within a
reasonable time. The reasonable time means that the election should be made within 3 years
from "upon reaching the age of majority", which is 21 years old. Instead, he elected Philippine
citizenship 14 years after reaching the age of majority which the court considered not within the
reasonable time. Ching offered no reason why he delayed his election of Philippine citizenship,
as procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is not a tedious and painstaking process. All that is
required is an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and file the same with the nearest
civil registry.

In Re: Edillon 84 SCRA 554 (1978)

Facts: This is an administrative case against Edillon who refuses to pay his IBP membership
dues assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section 24,
Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of IBP, payment of membership fee
and suspension for failure to pay the same. He contends that the stated provisions constitute an
invasion of his constitutional rights of being compelled to be a member of the IBP in order to
practice his profession and thus deprives his rights to liberty and property and thereby null and
void.
Issue: Whether or not it assailed provisions constitutes a deprivation of liberty and property of
the respondent.
Held: The court held that the IBP is a State-organized Bar as distinguished from bar associations
that are organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership of which is voluntary. The IBP
however is an official national body of which all lawyers must be a member and are subjected to
the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar which includes payment of reasonable annual
fee for the purpose of carrying out its objectives and implementation of regulations in the
practice of law. The provisions assailed does not infringethe constitutional rights of the
respondent as it is a valid exercise of police power necessary to perpetuate its existence with
regulatory measures to implement. The name of Edillon was stricken out from the rolls of
attorney for being a delinquent member of the bar.

BAR MATTER 1153

Philippine Bar Now Open to Filipinos with Foreign Law Degrees March 23, 2010By Anna Katrina
M. Martinez The Supreme Court En Banc has recently approved the proposed amendments to
Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, allowing 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.
The Supreme Court has directed the Clerk of Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, to
circularize its resolution approving the said amendments among all law schools in the country.
(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)

In the case of Re: Application of Adriano M. Hernandez to Take the 1993

Bar Examination, the Supreme Court stated therein in clear and unequivocal terms that the
Court will no longer allow graduates of foreign law schools to take the bar examinations.
Indeed, the power to admit, suspend, disbar, and reinstate attorneys to the practice of law
involves the exercise of judicial discretion and responsibility, thus, it has been traditionally
exercised by the Supreme Court as an inherent part of its judicial power.
The rigid requirements and conditions imposed before one can practice law in the Philippines
supposedly are not intended to create a monopoly in the legal profession. Rather, it is to protect
the public, the court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence and dishonesty of those
who are unfit to become members of the legal profession. While the requirements were not
intended to create a monopoly among Filipinos, it certainly did create a monopoly limited to
Filipinos.