[G.R. No. 100113. September 3, 1991.] RENATO L. CAYETANO, petitioner, vs. CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R.

SALONGA, COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS, and HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE in his capacity as Secretary of Budget and Management, respondents. FACTS: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991. Petitioner Renato Cayetano opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not posses the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1(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.” On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC. On June 18, 1991, he took his oath and assumed office. Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod’s nomination, petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC be declared null and void. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences satisfy t he constitutional requirement of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years (as a qualification for the position of COMELEC Chairman). RULING: The petition is DISMISSED. Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term "practice of law", particularly the modern concept of law practice, and taking into consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the Constitution, Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyerentrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava, the Court 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 proceedings, and the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients. It also embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of subjects, and the preparation and execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs. Although these transactions may have no direct connection with court proceedings, they are always subject to become involved in litigation. They require in many aspects a high degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men and affairs, and great capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations…”

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal principles and technique, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill." Furthermore, the Court stated that “appointment is an essentially discretionary power… and it is a political question involving considerations of wisdom which only the appointing authority can decide.” The judgment rendered by the Commission on Appointments in the exercise of such an acknowledged power is beyond judicial interference except only upon a clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. In the instant case, there is no abuse that has been clearly shown; therefore there is no occasion for the exercise of the Court’s corrective power.

In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to 1953; ALBINO CUNANANET AL., petitioners. Jose M. Aruego, M. H. de Joya, Miguel R. Cornejo, and Antonio Enrile Inton for petitioners. Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag for respondent. FACTS: The issue have aroused when the Congress passed the Republic Act No. 972 known as the “BAR FLUNKERS” Act of 1953. In accordance with this the court only passed those candidates who obtained a general average of 72 percent was raised to 75 percent. Unsuccessful candidate who obtained a few percentage lower than those who were admitted, filed petition for reconsideration and secured the passage of Senate Bill No. 12, invoking the provisions of Republic Act No. 972. The President requested the views of the court on this bill and seven members of the court submitted a written comment adverse to this act and shortly the President vetoed it. The Congress did not override the veto instead they approved the Senate Bill No. 371 with some changes on it. Even if the court reiterated their unfavourable views, the President allowed the bill to become a law on June 21, 1953 without his signature. ISSUE: Whether or not RA No. 972 is constitutional. HELD: The admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession and their supervision is a judicial function and responsibility. The Congress may repel, alter and supplement the rules promulgated by the court but the ultimate power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to the Court. That (a) the portion of Art. 1 of RA 972 referring to the examinations of 1946 to 1952, and (b) all of the Art. 2 of said law are unconstitutional and therefore, void and without force and effect.

Mr. charging Mr. he disclosed the fact of his criminal conviction and his then probation status. satisfy the court.C. and of which he must. and whether or not he should be allowed to take the lawyer‟s oath of office as a result of such. Such character expresses itself. Held: The practice of law is not a natural. In Re Farmer: “xxx xxx xxx This „upright character‟ prescribed by the statute. he was not allowed to take the lawyer‟s oath of office. or should. Argosino has purged himself of the obvious deficiency in moral character required of a lawyer. Argosino July 13. includes all the elements necessary to make up such a character. Mr. Santiago had terminated his probation period by virtue of an Order dated 11 April 1994. A. Argosino and his co-accused then entered into plea bargaining with the prosecution and as a result of such bargaining. Although he was allowed to take the bar. Raul Camaligan died from the infliction of severe physical injuries upon him in the course of “hazing” conducted as part of university fraternity initiation rites. not in negatives nor in following the line of least resistance. in addition to other requisites. Argosino filed a Petition for Admission to take the 1993 Bar Examinations. It means that he must have conducted himself as a man of upright character ordinarily would. The essentiality of good moral character in those who would be lawyers is stressed in the following excerpts which we quote with approval and which we regard as having persuasive effect. on 13 July 1993. Since then. with special educational qualifications. or does. On 15 April 1994. or should have acquired. This plea was accepted by the trial court. Argosino filed a Petition with this Court to allow him to take the attorney‟s oath of office and to admit him to the practice of law. duly ascertained and certified. Less than a month after a probation granted by the lower court to Mr. with the crime of homicide in connection with the death of one Raul Camaligan on 8 September 1991. 1995 Facts: A criminal information was filed on 4 February 1992 with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of homicide through reckless imprudence. In this Petition. We note that his probation period did not last for more than 10 months from the time of the Order of Judge Santiago granting him probation dated 18 June 1993. it is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral character. absolute or constitutional right to be granted to everyone who demands it. averring that Judge Pedro T. Argosino and his colleagues. through association with his fellows.In the Matter if the Admission to the Bar and Oath-Taking of Successful Bar Applicant Al C. passing a judgment that each of the 14 accused individuals was sentenced to suffer imprisonment. Mr. it is something more than an absence of bad character. Argosino has filed three Motions for Early Resolution of his Petition for Admission to the Bar. as a condition precedent to the applicant‟s right to receive a license to practice law in North Carolina. Rather. Mr. Argosino along with 13 other individuals. it is the good name which the applicant has acquired. but quite . Issue: Whether or not applicant Mr.

All aspects of moral character and behavior may be inquired into in respect of those seeking admission to the Bar. if any. Consider for a moment the duties of a lawyer. The growth of such a perception would signal the progressive destruction of our people‟s confidence in their courts of law and in our legal system as we know it. to every man‟s fireside. as such. An attorney at law is sworn officer of the Court whose chief concern. in fact. indicating an evident rejection of the moral duty to take care of deceased Raul Camaligan‟s life entrusted in their hands. and his advice comes home. said to be properly broader than inquiry into the moral character of a lawyer in proceedings for disbarment. of Raul Camaligan. Mr. indeed. Argosino‟s participation in the deplorable “hazing” activities certainly fell far short of the required standard of good moral character. reputation. brothers and sisters. in its ultimate effect. at the time of application for admission to th e bar and to take the attorney‟s oath of office. The requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by those who would seek admission to the bar must of necessity be more stringent than the norm of conduct expected from members of the general public. if any. Argosino is hereby DIRECTED to inform this Court. within 10 days from notice hereof. and more importantly. and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong… xxx xxx xxx And we may pause to say that this requirement of the statute is eminently proper. his life. Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the parents or brothers and sisters. is to aid the administration of justice… xxx xxx xxx” It has also been stressed that the requirement of good moral character is. The scope of such inquiry is. . Mr. of greater importance so far as the general public and the proper administration of justice are concerned. He is sought as counselor. of Raul Camaligan”.often. of the names and addresses of the father and mother (in default thereof. by appropriate manifestation. than the possession of legal learning. Vast interests are committed to his care. There is a very real need to prevent a general perception that entry into the legal profession is open to individuals with inadequate moral qualifications. Good moral character must be demonstrated not only at the time of application for permission to take the bar examinations but also. he deals with his client‟s property. in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right. his all. he is the recipient of unbounded trust and confidence.

Rather. AL C. of greater importance so far as the general public and the proper administration of justice are concerned. particularly since the judgment of conviction was rendered by Judge Santiago. No. was convicted of the crime of homicide in connection with the death of Raul Camaligan. that he has become morally fit for admission to the ancient and learned profession of the law. Argosino and his colleagues filed an application for probation with the lower court which was granted. along with 13 other individuals. Less than a month later. His death stemmed from the infliction of severe physical injuries upon him in the course of “hazing” conducted as [art of uni versity fraternity initiation rites. July 13. ARGOSINO. dishonest. evidence that he may be now regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral character imposed upon those seeking admission to the bar. Petition was granted. than the possession of legal learning. submit relevant evidence to show that he is a different person now. All aspects of moral character and behavior may be inquired into in respect of those seeking admission to the Bar. duly ascertained and certified. 1995 IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMISSION TO THE BAR AND OATH-TAKING OF SUCCESSFUL BAR APPLICANT AL C. He should show to the Court how he has tried to make up for the senseless killing of a helpless student to the family of the deceased student and to the community at large. Thereafter. 712 . in other words.M. The growth of such a perception would signal the progressive destruction of our people's confidence in their courts of law and in our legal system as we know it. He filed a Petition for Admission to Take the 1993 Bar Examinations. Argosino must. petitioner.B. ISSUE: Whether or not Argosino is allowed to take the lawyer’s oath and be admitted to the practice of law. His evidence may consist of sworn certifications from responsible members of the community who have a good reputation for truth and who have actually known Argosino for a significant period of time. The essentiality of good moral character in those who would be lawyers is stressed in the following excerpts which we quote with approval and which we regard as having persuasive effect. Argosino filed a Petition with this Court to allow him to take the attorney's oath of office and to admit him to the practice of law. said to be properly broader than inquiry into the moral character of a lawyer in proceedings for disbarment. The requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by those who would seek admission to the bar must of necessity be more stringent than the norm of conduct expected from members of the general public. with special educational qualifications. Argosino must submit to the Court. indeed. absolute or constitutional right to be granted to everyone who demands it. It has also been stressed that the requirement of good moral character is. averring that his probation period had been terminated. FACTS: Argosino. ***Canon 1 Rule 1. for its examination and consideration.01 “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. in fact. The scope of such inquiry is. There is a very real need to prevent a general perception that entry into the legal profession is open to individuals with inadequate moral qualifications. He passed said bar exam however he was not allowed to take the lawyer’s oath of office. it is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral character. immoral or deceitful conduct” . wherein he disclosed the fact of his criminal conviction and his then probation status. RULING: The practice of law is not a natural. ARGOSINO.

Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S. Issue: Whether or not Haron S. In fact.” Meling admits that some of his communications really contained the word “Attorney” as they were. Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the face of Melendrez’ wife causing the injuries to the latter. Meling as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar. Accordingly. Meling in the Philippine Shari’a Bar is hereby SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court. as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City. Meling from taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar. 2002. Held: The reasons of Meling for not disclosing the criminal cases filed against him in his petition to take the Bar Examinations are absurd. . Furthermore. he is still required to disclose the same for the Court to ascertain his good moral character. The Petition is GRANTED insofar as it seeks the imposition of appropriate sanctions upon Haron S. Meling from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations. Melendrez filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Petitions to take the Bar Examinations are made under oath. and should not be taken lightly by an applicant. Furthermore. In his Answer. He should have known that only the court of competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases. Froilan R. the cases filed against Meling are still pending. MELING Facts: On October 14.” As regards the use of the title “Attorney. 2001.IN THE MATTER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE HARON S. despite the fact that he is not a member of the Bar. the suspension to take effect immediately. In the Petition. according to him. the same is DISMISSED for having become moot and academic. Melendrez alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3) pending criminal cases before the Municipal Trial Court of Cotabato City which arose from an incident which occurred on May 21. the membership of Haron S. typed by the office clerk. believing in good faith that the case would be settled Meling considered the three cases that actually arose from a single incident and involving the same parties as “closed and terminated. Melendrez alleges that Meling has been using the title “Attorney” in his communications. Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife in front of media practitioners and other people. Melin should be disqualified from taking the Bar. Atty.

before he began the study of law. After two years. Diao was removed from the roll of attorneys. it was inferred that he started his law studies six months before obtaining the degree. It is an essential requirement to take the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner. SEVERINO G. he was not qualified to take the bar and due to false representation. 1949. Army where he passed the General Classification Test which is equivalent to a high school diploma. DIAO.CASE DIGEST OF IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF TELESFORO A. Diploma from Arellano in April. It was held that the explanation was not acceptable and the said confusion was obviously of his own making. Thus. that he obtained A. he was allowed to and able to pass. Even if Diao was able to obtain A. Spanish. FACTS: Telesforo A. A. Held: Yes. . He contended that he left high school to enter the service of U. had satisfactorily completed a four-year high school course and the course of study for a bachelor‟s degree in arts or sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field of concentration: political science. English. petitioner. MARTINEZ. Diploma from Arellano University in April 1949 and not from Quisumbing College.A. With the second issue. he asserted that there was confusion. logic. in which an applicant to the bar examination. VS.A. history and economics. Diao had not completed the required pre-legal education before taking up his law subjects. According to the report conducted. Rule 138 of the rules of court. Issue: Whether or not Diao should be removed from the roll of attorneys. Therefore. Diao was admitted to the bar. He failed to comply with Section 6. specifically he did not complete his high school and he never attended Quisumbing College and never obtained A.S. Diploma. Severino charged him with having falsely represented in his application for the bar examination that he had the required academic qualifications.

Basic Legal Ethics Case Title: Citation: Petitioner: Ponente: FACTS: Juan T. On April 17. Vice-President and Directors on April 23. 1962. sometime in 1950. Publico filed a Petition for Reinstatement alleging that he had never received. when he was sixteen (16) years of age. However records disclose that Juan Tapel Publico filed a petition to take the Bar Examination in 1960 after failing in the 1959 Bar examination. by utilizing the school records of his cousin and namesake. Mesa. Publico took the 1960 Bar examination. Dulcisimo Tapel instituted an administrative case against his nephew for falsification of school records or credentials. 1973. resolutions and/'or commendations he received. passed it. where Juan T. Tapel. Manila. In 1960 Juan T. opposed the petition alleging that his nephew is not a person of good moral character for having misrepresented. First and Second Year High School. on June 28. Publico when. Juan T. petitioner had not completed Grade VI of his elementary schooling. 1981 RENATO L. 1979 and (3) by the San Miguel (Catanduanes) Civic Association in Metro Manila through its President. CAYETANO MELENCIO-HERRERA J. Publico himself dated on May 28. the name of Juan T. On November 17. JUNA T. . for the sake of his children. and particularly. nor did he have any knowledge of the Resolution of the Court ordering the Bar Division to strike his name from the Roll of Attorneys until March 1969. took the lawyer's oath. Publico was stricken off the Roll of Attorneys. when after taking his oath of office as Municipal Judge of Gigmoto. he was advised to inquire into the outcome of the disbarment case against him. PETITIONER FEBRUARY 20. that he was eligible for Third Year High School. for had he been informed. his services to the community the numerous awards. Publico filed his second Petition for Reinstatement but the court but the Court denied his petition in its resolution of April 23. 1979. He then prayed that the Court allow his reinstatement taking into consideration his exemplary conduct from the time he became a lawyer. Again the Court denied IN RE: PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS. 1974. 1975. that he resigned from all his positions in public and private offices. Publico wrote to the Chief Justice imploring his assistance that he may be given another opportunity to enjoy the privileges of a lawyer. that he was shocked and humiliated upon learning of the said Resolution. Dulcisimo B. When required to file a formal Complaint. in actual fact. which were incorporated in the Petition. Juan T. and signed the Roll of Attorneys. PUBLICO. University of Manila. His uncle. and requesting that a hearing be held where he could personally plead for his reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys. Publico is also a faculty member filed on June 1. The Court denied the Petition. Juan T. Sta. Petitioner moved for reconsideration claiming that he had been sufficiently punished already. Catanduanes. much less. February 23. 1979 (2) by the President and twelve members of the faculty of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Publico filed three petitions for reinstatement in the roll of attorneys (1) by Juan T. 1974. Juan M. and transferred to Manila. but again this was denied by the Court for lack of merit.

and that petitioner has . On June 1. Tatel addressed to the late Chief Justice Castro dated April 17. the Resolution dated April 16. 1979 petitioner filed its fifth reinstatement petitioner also submitted evidence purporting to show his honesty and integrity and other manifestations of his good moral character. that to require him to comply with what he missed in the steps of the educational ladder would be meaningless and without any value as it is not intended to benefit him nor the system of education. particularly. certifying that petitioner has not been accused nor convicted of any crime. Catanduanes (Annex B). Catanduanes Chapter (Annex A). 1976 petitioner filed a fourth petition for reinstatement however the Court denied the petition with finality. Catanduanes Chapter (Annex A). The petition filed by the San Miguel (Catanduanes) Civic Association in Metro Manila is substantially of the same tenor and added that petitioner was re-elected President of that Association for four years from 1972 to 1975 inclusive. 1979 (Annex B-1). 1979 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. HELD: The evidences submitted purporting to show his honesty and integrity and other manifestations of his good moral character. Publico in his own Petition and further professed that Atty. educational. Publico is a competent and proficient teacher. The evidence submitted by petitioner. as listed heretofore. the testimonials presented on his behalf. but who did not let this fact deter them from attaining success in their respective fields. 1979 of the Sangguniang Bayan of San Miguel. that his moral integrity and honesty are beyond reproach. On July 8. Publico is eligible to be reinstated in the roll of Attorney’s satisfying the requirements that he is a person of good moral character. particularly. and religious organizations. 1979 (Annex B-1). Alejandro T. Catanduanes (Annex F). fit and proper person to practice law. Further submitted are certifications issued by the different government offices Court of First Instance of Catanduanes (Annex C). particularly. all attesting to his good character and standing in the community and his capability as a lawyer. Catanduanes (Annex B). 1979 of the Sangguniang Bayan of San Miguel. Tatel addressed to the late Chief Justice Castro dated April 17. ISSUE: Whether or not Juan T. The petition filed by the President and Faculty of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines reiterated the same circumstances as those stated by Juan T. the letter of the Municipal Mayor of San Miguel. render him fit to be restored to membership in the Bar. the Resolution dated March 30. Catanduanes Integrated National Police Command (Annex F should be D). Office of the Provincial Fiscal at Virac. Catanduanes (Annex E). and First Municipal Circuit Court. the Resolution dated March 30.the aforesaid letter-petition. the letter of the Municipal Mayor of San Miguel. The petition also mentioned the names of some great men who had been school dropouts. 1979 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. all attesting to his good character and standing in the community and his capability as a lawyer. the Resolution dated April 16. Bato. and that non-formal education has already been recognized and given its equivalence in the scheme of formal education. Bato-San Miguel. his active involvement in civic. Alejandro T. his good conduct and honorable dealings subsequent to his disbarment.

Rule 1. either personally or through paid agents or brokers. and that no charges against him. or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. malpractice. or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule. and who is in good and regular standing. – A Lawyer shall uphold the Constitution obey the laws of the land and Promote Respect for law of and legal process. immoral or deceitful conduct. involving moral turpitude. Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. Code of Professional Responsibility Canon 1. history and economics. or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court. requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain. Publico is reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys. and resident of the Philippines. — Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar. . — The Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in the last preceding section. — No applicant for admission to the bar examination shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education that. english. or other gross misconduct in such office. grossly immoral conduct. he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or college. Petitioner Juan T. and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance . RELATED PROVISIONS: RULE 138 Attorneys and Admission to Bar Section 1. Section 6. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. of good moral character. is entitled to practice law. or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice. have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines. before he began the study of law. Who may practice law.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. at least twenty-one years of age. Section 28. and after such suspension such attorney shall not practice his profession until further action of the Supreme Court in the premises.been sufficiently punished and disciplined. constitutes malpractice. the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field of concentration: political science. logic. Section 27. spanish. — Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines. or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. — A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit. Section 2. dishonest. Pre-Law.

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.Canon 7. – A Lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar. . Rule 7.

he is qualified to be appointed as notary public by Shari'a District Judge. therefore. 1994 In the Matter of Petition to authorize Sharia'h District Court Judges to Appoint Shari'a Lawyers as Notaries Public Facts: Petitioner Royo M. Shari'a District Courts do not form part of the integrated judicial system of the Philippines. Issue: Whether or not the Shari‟a Court Judges may be authorized to appoint the members of the Philippine Shari‟a Bar. The fact that judges thereof are required by law to possess the same qualifications as those of Regional Trial Courts does not signify that the Shari'a Court is a regular court like the Regional Trial . On the theory that Shari'a District Courts are co-equal with the regular Regional Trial Courts in the hierarchy of the Philippine Judicial System. a Bachelor of Laws (LIB) graduate of Notre Dame University who was admitted to the Philippine Shari'a Bar filed the instant petition praying that the court after due notice and hearing. Being a special member of the Philippine Bar and a practicing Shari'a lawyer. issue an order authorizing all Shari'a District Court Judges to appoint Shari'a Lawyers who possess the qualifications and none of the disqualifications as notaries public within their respective jurisdictions. notarial work is indispensable and imperative in the exercise of his profession.BAR MATTER NO. Shari'a District Court Judges may be authorized to appoint the members of the Philippine Shari'a Bar. 702 May 12. petitioner claims that by analogy. Held: The petition is denied. Gampong.

Considering. in Bar Matter No. he is authorized to practice only in the Shari'a courts. A Shari'a District Court. a Shari'a Lawyer is not possessed of the basic requisite of "practice of law" in order to be appointed as a notary public under Section 233 of the Notarial Law in relation to Section 1. 681 "Re: Petition to Allow Shari'a Lawyers to exercise their profession at the regular courts. As such. is a court of limited jurisdiction. Section 1. The latter is a court of general jurisdiction. a Shari'a District Court is not a regular court exercising general jurisdiction. A person who has passed the Shari'a Bar Examination." this Court categorically stated that a person who has passed the Shari'a Bar Examination is only a special member of the Philippine Bar and not a full-fledged member thereof even if he is a Bachelor of Laws degree holder. Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: . he is not qualified to practice to qualified to practice law before the regular courts. who is not a lawyer. 1993. In an En Banc resolution of the Court dated August 5. As a general rule. is not qualified to practice law before the regular courts because he has not passed the requisite examinations for admission as a member of the Philippine Bar. Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.Court. therefore that a person who has passed the Shari'a Bar Examination is only a special member of the Philippine Bar and not a fullfledged member thereof even if he holds a Bachelor of Laws Degree. Only a person duly admitted as members of the Philippine Bar in accordance with the Rules of Court are entitled to practice law before the regular courts.

Who may practice law. . is entitled to practice law. and who is in good and regular standing.Section 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.

ISSUE: Can a non-lawyer receive attorney's fees for legal services rendered? HELD: A non-lawyer cannot receive payment for illegally acting as a lawyer. require an attorney-client relationship in order to receive attorney's fees.R. Attorney Pacis was employed by the above mentioned firm. The Court of Industrial Relations granted 25% of those backwages as attorney's lien. in Case No. Thus this clearly explains that such representation is to be performed by members of the bar..”. L-23959 FACTS: Respondent Quintin Muning was a non-lawyer who performed legal representation in the Court of Industrial Relations.”. WHEREFORE. Court of Industrial Relations. respondent is to be excluded from payment in the orders under review. et al. “it shall be the duty of the Court or Hearing Officer to examine and cross examine witnesses on behalf of the parties and to assist in the orderly presentation of evidence. The outcome of the case was the reinstatement of the complainants to their former positions with their backwages. An exception to this cannot be justified with reference to the special jurisdiction status of the Court of Industrial Relations. There is no justification because the same sections adds. of the Rules of Court. The respondent represented the complainants Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenazas. Rule 138. appear or defend in that Court. is condemned by Canon 34 of Legal Ethics. . Even if the client gave permission for the non-lawyer to represent. Therefore. the parties shall not be required to be represented by legal counsel. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co. when the services were purely legal services. A non-member of the bar cannot form an attorney-client relationship and is therefore unqualified to receive attorney's fees. “In the proceeding before the Court or Hearing Examiner thereof. vs. “PAFLU et al..”. a non-lawyer illegally acting as a representative cannot receive attorney's fees. this would not entitle him to attorney's fees because Section 24. No. Quintin Muning received 10% and Attorney Atanacio Pacis received 5%. vs. This cannot be circumvented by trying to rece ive such fees as an “agent”. Said orders are affirmed in all other respects. et al. 72-ULP-Iloilo entitled. et al. There is no justification for a non-lawyer to practice legal representation in the Court of Industrial Relations under Section 5(b) of RA 875. “Amalgamated Laborer's Association. Costs against respondent. RATIO: In the case of.” it was held that an agreement to divide attorney's fees with the inclusion of a non-lawyer union president amongst the recipients. which reads. with the following portions: Attorney's Cipriano Cid & Associates received 10%. L 23467.PAFLU G. 27 March 1968.

1)He was the only lawyer in the family. he is liable under Section 12. Issue: Whether or not Atty. an RTC Branch Clerk of Court who appeared as pro bono counsel for his cousin without prior permission from the Court. failure to obtain permission from his head of department in which he was assigned. 2001 Facts: Ladaga. Villanueva) Thus. there was no private practice of law. (People v. 2) It was for a humanitarian purpose. upon such several appearances. And 4)That the presiding judge was aware of his appearance as counsel. 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards which prohibits civil servants from engaging in the private practice of their profession. when he appeared as a pro bono counsel it does not constitute the "private practice" of the law profession contemplated by law. **Canon 2 of Code of Professional Responsibility: A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE.M. He was charged under Sec. No. was engages into private practice Held: No. And a similar provision under Sec. INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVE-NESS OF THE PROFESSION. However. It contemplates succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding one's self to the public as a lawyer. 35 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court also prohibits certain attorneys from engaging in the private practice of their profession. P-99-1287. ** . 3) He did not prejudice his office or interest. Ladaga. respondent. Ladaga A. Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules. Atty. In his defense.Office of the court Administrator vs. Private practice does not pertain to an isolated court appearance. January 26. The decision of the court was reprimanded with stern warning that any repetition of the act would be dealt with more severely. Misael M.

Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which disallows certain attorneys from engaging in the private practice of their profession. Respondent is charged under Sec. acted as pro bono counsel for a relative in a criminal case. Issue: WON Atty. Judge Napoleon Inoturan was aware of the case he was handling. his Presiding Judge. A similar prohibition is found under Sec. Ladaga. Ladaga for practicing law without permission from the Department Head (CJ) as required by law. 35. 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees which prohibits civil servants from engaging in the private practice of their profession. An administrative complaint was filed against Atty. Ladaga 350 SCRA 326 [2001] Facts: Atty. Moreover.OCA vs. Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Makati. upon such several appearances. without the previous authority from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as required by the Administrative Code. Ladaga. . was engages into private practice? Held: NO.

Thus. the respondent is allegedly to have committed foul because he knew that his nephew is not qualified for the award of land. complainant.01.03 and 1. Rodriquez. Issue: Whether or not the respondent violated the Rules in question. Also. vs. being cousins. for Rule 1. there is no evidence to support the alleged intervention of the respondent on the land in question. And finally. Olazo. the respondent’s nephew -in-law. 6. respondent A.02. Facts: The case herein settles upon the alleged violation of respondent of Rule 6. The complainant’s father and the respondent. there is the absence of proof that the respondent used his official position to satisfy his private interests. thus disabling the allegation.03 for using his public position to facilitate the transactions in his favour.01.Jovito S. all complaints for violation dismissed.02. He went on to exercise influence over the complainant’s father who in turn transferred rights to one J. No. because of his interest in the private land in discussion. Justice Dante O. J. The complainant herein assails that the respondent violated the said Rules 6.03. . 10-5-7-SC. Tinga (Retired). 2010 Ponente: Brion. Held: No. As for Rule 1. and 6.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. December 7. As for 6. merely stipulated the transactions to mutually favour both sides. he performed private legal practice when he appeared as a lawyer for his nephew. For the case of Rule 6. because the said land was not subject to his office when he was still working for the government. Retired Justice Tinga was a member of the Committee on Awards whose duty involved the evaluation and disposition of land.02. it was found that the nephew of the respondent was indeed qualified for the transfer of rights. which is prohibited of government officials.M. The land in this case is situated in the Municipality of Taguig.

Petitioner reacquire his citizenship.Legal Ethics In Re: Benjamin M. It may automatically resume his right to practice law. . “…every applicant must be a citizen of the Philippines. Petitioner Facts: This matter concerns the petition of petitioner Benjamin Dacanay for leave to resume the practice of law. Filipino lawyers who acquires citizenship of other country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. He applied for Canadian citizenship to avail Canada‟s free medical aid program. . pursuant to RA 9225 the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003. Dacanay. he practiced law until migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for his ailments. the office of the Bar Confidant opines that. The application was approved in May 2004 wherein he became a Canadian citizen. 2006. Petitioner was admitted to bar in March 1960. Issue: Whether or not petitioner lost his membership in the Philippine Bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship in May 2004. petitioner has again met all the qualifications and has none of the disqualifications for membership in the Bar. Canada.” Applying the provision. Held: Section 2 Rule 138 provides the requirements for all applicants for the admission to the Bar is that. by the virtue of the petitioner‟s reacquisition of Philippine citizenship in 2006. He returned to Philippines and intends to resume his law practice. On July 14. He took his allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto. .

Maquera has been suspended from the practice of law in Guam for a period of two (2) years pursuant to the decision of the Superior Court of Guam dated May 7. 2004 Facts: On August 20. Ruling: Atty. Leon G. . Maquera should be suspended from the practice of law in the Philippines on the same ground of his suspension in Guam. It was held that the respondent‟s failure to pay the annual dues to the IBP was sufficient for his name to be removed from the Roll of Attorneys under Section 10. Leon G. The Court found him liable for misconduct for accepting payment of legal fees much higher than his standard fees. the District Court of Guam informed the Supreme Court that Atty. Maquera was accepted to the Bar on February 28. No.In Re: Suspension from the practice of law in the territory of Guam of Atty. The IBP found out that Atty. as stated by Section 27. Maquera guilty of misconduct as provided by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct which is in force in Guam. 1996. Maquera B. Rule 139-A of the Revised Rules of Court. the Superior Court of Guam found Atty. Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. In the abovementioned decision. 1958 and that he has not been able to pay his annual dues to the IBP since 1977. This case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Issue: Whether or not Atty. it was held that notwithstanding the respondent‟s suspension from the practice of law in Guam. he may not be suspended in Philippine jurisdiction for that reason alone as any decision by a foreign court serves only as prima facie evidence for the grounds of suspension. 793 July 30.M. Maquera was suspended from the practice of law in the Philippines. Furthermore. 1996.

he stated that he started his legal education in the 2nd semester of academic year 1948-1949. Diao's name was thereby deleted from the roll of attorneys. and (b) Diao did not obtain his Associate in Arts (AA) diploma from Quisimbing College in 1941. he was was allowed. In his application for the Bar Examination. was revoked by the court Telesforo A. and was admitted to the Bar. specifically. Diao AC no. passed. having been obtained under false pretenses. but due to his false representation. His admission. the second charged was clearly meritorious. our laws providing. In view of his claims. The charge was investigated. Diao obtained hid AA diploma subsequent to the commencement of his legal studies. "That PREVIOUS to the study of Law. 224 29 March 1963 In 1953. Army.In Re: Telesforo A. He failed to produce any certification of his claim. Diao was admitted to the bar. Two years later.” Telesforo A. he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal eduacation (AA in this case) as prescribed by the Department of Private Education. Diao admitted the first charge. he would not have been permitted to take the Bar Examination. explaining that he lef thigh school in his third year. and was found that Diao failed to complete the requiquisite academic qualifications for the members of the Bar. and consequently required to return his lawyer's diploma within 30 days. which he claimed to be equivalent to a high school diploma. Diao asserted that he obtained his AA diploma from Arellano University in April 1949. In furtherance. . (a) Diao did not complete his high school training. Severino Martinez charged him of falsely representing himself in his application for the Bar Examination.S. Diao was not qualified to take the Bar examination. but entered the service of the U. the court finding it dubious. He passed the General Classification Test.

Therefore disqualifies David as lawyer and is declared cancelled and ordered to return to the Clerk of the Court. Case No. Atty. In the defense of Atty. asking the court to order the Sheriff to betray the amounts collected. ―Practice as a lawyer is to practice the acts proper profession.In Re: Attorney Felix P.‖ In the present allegation of writing a memorand um to the Court Of Appeal is doing the profession of lawyer and an agent cannot do it. Atty. requesting the execution of the judgment. David he only acted as counsel fo Sy Tan Tek in 1948 but advised his client to another counsel due to his suspension. 1949 – November 8. David signed in behalf of Sy Tan Tek. David is not obliged to serve his client. 30. Section 27. . RELATED PROVISIONS: RULE 138 Attorneys and Admission to Bar Section 1. is entitled to practice law. showed that respondent Felix P. David. or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule. In the present appeal of Atty. David violated his suspension Held: Yes. Atty. 98 . are acts that are art of the exercise of the legal profession. practiced law profession and wilfully disobeyed the decision in Sept. Hiding as an agent does not alter the nature of service that lawyers provided and pretending as an agent but in reality acting as a lawyer made his situation more guilty as he goes openly in the view of the public. Evidence of record. demolition of homes of the defendant. Subsequently Atty. 1949 Admin Case No. — Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar. Who may practice law. Issue: Whether or not Atty. David admits that he is suspended but continued his profession in his written report filed on March 17. and who is in good and regular standing. (Ponente Pablo. July 13. Atty. 1954) for malpractice in his profession. However due to restriction of time Atty. 1953. M. Tolentino for an order to demolish homes. 2951. David said that he did not violate his suspension since he was in good faith knowing that he only signed in behalf of the appellee without designating that he is a practicing attorney at law. An agent or attorney cannot appear for trial. Felix David is suspended for 5 years (November 9.) Facts: In administrative case number 35. The preparing and filing of motions. David. he acted as an agent in behalf of SyTan Tek for claims and not as a lawyer. David filed a motion for execution in another civil case of the Court of First Instance in Malayan Saw Mill vs. 35. David cannot allow his name to appear in a pleading under the signature of another qualified lawyer because the signature of an agent amounts to signing of a non-qualified senator or congressman. the office of an attorney being originally an agency. being suspended Atty. David Adm.

– A Lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar. grossly immoral conduct. malpractice. or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice. or for corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. Rule 1. – A Lawyer shall uphold the Constitution obey the laws of the land and Promote Respect for law of and legal process. and after such suspension such attorney shall not practice his profession until further action of the Supreme Court in the premises. immoral or deceitful conduct. Section 28. Suspension of attorney by the Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance. either personally or through paid agents or brokers. — A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit. or other gross misconduct in such office. Code of Professional Responsibility Canon 1. — The Court of Appeals or a Court of First Instance may suspend an attorney from practice for any of the causes named in the last preceding section. or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Rule 7. Canon 7. constitutes malpractice.Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds.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. . dishonest. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court.

at least thirty-five years of age. and Chairman of its Committee on Accountability of Public Officers. 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. including the Chairman. shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. "To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. However. HON. and HON.  As former Co-Chairman of the Bishops Businessmen's Conference for Human Development. Practice of law means any activity. On June 18. After graduating from the College of Law (U. training and experience. 1991. Held: Yes. On the same day. Atty. holders of a college degree.P. 1991." . having passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86-55%. which requires the application of law. in his capacity as Secretary of Budget and Management. On June 5. for which he was cited by the President of the Commission. lobbying for and engaging in affirmative action for the agrarian reform law and lately the urban land reform bill. filed the instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void. petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer.G. respondents. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar. particularly the modern concept of law practice. such as the farmer and urban poor groups. He has been a dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENT. Monsod worked:  As a lawyer in the law office of his father (1960-1963)  As an operations officer with the World Bank Group (1963-1970). SALONGA. and taking into consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the Constitution. and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding -elections.  As legal and economic consultant or chief executive officer on various companies (1986)  As a member of the Constitutional Commission (1986-1987). Monsod's past work experiences as a lawyer-economist. Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma for "innumerable amendments to reconcile government functions with individual freedoms and public accountability and the party-list system for the House of Representative. Issue: Whether or not the respondent satisfies the requirement of 10 years practice of law for him to assume the position of chairman of the COMELEC. which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. No. legal procedure. he took his oath of office. 1991 RENATO CAYETANO. a majority thereof. knowledge. Atty.  As a member of the Davide Commission. The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1). Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on April 25.  As chief executive officer of an investment bank and of a business conglomerate (1970-1986). at the time of their appointment. he worked with the under privileged sectors. in initiating.  As former Secretary-General (1986) and National Chairman (1987) of NAMFREL. and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.) and having hurdled the bar. a lawyer-manager. he assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC. Atty. a quasi judicial body (1990). CHRISTIAN MONSOD. Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term “Practice of law”. Facts: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. vs. in or out of court. the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC. GUILLERMO CARAGUE. He has also been paying his professional license fees as lawyer for more than ten years. to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service. petitioner. 100113 September 3.R. JOVITO R. Generally. a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry. a lawyernegotiator of contracts. Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod's nomination. 1991.

(3) The term ―appearance‖ would include only presence in courts. The petitioners question the ruling of the court. The said property. Mr. In the third issue. who later filed petition that she be placed in possession of the land. ISSUES: Whether or not: (1) The decision of the lower court is valid. Rivera later sold the property to Ms. 270 FACTS: Petition for certiorari was filed seeking annulment of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan regarding a foreclosed parcel of land. was foreclosed due to non-payment of loan amount and its interest within the prescribed periods. (2) Directing the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of Felipa Lopez is valid. can only be attacked in separate action brought principally for the purpose.Ramos vs. . HELD: YES on first two issues. Claim of the petitioners as to the validity of the decision cannot be sustained for the reason that it is in a nature of collateral attack to judgment which on its face is valid and regular for a long time. but is merely ministerial and complementary duty of the court. Lopez. Mañalac. and. 89 Phil. It is a well known rule that a judgment. NO on the third issue. which on its face is valid and regular. the word or term ―appearance‖ includes not only arguing a case before any such body but also filing a pleading in behalf of a client as ―by simply filing a formal motion. Petitioners question the validity of the CFI ruling that they will be held in contempt for refusing to vacate the land. being collateral for a loan to a Mr. The second issue was also not taken for the simple reason that the issuance of writ of possession in foreclosure proceedings is not an execution of judgment within the purview of Section 6 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. plea or answer‖. Rivera.

Additional provisions in relation to the case of “IN RE: PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS. In the meantime. Publico be reinstated in the roll of attorneys. render him fit to be restored to membership in the Bar. University of Manila. in actual fact. PUBLICO. JUAN T. prior to his admission to the practice of law. he left said school and came to Manila. Dulcisimo B. HELD: Almost nineteen (19) years. Legal Officer-Investigator found that Juan Publico studied at Buhi Elementary School. 1950. Publico took the 1960 Bar examination. obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes. From the foregoing. much less. At bar is his fifth petition. Juan M. because on February 1. ISSUE: Whether or not Juan T. JUAN T. should be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle. we find that the evidence submitted by petitioner. pre-law and law school. he sent for the records of records of his cousin Juan Marino Publico. he was found to have falsified his school records and thus violated the provisions of Sections 5 and 6.IN RE: PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS. First and Second Year High School. high. Rule 1. until Grade VI. After 11 years. He also submitted evidence proving his good moral character and honesty. who accompanied him to school and enrolled him in a grade level above his qualifications in spite of his remonstrations. took the lawyer's oath. opposed the petition alleging that his nephew is not a person of good moral character for having misrepresented. petitioner had not completed Grade VI of his elementary schooling. particularly. and that petitioner has been sufficiently punished and disciplined. Dulcisimo Tapel instituted an administrative case against his nephew for falsification of school records or credentials. Tapel. but was precipitated by his uncle. he enrolled in Third Year high school at the University of Manila. which require completion by a bar examinee or candidate of the prescribed courses in elementary. His name was stricken from the roll of attorneys. as listed heretofore. that the misrepresentation committed about his at academic records was not his own fault alone. who later on caused his disbarment. petitioner:” 1. Publico is hereby ordered reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys. the testimonials presented on his behalf. when he was sixteen (16) years of age. 1981. Bato. Once in Manila. Rule 127 of the Rules of Court. who as member of the faculty of the Catanduanes Institute had access to the records of the school. sometime in 1950. by utilizing the school records of his cousin and namesake. petitioner. which states: CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution. Juan T. PUBLICO. He avers that his enrollment in Third Year High School in Manila was through the initiative of his uncle. His uncle. Publico when. Canon 1. . After being asked to submit his school records. Tapel. he could not be expected to act with discernment as he was still under the influence of his uncle. his active involvement in civic. by February 23. educational. So ordered. his good conduct and honorable dealings subsequent to his disbarment. especially if amounting to disbarment. WHEREFORE. he filed for 4 subsequent petitions for reinstatement which were then denied. Cognizant that the power to discipline. and religious organizations. FACTS: The records disclose that Juan Tapel Publico filed a petition to take the Bar Examination in 1960 after failing in the 1959 Bar examination. passed it.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Catanduanes. and signed the Roll of Attorneys. that being merely sixteen years of age. but finished only Grade V in said school. petitioner Juan T. that he was eligible for Third Year High School. Dulcisimo B. or before the end of the school year 1949-1950. shall have elapsed since petitioner was barred from exercising his profession.

and that no charges against him. Who may practice law. at least twenty-one years of age. and who is in good and regular standing. or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule. Part V: Legal Ethics. SECTION 2. have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines. — Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines. Rule 138. immoral or deceitful conduct.RULE 1. Revised Rules of Court: SECTION 1. — Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar. 2. and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character. dishonest.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful. and a resident of the Philippines. of good moral character. . Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. is entitled to practice law. involving moral turpitude.

grossly disrespectful and deregoratory remarks against the court. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts. on the other. on the one hand. it was at this point that Atty Almacen filed his "PETITION TO SURRENDER LAWYER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE" The pleading filed by Atty Almacen is interspersed from beginning to end with insolent. prosecutor and judge. contemptuous. But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Calero The trial court. The Supreme Court refused to take the cse and in a minute resolution denied the appeal. FACTS: Atty Vicente Raul Almacen is the counsel of Calero in the case of Yaptinchay vs. Statements made by an attorney in a private conversation or in the course of political campaign." He also referred to the member of the court as "justice as administered by the present members of the Supreme Court is not only blind. the court moved to also dismiss the case for the reason that the MR does not contain a notice of time and place of hearing and is nothing but a useless piece of paper. ." The court asked Atty Almacen to show cause why no disciplinary actions must be taken against him. 1970 IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY. who ignore without reason thier own applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. The court allowed Atty Almacen to file a written answer and thereafter be heard in an oral argument but his written answer offers no apology but is full of sarcasm and innuendo. he preferred that he answer and be heard in an open and public hearing so that the court could observe its sincerity and candor. Atty Almacen asked that he be given permission to give his answer in an open and public hearing. Wellrecognized is the right of a lawyer. He reasoned that since the court is the complainant. after the hearing rendered judgment against his client he moved for reconsideration and served a copy of the motion to the adverse party but failed to notify the latter of the date and place of the hearing in the CA.G. The decisions of the court as public property and the press and the people have the undoubted right to comment on them. In his relations with the court. ANTONIO H. and abuse and slander of courts and justices thereof. it is such a misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary action. criticize and censure them as they see it. No.R. CALERO. but also deaf and dumb. VICENTE RAUL ALMACEN In L-27654. L-27654 February 18. a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and judges. critical of the courts and their judicial actions. whether amounting to a crime or not. He also referred to his client as "one who was deeply aggrieved by the court's unjust judgment" and has become " one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty Almacen is guilty HELD: Yes. A wide chasm exists between fair criticism. and he is indefinitely suspended until further order form the Supreme Court. Atty Almacen described the court as "a tribunal peopled by men who are calloused to our pleas of justice. if couched in insulting language as to bring scorn and disrepute to the administration of justice may subject the attorney to disciplinary action. both as an officer of the court and as citizen. Post-litigation utterances or publication made by lawyers. as well as its individual members.

He could still be liable for contempt as if it had been perpetrated during the pendency of the said appeal. There is no comfort in the argument of Atty. Almacen that his utterances were made after the judgments against his client attained finality. The sole objective of the proceeding is to preserve the purity of the legal profession .which transcends the permissible bounds of fair comments and legitimate criticism constitute grave professional misconduct. The pendency or non-pendency of a case in court is of no consequence.

972 has for its object. 972.In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to 1953. . the law is contrary to public interest because it qualifies 1. ALBINO CUNANAN ET AL. alter and supplement the rules on admission to the Bar. inasmuch as a good bar assists immensely in the daily performance of judicial functions and is essential to a worthy administration of justice. honor and civil liberties. After its approval.094 law graduates who confessedly had inadequate preparation for the practice of the profession. To approve officially of those inadequately prepared individuals to dedicate themselves to such a delicate mission is to create a serious social danger. An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of law that should be developed constantly and maintained firmly. as was exactly found by this Tribunal in the aforesaid examinations. Issue: Held: Whether or not Republic Act No. and this Tribunal shall consider these rules as minimum norms towards that end in the admission. To the legal profession is entrusted the protection of property. intended to regulate acts subsequent to its promulgation and should tend to improve and elevate the practice of law. life. however. according to its author. Such additional or amendatory rules are. to admit to the Bar. or the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953. suspension. There are also others who have sought simply the reconsideration of their grades without. By the disputed law. disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers to the Bar. It is therefore the primary and inherent prerogative of the Supreme Court to render the ultimate decision on who may be admitted and may continue in the practice of law according to existing rules . precisely more so as legal problem evolved by the times become more difficult. 972 is unconstitutional Republic Act No. The public interest demands of legal profession adequate preparation and efficiency. invoking the law in question. those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and inadequate preparation. which passed and admitted to the bar those candidates who had obtained only an average of 72 percent by raising it to 75 percent. as they ought to be. By its declared objective. Facts: Petitioners are questioning the legality of Republic Act No. while others’ motions for the revision of their examination papers that were still pending also invoked the aforesaid law as an additional ground for admission. many of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the bar invoking its provisions. Congress has exceeded its legislative power to repeal.

(b)the payment of professional tax. he must first secure from this Court the authority to do so. Dacanay acquired Canadian citizenship by reason of naturalization but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. (c)the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education. before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 can resume his law practice. Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship in May 2004. On July 14. but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. ." Stated otherwise. whether petitioner Benjamin M. He subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada's free medical aid program. BENJAMIN M. maintenance of the highest degree of morality. 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. 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. this petition. Canada. Issue: Whether or not Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship in May 2004? Held: No. Dacanay reacquired his Philippine citizenship. There is a question. Thereafter. conditioned on: (a)the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP. On that day. however. Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness. he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto. pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003). The Supreme Court approved the recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant with certain modifications. DACANAY Facts: Benjamin Dacanay was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. 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. Thus. he returned to the Philippines and now intends to resume his law practice. faithful observance of the rules of the legal profession. 2006.PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW." Under RA 9225."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]. His application was approved and he became a Canadian citizen in May 2004. He practiced law until he migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for his ailments.