Petition for leave to resume practice of law, Benjamin M.

Dacanay
B.M. No. 1678, December 17, 2007

Facts:

Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced law until he migrated
to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for his ailments. He subsequently applied
for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada’s free medical aid program. His application was
approved and he became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.

On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition
Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. On that day, he took his oath of
allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Canada.
Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines and now intends to resume his law practice.

Issue:

Whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave
up his Philippine citizenship

Ruling:

The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited
to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by law. Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for
admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently,
the privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso
jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege
denied to foreigners.

The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of another
country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is because “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].” Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen
of another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in
accordance with RA 9225. Although he is also deemed never to have terminated his membership
in the Philippine bar, no automatic right to resume law practice accrues.

Under RA 9225, 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.
Re: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Rolando S. Torres as a
Member of the Philippine Bar
A.C. No. 5161, August 25, 2015

Facts:

Respondent was administratively charged by his sister-in-law, complainant Isidra Ting-Dumali,

for "presentation of false testimony; participation in, consent to, and failure to advise against, the
forgery of complainant's signature in a purported Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement; and gross
misrepresentation in court for the purpose of profiting from such forgery. The court held
respondent guilty of gross misconduct and of violating the lawyer's oath, as well as Canons 1 and
10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, resulting in his disbarment from the practice of law.
According to the complainant, the respondent took advantage of his relationship with her and her
brothers and used his profession to deprive them of what was lawfully due them even if it involved
the commission of an illegal, unlawful, or immoral act.

More than ten 10years from his disbarment, or on June 23, 2015, respondent filed the instant
Petition seeking judicial clemency from the Court to reinstate him in the Roll of Attorneys.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent should be reinstated as a member of the Philippine Bar

Ruling:
No, the petition is denied.
Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is not a natural, absolute or
constitutional right granted to everyone who demands it, but rather, a special privilege granted
and continued only to those who demonstrate special fitness in intellectual attainment and in
moral character. The same reasoning applies to reinstatement of a disbarred lawyer. When
exercising its inherent power to grant reinstatement, the Court should see to it that only those
who establish their present moral fitness and knowledge of the law will be readmitted to the Bar.
Thus, though the doors to the practice of law are never permanently closed on a disbarred
attorney, the Court owes a duty to the legal profession as well as to the general public to ensure
that if the doors are opened, it is done so only as a matter of justice.
The following are the guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency, to wit:
1. There 'must be proof of remorse and reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of
reform.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years
ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise, as well as potential for public service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify
clemency.22 (emphases and underscoring supplied)
Munsalud v. NHA
GR No. 167181

Facts:
Petitioner Winnie Munsalud is the daughter and one of compulsory heirs of the late Lourdes
Bulado who died in 1985. During the lifetime of Bulado, respondent NHA awarded here a lot
pursuant to the “Land for the Landless’ program of respondent. She resided at the said property
until her death. Winnie assumed the obligation to pay the monthly amortizations. NHA
recognized petitioner spouses’ assumption of obligations as their names were reflected in the
receipts and they were allowed to occupy the lot. In 1989, petitioners completed the amortization
payments evidenced by the annotation “full payment” reflected on the left side portion of the
official receipt. Consequently, petitioners demanded that NHA issue in their favor a deed of sale
and a title over the property. However, respondent refused. In 2003, petitioners by counsel, sent
respondent a letter to issue a deed of sale and title. Respondents did not issue the requested
documents but informed petitioners that Winnie’s name does not appear as beneficiary.
Petitioners replied that Winnie was representing her mother, the late Lourdes Bulado.
Respondent did not respond to the reply. Left with no recourse, petitioners instituted a complaint
for mandamus with the RTC which dismissed the complaint for insufficiency in form and
substance and that there being no reference to any law which respondent by reason of its office,
trust or station is especially enjoined as a duty to perform.

Issue:
Whether or not the petition for mandamus was sufficient in form and substance.

Ruling:
Yes. The petition for mandamus was sufficient in form and substance. The complaint designated
by petitioners as mandamus reveals that it is sufficient in form. It has the caption with the name
of the court, the name of the parties, and the docket number. The complaint contains allegations
of petitioners’ complaints. It has a prayer and the date when it was prepared. The signature page
shows the signature and name of petitioners’ counsel, the counsel’s IBP, PTR and Roll of
Attorney’s Numbers. The complaint was also verified and accompanied by a certificate of non-
forum shopping and signed by petitioners as plaintiffs. It was filed personally with the office of
the clerk of court.
Substance is one which relates to the material allegations and the character of the relief sought
for in the pleading. It is determinative of whether or not a cause of action exists and is the
embodiment of the essential facts necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the court. The action
commenced by petitioners before the trial court, although designated as mandamus, is in reality
an action to perform a specific act. The averments of the complaint are clear. The essential of
facts are sufficiently alleged as to appraise the court of the nature of the case. The relief sought to
be obtained aims to compel respondent to issue a deed of sale and the corresponding title over
the property awarded to Bulado. Thus, the Court finds the complaint sufficient in substance.