2/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

B.M. No. 2540. September 24, 2013.*

IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF

ATTORNEYS
MICHAEL A. MEDADO, petitioner.

Administrative Law; Mistake of Fact; Mistake of Law; While

an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the
legal consequences of his acts as it negates malice or evil motive, a
mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because
everyone is presumed to know the law and its
consequences.―While an honest mistake of fact could be used to
excuse a person from the legal consequences of his acts as it
negates malice or evil motive, a mistake of law cannot be utilized
as a lawful justification, because everyone is

_______________

* EN BANC.

265

VOL. 706, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 265

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Rol of Attorneys

presumed to know the law and its consequences. Ignorantia facti

excusat; ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
Practice of Law; Indirect Contempt; Under the Rules of Court,
the unauthorized practice of law by one’s assuming to be an
attorney or officer of the court, and acting as such without
authority, may constitute indirect contempt of court, which is
punishable by fine or imprisonment or both.―Under the Rules of
Court, the unauthorized practice of law by one’s assuming to be
an attorney or officer of the court, and acting as such without
authority, may constitute indirect contempt of court, which is
punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Such a finding,
however, is in the nature of criminal contempt and must be
reached after the filing of charges and the conduct of hearings. In
this case, while it appears quite clearly that petitioner committed

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168b6a7db74543b679b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
2/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

indirect contempt of court by knowingly engaging in unauthorized

practice of law, we refrain from making any finding of liability for
indirect contempt, as no formal charge pertaining thereto has
been filed against him.
Same; Attorneys; Code of Professional Responsibility; While a
reading of Canon 9, Code of Professional Responsibility appears to
merely prohibit lawyers from assisting in the unauthorized
practice of law, the unauthorized practice of law by the lawyer
himself is subsumed under this provision, because at the heart of
Canon 9 is the lawyer’s duty to prevent the unauthorized practice
of law.―Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law
likewise transgresses Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides: CANON 9 – A lawyer shall not,
directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
While a reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit lawyers
from assisting in the unauthorized practice of law, the
unauthorized practice of law by the lawyer himself is subsumed
under this provision, because at the heart of Canon 9 is the
lawyer’s duty to prevent the unauthorized practice of law. This
duty likewise applies to law students and Bar candidates. As
aspiring members of the Bar, they are bound to comport
themselves in accordance with the ethical standards of the legal
profession.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

Petition to Sign the Roll of Attorneys.
   The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
266

266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Rol of Attorneys

  Datu Omar S. Sinsuat and Gilbert Karl T. Sison for

petitioner.

RESOLUTION

SERENO, CJ.:
We resolve the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of
Attorneys filed by petitioner Michael A. Medado (Medado).
Medado graduated from the University of the
Philippines with the degree of Bachelor of Laws in 19791
and passed the same year’s bar examinations with a
general weighted average of 82.7.2
On 7 May 1980, he took the Attorney’s Oath at the
Philippine International Convention Center (PICC)
together with the successful bar examinees.3 He was
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168b6a7db74543b679b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
2/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980,4

but he failed to do so on his scheduled date, allegedly
because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of
Attorneys5 given by the Bar Office when he went home to
his province for a vacation.6
Several years later, while rummaging through his old
college files, Medado found the Notice to Sign the Roll of
Attorneys. It was then that he realized that he had not
signed in the roll, and that what he had signed at the
entrance of the PICC was probably just an attendance
record.7
By the time Medado found the notice, he was already
working. He stated that he was mainly doing corporate and
taxation work, and that he was not actively involved in
litigation

_______________
1 Rollo, p. 1; Petition dated 6 February 2012.
2 Id.
3 Id., at p. 2.
4 Id.
5 Id., at p. 10.
6 Id., at p. 2.
7 Id.

267

VOL. 706, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 267

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Rol of Attorneys

practice. Thus, he operated “under the mistaken belief

[that] since he ha[d] already taken the oath, the signing of
the Roll of Attorneys was not as urgent, nor as crucial to
his status as a lawyer”;8 and “the matter of signing in the
Roll of Attorneys lost its urgency and compulsion, and was
subsequently forgotten.”9
In 2005, when Medado attended Mandatory Continuing
Legal Education (MCLE) seminars, he was required to
provide his roll number in order for his MCLE compliances
to be credited.10 Not having signed in the Roll of Attorneys,
he was unable to provide his roll number.
About seven years later, or on 6 February 2012, Medado
filed the instant Petition, praying that he be allowed to
sign in the Roll of Attorneys.11
The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) conducted a
clarificatory conference on the matter on 21 September
201212 and submitted a Report and Recommendation to
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168b6a7db74543b679b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
2/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

this Court on 4 February 2013.13 The OBC recommended

that the instant petition be denied for petitioner’s gross
negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit.14 It
explained that, based on his answers during the
clarificatory conference, petitioner could offer no valid
justification for his negligence in signing in the Roll of
Attorneys.15
After a judicious review of the records, we grant
Medado’s prayer in the instant petition, subject to the
payment of a fine

_______________
8  Id.
9  Id.
10 Id., at p. 3.
11 Id., at p. 4.
12 Id., at p. 20; TSN, 21 September 2012.
13 Id., at pp. 35-43; Report and Recommendation of the OBC dated 24
January 2013.
14 Id., at p. 42.
15 Id.

268

268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Rol of Attorneys

and the imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension

from the practice of law.
At the outset, we note that not allowing Medado to sign
in the Roll of Attorneys would be akin to imposing upon
him the ultimate penalty of disbarment, a penalty that we
have reserved for the most serious ethical transgressions of
members of the Bar.
In this case, the records do not show that this action is
warranted.
For one, petitioner demonstrated good faith and good
moral character when he finally filed the instant Petition
to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys. We note that it was not a
third party who called this Court’s attention to petitioner’s
omission; rather, it was Medado himself who acknowledged
his own lapse, albeit after the passage of more than 30
years. When asked by the Bar Confidant why it took him
this long to file the instant petition, Medado very candidly
replied:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168b6a7db74543b679b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
2/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

Mahirap hong i-explain yan pero, yun bang at the time,

what can you say? Takot ka kung anong mangyayari sa ‘yo,
you don’t know what’s gonna happen. At the same time, it’s
a combination of apprehension and anxiety of what’s gonna
happen. And, finally it’s the right thing to do. I have to come
here … sign the roll and take the oath as necessary.16

For another, petitioner has not been subject to any

action for disqualification from the practice of law,17 which
is more than what we can say of other individuals who
were successfully admitted as members of the Philippine
Bar. For this Court, this fact demonstrates that petitioner
strove to adhere to the strict requirements of the ethics of
the profession, and

_______________
16  Rollo, p. 28; Report and Recommendation of the OBC dated 24
January 2013.
17 Id., at p. 3; Petition dated 6 February 2012.

269

VOL. 706, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 269

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Rol of Attorneys

that he has prima facie shown that he possesses the

character required to be a member of the Philippine Bar.
Finally, Medado appears to have been a competent and
able legal practitioner, having held various positions at the
Laurel Law Office,18 Petron, Petrophil Corporation, the
Philippine National Oil Company, and the Energy
Development Corporation.19
All these demonstrate Medado’s worth to become a full-
fledged member of the Philippine Bar. While the practice of
law is not a right but a privilege,20 this Court will not
unwarrantedly withhold this privilege from individuals
who have shown mental fitness and moral fiber to
withstand the rigors of the profession.
That said, however, we cannot fully exculpate petitioner
Medado from all liability for his years of inaction.
Petitioner has been engaged in the practice of law since
1980, a period spanning more than 30 years, without
having signed in the Roll of Attorneys.21 He justifies this
behavior by characterizing his acts as “neither willful nor
intentional but based on a mistaken belief and an honest
error of judgment.”22
We disagree.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168b6a7db74543b679b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9
2/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse

a person from the legal consequences of his acts23 as it
negates malice or evil motive,24 a mistake of law cannot be
utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is
presumed to know

_______________
18 Id., at p. 22; TSN, 21 September 2012, p. 3.
19 Id., at p. 34; id., at p. 15.
20 Barcenas v. Alvero, A.C. No. 8159, 23 April 2010, 619 SCRA 1, 11.
21 Rollo, p. 35; TSN, 21 September 2012, p. 16.
22 Id., at p. 3; Petition dated 6 February 2012.
23 Wooden v. Civil Service Commission, 508 Phil. 500, 515; 471 SCRA
512, 530 (2005).
24 Manuel v. People, 512 Phil. 818, 836; 476 SCRA 461, 479 (2005).

270

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Rol of Attorneys

the law and its consequences.25 Ignorantia facti excusat;

ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
Applying these principles to the case at bar, Medado
may have at first operated under an honest mistake of fact
when he thought that what he had signed at the PICC
entrance before the oath-taking was already the Roll of
Attorneys. However, the moment he realized that what he
had signed was merely an attendance record, he could no
longer claim an honest mistake of fact as a valid
justification. At that point, Medado should have known
that he was not a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar
because of his failure to sign in the Roll of Attorneys, as it
was the act of signing therein that would have made him
so.26 When, in spite of this knowledge, he chose to continue
practicing law without taking the necessary steps to
complete all the requirements for admission to the Bar, he
willfully engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
Under the Rules of Court, the unauthorized practice of
law by one’s assuming to be an attorney or officer of the
court, and acting as such without authority, may constitute
indirect contempt of court,27 which is punishable by fine or
imprisonment or both.28 Such a finding, however, is in the
nature of criminal contempt29 and must be reached after
the filing of charges and the conduct of hearings.30 In this
case, while it appears quite clearly that petitioner
committed indirect contempt of court by knowingly
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168b6a7db74543b679b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
2/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

engaging in unauthorized practice of law, we refrain from

making any finding of liability for indirect contempt, as no
formal charge pertaining thereto has been filed against
him.

_______________
25 Id.
26 Aguirre v. Rana, 451 Phil. 428, 435; 403 SCRA 342, 348 (2003).
27 RULES OF COURT, Rule 71, Sec. 3(e).
28 Tan v. Balajadia, 519 Phil. 632; 484 SCRA 659 (2006).
29 Id.
30 RULES OF COURT, Rule 71, Sec. 3.

271

VOL. 706, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013 271

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Rol of Attorneys

Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law

likewise transgresses Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides:

CANON 9 – A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist

in the unauthorized practice of law.

While a reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit

lawyers from assisting in the unauthorized practice of law,
the unauthorized practice of law by the lawyer himself is
subsumed under this provision, because at the heart of
Canon 9 is the lawyer’s duty to prevent the unauthorized
practice of law. This duty likewise applies to law students
and Bar candidates. As aspiring members of the Bar, they
are bound to comport themselves in accordance with the
ethical standards of the legal profession.
Turning now to the applicable penalty, previous
violations of Canon 9 have warranted the penalty of
suspension from the practice of law.31 As Medado is not yet
a full-fledged lawyer, we cannot suspend him from the
practice of law. However, we see it fit to impose upon him a
penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign in the
Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of this
Resolution. For his transgression of the prohibition against
the unauthorized practice of law, we likewise see it fit to
fine him in the amount of P32,000. During the one year
period, petitioner is warned that he is not allowed to
engage in the practice of law, and is sternly warned that
doing any act that constitutes practice of law before he has

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168b6a7db74543b679b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
2/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

signed in the Roll of Attorneys will be dealt with severely

by this Court.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll
of Attorneys is hereby GRANTED. Petitioner Michael A.

_______________
31 See Tapay v. Bancolo, A.C. No. 9604, 20 March 2013, 694 SCRA 1;
Noe-Lacsamana v. Busmente, A.C. No. 7269, 23 November 2011, 661
SCRA 1; and Cambaliza v. Cristal-Tenorio, 478 Phil. 378; 434 SCRA 288
(2004).

272

272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In Re: Petition to Sign in the Rol of Attorneys

Medado is ALLOWED to sign in the Roll of Attorneys

ONE (1) YEAR after receipt of this Resolution. Petitioner
is likewise ORDERED to pay a FINE of P32,000 for his
unauthorized practice of law. During the one year period,
petitioner is NOT ALLOWED to practice law, and is
STERNLY WARNED that doing any act that constitutes
practice of law before he has signed in the Roll of Attorneys
will be dealt with severely by this Court.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of
the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to
all courts in the country.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo,

Abad, Perez, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe and Leonen, JJ.,
concur.
Brion and Villarama, Jr., JJ., On leave.
Peralta, Bersamin and Mendoza, JJ., On official leave.

Petition granted, petitioner allowed to sign the Roll of

Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of this resolution. During
the one (1) year period, petitioner not allowed to practice
law, with stern warning against doing so before signing the
Roll of Attorneys.

Notes.―The Court has held that a disbarred lawyer,

who continues to represent himself as a lawyer with the
authority to practice law commits a contumacious act and
is liable for indirect contempt. (Sarmiento vs. Oliva, 599
SCRA 1 [2009])

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168b6a7db74543b679b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
2/4/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 706

Sections 3 and 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court,

specifically outlines the procedural requisites before the
accused may be punished for indirect contempt. (Esperida
vs. Jurado, Jr., 671 SCRA 66 [2012])
――o0o――

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168b6a7db74543b679b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9