Philippine Shari’a Bar

7. In the matter of the disqualification of bar examinee Haron S. Meling in the 2002 bar examinations

On October 14, 2002, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez (Melendrez) filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant
(OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to
impose on him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Sharia Bar. In the
Petition, 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 in Cities (MTCC), Cotabato
City, for Grave Oral Defamation, and Less Serious Physical Injuries.

Meling explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases filed against him by Melendrez because
retired Judge Corocoy Moson, their former professor, advised him to settle his misunderstanding with
Melendrez. Believing in good faith that the case would be settled because the said Judge has moral
ascendancy over them, he being their former professor in the College of Law, Meling considered the
three cases that actually arose from a single incident and involving the same parties as closed and
terminated. Moreover, Meling denies the charges and adds that the acts complained of do not involve
moral turpitude.

As regards the use of the title Attorney, Meling admits that some of his communications really
contained the word Attorney as they were, according to him, typed by the office clerk.

Consequently, the OBC recommended that Meling not be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign
the Roll of Attorneys in the event that he passes the Bar Examinations. Further, it recommended that
Meling’s membership in the Shari’a Bar be suspended until further orders from the Court.

Issue: Whether Meling is disqualified in the examinations for the bar in relation to the violation of CPR
for non-disclosure of his pending criminal cases

Ruling: The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to determine whether there is satisfactory
evidence of good moral character of the applicant. The nature of whatever cases are pending against
the applicant would aid the Court in determining whether he is endowed with the moral fitness
demanded of a lawyer. By concealing the existence of such cases, the applicant then flunks the test of
fitness even if the cases are ultimately proven to be unwarranted or insufficient to impugn or affect the
good moral character of the applicant.

Melings concealment of the fact that there are three (3) pending criminal cases against him speaks of his
lack of the requisite good moral character and results in the forfeiture of the privilege bestowed upon
him as a member of the Sharia Bar. Moreover, his use of the appellation Attorney, knowing fully well
that he is not entitled to its use, cannot go unchecked. The judiciary has no place for dishonest officers
of the court, such as Meling in this case.
Who may be called “Attorney”?

8. Alawi vs. Alauya, A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P

Sophia Alawi was a sales representative of E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. of Davao City, a real estate
and housing company. Ashari M. Alauya is the incumbent executive clerk of court of the 4th Judicial
Shari’a District in Marawi City, They were classmates, and used to be friends.

Through Alawi’s agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on installments by Alauya of one of
the housing units of Villarosa. In connection, a housing loan was also granted to Alauya by the National
Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).

Not long afterwards, Alauya addressed a letter to the President of Villarosa & Co. advising of the
termination of his contract with the company. He claimed that his consent was vitiated because Alawi
had resorted to gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence. He laso
wrote similar letters to the Vice President of Villarosa and the Vice President of NHMFC.

On learning of Alauya’s letters, Alawi filed an administrative complaint against him. One of her grounds
was Alauya’s usurpation of the title of “attorney,” which only regular members of the Philippine Bar may
properly use.

Alauya justified his use of the title, “attorney,” by the assertion that it is “lexically synonymous” with
“Counsellors-at-law.” a title to which Shari’a lawyers have a rightful claim, adding that he prefers the
title of “attorney” because “counsellor” is often mistaken for “councilor,” “konsehal” or the Maranao
term “consial,” connoting a local legislator beholden to the mayor. Withal, he does not consider himself
a lawyer.

Issue: Whether or not Alauya, a member of the Shari’a bar, can use the title of Attorney

Ruling: He can’t. The title is only reserved to those who pass the regular Philippine bar.

As regards Alauya’s use of the title of “Attorney,” this Court has already had occasion to declare that
persons who pass the Shari’a Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar, hence may only
practice law before Shari’a courts. While one who has been admitted to the Shari’a Bar, and one who
has been admitted to the Philippine Bar, may both be considered “counsellors,” in the sense that they
give counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only the latter is an “attorney.” The title of “attorney”
is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully
taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain
members thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are authorized to practice law in this
jurisdiction.

9. In Re: RAMON E. GALANG A.C. No. 1163, August 29, 1975

Ramon E. Galang passed the 1971 Bar Examination but his exam papers were subjected to unauthorized
re-correction and re-evaluation by 5 examiners. An investigation conducted by the National Bureau of
Investigation upon request of the Chairman of the 1971 Bar Examination Committee as Investigation
Officer, showed that Ramon E. Galang, a student in the School of Law of Manuel L. Quezon University,
was, on September 8, 1959, charged with the crime of slight physical injuries in the Municipal Court of
Manila committed on Eufrosino F. de Vera, another student of the same university. Confronted with this
information at the hearing of August 13, respondent Galang declared that he does not remember having
been charged with the crime of slight physical injuries in that case. Respondent Galang, in all his
application to take the bar examinations, did not make mention of this fact which he is required under
the rules to do.

The victim has summoned and narrated the case and identified Galang as the very same person charged
with serious physical injury in that case. An administrative proceeding was filed for his disbarment along
with Bar Confidant Lanuevo.

Issue: Whether Galang must be stricken off in the roll of attorneys for concealing his case of serious
physical injury

Ruling: Under Rule 127, Sec. 2 every applicant is duty bound to lay before the Court all his involvement
in any criminal case, pending or otherwise terminated, to enable the Court to fully ascertain or
determine applicant’s moral character.

Under the circumstances in which respondent Ramon E. Galang was allowed to take the Bar
Examinations and the highly irregular manner in which he passed the Bar, the court have no alternative
but to order the surrender of his attorney’s certificate and the striking out of his name from the Roll of
Attorneys.

10. Donna Marie S. Aguirre vs. Edwin L. Rana, B. M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003

On May 21, 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar examinees as
members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre (complainant) filed against
respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. Complainant charged respondent with
unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation. The
Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member of the Bar during the scheduled oath-taking on
22 May 2001 at the Philippine International Convention Center. However, the Court ruled that
respondent could not sign the Roll of Attorneys pending the resolution of the charge against him. Thus,
respondent took the lawyers oath on the scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of Attorneys up to
now. Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate
in an election.

On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that respondent is a municipal government
employee, being a secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate. As such, respondent is
not allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or administrative body.

On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant accuses respondent of acting as
counsel for vice mayoralty candidate George Bunan without the latter engaging respondent’s services.
Complainant claims that respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the proclamation of the
winning vice mayoralty candidate.

Issue: Whether or not respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus does not
deserve admission to the Philippine Bar
Ruling: The Court held that “practice of law” means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law
is to perform acts which are usually performed by members of the legal profession. Generally, to
practice law is to render any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill.

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons
of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this
privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even public
trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law
simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from
one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a
license. Respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath. However, it is
the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent
passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an
attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had
to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll
of Attorneys.