You are on page 1of 8

Notes for Legal Prof. (October 7, 2017.

Final Exam) Exam Pointers

1. Requisites for applicants for admission to the Bar (Academic and Non-Academic).

Section 2, Rule 138


1. a citizen of the Philippines;
2. at least twenty-one years of age;
3. of good moral character;
4. resident of the Philippines;
5. and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges
against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.

Section 5, Rule 138


Satisfactorily show that they have regularly studied law for four years, and successfully completed all
prescribed courses, in a law school or university, officially approved and recognized by the Secretary of
Education.
The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a certificate from the university or school of law, shall be filed
as evidence of such facts, and further evidence may be required by the court.
Satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school or university duly recognized by the
government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law,
political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics.

Section 6, Rule 138


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, before he began the study of law, he had pursued and
satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto
the completion of a four-year high school course, 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, english, spanish, history and economics.

With Cases:
1. PENDING CASES (Civil, Criminal, Administrative, including those filed with the Prosecutor's Office and
the Office of the Ombudsman)
- Certified true copy of Complaint/ Information
- Certification as to the pendency and status of the case
2. DECIDED CASES (Civil, Criminal, Administrative, including those filed with the Prosecutor's Office and
the Office of the Ombudsman)
- Certified true copy of the Decision
- Certificate of Finality of the Decision
- Clearance from the Court, Prosecutor's Office or Office of the Ombudsman, as the case may be
2. Can a Filipino Foreign Law School graduate take the bar exam in the Philippines? Ex. Filipino graduated
in Spain can he take the bar in the PH? What are the additional requirements?

Case: Bar Matter No. 1153 (March 2010)


Answer:
Section 5, Rule 138:
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 the fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic program in a law
school duly recognized by the Philippine Government.

Section 5, Rule 138:


A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her Bachelor of Laws degree or its equivalent in a foreign
law school must present proof of having completed a separate bachelor's degree course.

3. Requirements for take the BAR.

Case: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF TELESFORO A. DIAO vs.
SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ, A.C. No. 244, March 29, 1963
Allegations:
Telesforo A. Diao had not completed, before taking up law subjects, the required pre-legal education prescribed
by the Department of Private Education, specially, in the following particulars:
1. Diao did not complete his high school training; and
2. Diao never attended Quisumbing College, and never obtained his A.A. diploma therefrom which
contradicts the credentials he had submitted in support of his application for examination, and of his allegation
therein of successful completion of the "required pre-legal education".

Response:
1. Telesforo A. Diao claims that although he had left high school in his third year, he entered the service of the
U.S. Army, passed the General Classification Test given therein, which (according to him) is equivalent to a
high school diploma, and upon his return to civilian life, the educational authorities considered his army
service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high school.
2. Diao never obtained his A.A. from Quisumbing College; and yet his application for examination represented
him as an A.A. graduate (1940-1941) of such college. Now, he asserts that he had obtained his A.A. title from
the Arellano University in April, 1949, he says he was erroneously certified, due to confusion, as a graduate
of Quisumbing College, in his school records.

Ruling:
1. We have serious doubts, about the validity of this claim, what with respondent's failure to exhibit any
certification to that effect (the equivalence) by the proper school officials. However, it is unnecessary to dwell
on this, since the second charge is clearly meritorious. Diao never obtained his A.A. from Quisumbing
College; and yet his application for examination represented him as an A.A. graduate (1940-1941) of such
college. Now, asserting he had obtained his A.A. title from the Arellano University in April, 1949, he says he
was erroneously certified, due to confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing College, in his school records.
2. This explanation is not acceptable, for the reason that the "error" or "confusion" was obviously of his own
making. Had his application disclosed his having obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it would also have
disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby showing that he began his law studies (2nd semester of 1948-
1949) six months before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. And then he would not have been
permitted to take the bar tests, because our Rules provide, and the applicant for the Bar examination must
affirm under oath, "That previous to the study of law, he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the
required pre-legal education(A.A.) as prescribed by the Department of Private Education," (emphasis on
"previous").
3. Plainly, therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations; but due to his false
representations, he was allowed to take it, luckily passed it, and was thereafter admitted to the Bar. Such
admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be, and is hereby revoked. The fact that he
hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to
become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally
essential.

4. Requisites for Profession (from midterm)

Elements of a profession:
1. Group of men/Organization
2. Training
3. Public service (most important)

Case: In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION (IBP
Administrative Case No. MDD-1), A.M. No. 1928, August 3, 1978
Facts:
Marcial A. Edillon, a duly licensed practicing attorney in the Philippines, stubbornly refuses to pay his IBP
membership dues.
The IBP Board of Governors unanimously adopted Resolution No. 75-65 in Administrative Case No. MDD-
1 recommending to the Court the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for
"stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues."

Ruling:
1. The first objection posed by the respondent is that the Court is without power to compel him to become a
member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, hence, Section 1 of the Court Rule is unconstitutional for it
impinges on his constitutional right of freedom to associate (and not to associate). Our answer is: To compel a
lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of his constitutional freedom to associate.

Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member. He
became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. All that integration actually does is to
provide an official national organization for the well-defined but unorganized and incohesive group of
which every lawyer is a ready a member.

Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings
of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only compulsion to
which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court, in order to further the State's legitimate
interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require that the cost of improving the profession
in this fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of the regulatory program the lawyers.

Assuming that the questioned provision does in a sense compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated
Bar, such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the State.

2. The second issue posed by the respondent is that the provision of the Court Rule requiring payment of a
membership fee is void. We see nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Court, under its constitutional
power and duty to promulgate rules concerning the admission to the practice of law and the integration of
the Philippine Bar (Article X, Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution) which power the respondent
acknowledges from requiring members of a privileged class, such as lawyers are, to pay a reasonable fee
toward defraying the expenses of regulation of the profession to which they belong. It is quite apparent that the
fee is indeed imposed as a regulatory measure, designed to raise funds for carrying out the objectives and purposes
of integration.

3. The respondent further argues that the enforcement of the penalty provisions would amount to a deprivation of
property without due process and hence infringes on one of his constitutional rights. Whether the practice of law
is a property right, in the sense of its being one that entitles the holder of a license to practice a profession, we do
not here pause to consider at length, as it clear that under the police power of the State, and under the necessary
powers granted to the Court to perpetuate its existence, the respondent's right to practice law before the courts of
this country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a
regulatory measure is recognize, then a penalty designed to enforce its payment, which penalty may be avoided
altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary.

But we must here emphasize that the practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege, and as
such must bow to the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyer's public
responsibilities.

4. Relative to the issue of the power and/or jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to strike the name of a lawyer from
its Roll of Attorneys, it is sufficient to state that the matters of admission, suspension, disbarment and
reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation and supervision have been and are indisputably recognized as
inherent judicial functions and responsibilities, and the authorities holding such are legion.

In In Re Sparks (267 Ky. 93, 101 S.W. (2d) 194), in which the report of the Board of Bar Commissioners in a
disbarment proceeding was confirmed and disbarment ordered, the court, sustaining the Bar Integration Act of
Kentucky, said: "The power to regulate the conduct and qualifications of its officers does not depend upon
constitutional or statutory grounds. It is a power which is inherent in this court as a court appropriate, indeed
necessary, to the proper administration of justice ... the argument that this is an arbitrary power which the court
is arrogating to itself or accepting from the legislative likewise misconceives the nature of the duty. It has
limitations no less real because they are inherent. It is an unpleasant task to sit in judgment upon a brother member
of the Bar, particularly where, as here, the facts are disputed. It is a grave responsibility, to be assumed only with
a determination to uphold the Ideals and traditions of an honorable profession and to protect the public from
overreaching and fraud. The very burden of the duty is itself a guaranty that the power will not be misused or
prostituted. ..."

The Court's jurisdiction was greatly reinforced by our 1973 Constitution when it explicitly granted to the Court
the power to "Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice ... and the admission to the practice of law and the
integration of the Bar ... (Article X, Sec. 5(5) the power to pass upon the fitness of the respondent to remain a
member of the legal profession is indeed undoubtedly vested in the Court.

We thus reach the conclusion that the provisions of Rule of Court 139-A and of the By-Laws of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines complained of are neither unconstitutional nor illegal.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is the unanimous sense of the Court that the respondent Marcial A. Edillon
should be as he is hereby disbarred, and his name is hereby ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys of the
Court.
5. What is Practice of Law?

Case: RENATO CAYETANO vs. CHRISTIAN MONSOD, G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991
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.

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. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur 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.

Phil Lawyers Assoc v. Celedino Agrava, GR No L-12426, February 16, 1959


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 before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to
clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and
condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage,
enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the
preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal
mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions." (5 Am. Jr. p. 262, 263). (Emphasis supplied)

Practice of law under modern conditions consists in no small part of work performed outside of any court and
having no immediate relation to proceedings in court. It 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. These customary functions of an attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the
administration of justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the question set forth in the order,
can be drawn between that part of the work of the lawyer which involves appearance in court and that part which
involves advice and drafting of instruments in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these
manifold customary functions be performed by persons possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral
character, and acting at all times under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys.

In our opinion, 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 oppositions
thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. In the first place, although the transaction of business
in the Patent Office involves the use and application of technical and scientific knowledge and training, still, all
such business has to be conducted and all orders and decisions of the Director of Patents have to be rendered in
accordance with the Patent Law, as well as other laws, including the Rules and Regulations promulgated by the
Patent Office in accordance with law. Not only this, but 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.

6. As a lawyer are you allowed to advertise?

Case: ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR., Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information
Office, Complainant vs. ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO, A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003

Facts:
This administrative complaint arose from a paid advertisement that appeared in the July 5, 2000 issue of the
newspaper, Philippine Daily Inquirer, which reads: "ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-
4333/521-2667."
She spoke to Mrs. Simbillo, who claimed that her husband, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in handling
annulment cases and can guarantee a court decree within four to six months, provided the case will not involve
separation of property or custody of children. Mrs. Simbillo also said that her husband charges a fee of
P48,000.00, half of which is payable at the time of filing of the case and the other half after a decision thereon
has been rendered.
Further research by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Public Information Office revealed that
similar advertisements were published in the August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August
5, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star
On September 1, 2000, Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief
of the Public Information Office, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo for
improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline passed Resolution No. XV-2002-306, finding respondent guilty of
violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
Rules of Court, and suspended him from the practice of law for one (1) year with the warning that a repetition
of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The IBP Resolution was noted by this Court on November
11, 2002.

Answer:
Respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but argued that advertising and solicitation per se are not
prohibited acts; that the time has come to change our views about the prohibition on advertising and
solicitation; that the interest of the public is not served by the absolute prohibition on lawyer advertising; that
the Court can lift the ban on lawyer advertising; and that the rationale behind the decades-old prohibition
should be abandoned.
Thus, he prayed that he be exonerated from all the charges against him and that the Court promulgate a ruling
that advertisement of legal services offered by a lawyer is not contrary to law, public policy and public order
as long as it is dignified.
Ruling:
Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility read:
Rule 2.03. A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Rule 3.01. A lawyer shall not 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.
It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to
public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-
making venture, and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood
should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be
the primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to
themselves. The following elements distinguish the legal profession from a business:
1. A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one may attain the
highest eminence without making much money;
2. A relation as an "officer of the court" to the administration of justice involving thorough sincerity,
integrity and reliability;
3. A relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and unwillingness to resort to
current business methods of advertising and encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with
their clients.
There is no question that respondent committed the acts complained of. He himself admits that he caused the
publication of the advertisements. While he professes repentance and begs for the Courts indulgence, his
contrition rings hollow considering the fact that he advertised his legal services again after he pleaded for
compassion and after claiming that he had no intention to violate the rules. Eight months after filing his
answer, he again advertised his legal services in the August 14, 2001 issue of the Buy & Sell Free Ads
Newspaper. Ten months later, he caused the same advertisement to be published in the October 5, 2001 issue
of Buy & Sell. Such acts of respondent are a deliberate and contemptuous affront on the Courts authority.
What adds to the gravity of respondents acts is that in advertising himself as a self-styled "Annulment
of Marriage Specialist," he wittingly or unwittingly erodes and undermines not only the stability but
also the sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct despite the contemporary climate of
permissiveness in our society. Indeed, in assuring prospective clients that an annulment may be obtained in
four to six months from the time of the filing of the case, he in fact encourages people, who might have
otherwise been disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.
Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed. However, for solicitation to
be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession. If it is made in a modest and
decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar. Thus, the use of simple signs
stating the name or names of the lawyers, the office and residence address and fields of practice, as well
as advertisement in legal periodicals bearing the same brief data, are permissible. Even the use of calling
cards is now acceptable. Publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of
conduct imposed by the canon, of brief biographical and informative data is likewise allowable. As explicitly
stated in Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.:
Such data must not be misleading and may include only a statement of the lawyers name and the names
of his professional associates; addresses, telephone numbers, cable addresses; branches of law practiced;
date and place of birth and admission to the bar; schools attended with dates of graduation, degrees and
other educational distinctions; public or quasi-public offices; posts of honor; legal authorships; legal
teaching positions; membership and offices in bar associations and committees thereof, in legal and
scientific societies and legal fraternities; the fact of listings in other reputable law lists; the names and
addresses of references; and, with their written consent, the names of clients regularly represented.

The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere
supplemental feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published principally for
other purposes. For that reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and informative
data in a daily paper, magazine, trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit his name to
be published in a law list the conduct, management, or contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive
or injure the public or the bar, or to lower dignity or standing of the profession.
The use of an ordinary simple professional card is also permitted. The card may contain only a statement of
his name, the name of the law firm which he is connected with, address, telephone number and special branch
of law practiced. The publication of a simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the
partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the convenience of the profession, is not
objectionable. He may likewise have his name listed in a telephone directory but not under a designation of
special branch of law. (emphasis and italics supplied)
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO is found GUILTY of
violation of Rules 2.03 and 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of the
Rules of Court. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR effective upon receipt of
this Resolution. He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be
dealt with more severely.

Other cases: Kamo nalang basa, taas kayo haha

MAURICIO C. ULEP vs. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993
About advertisments pud ni.

LESLIE UI vs. ATTY. IRIS BONIFACIO, ADM. CASE No. 3319, June 8, 2000
About immorality ni.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SIMPLICIO VILLANUEVA, G.R. No. L-19450. May 27,
1965.
About practice of law ni.
We made a digest for this.

JESUS MA. CUI vs. ANTONIO MA. CUI, defendant-appellant, ROMULO CUI, intervenor-appellant,
G.R. No. L-18727. August 31, 1964.
About legal profession ni.
We made a digest for this.

IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDING FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY. VICENTE


RAUL ALMACEN in L- 27654, ANTONIO H. CALERO vs. VIRGINIA Y. YAPTINCHAY, G.R. No. L-
27654, February 18, 1970.
Lawyer na nag-tantrums after gi-dismiss sa SC ang iya kaso.
Threatened to surrender his lawyers certificate.
Nagpa-interview pa sa Manila Times.
We made a digest for this.

Lawyer's Oath

I, _______________ of _______________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for
money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with
all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.