Sophia Alawi v. Ashary M. Alauya, A.M. Sdc. -97-2-P.

February24, 1997

FACTS:
• Alawi was a sales representative of a real estate company. Alauya (clerk of court of
shaira district) entered a contract with her to buy a housing unit through installment.
However, due to some issues involving trust and confidence in Alawi, Alauya wrote
letters to the real estate company for the termination of the contract. According to
him, the contract was based on deceit, fraud and the like, making the contract ab
initio.
• Upon hearing the letters sent to the company, Alawi filed a complaint against
Alauya regarding the libelous charges without even a solid ground. She also
manifested that Alauya used the title of “ATTORNEY” which only regular members
of the bar may use.
• Alauya justified the use of the title attorney by asserting that it was “lexically
synonymous” with “Counsellors-at-law”, which Sharia lawyers shall use. He does
not want to use counsellor because people mistakenly understood it as
“konsehal/councilor”, who are members of the local legislature.

ISSUE:
• WON Alauya, being a member of Shaira Bar, may use the title Attorney.

RULING:
• No. Those who passed Sharia Bar are not full-pledged lawyers and shall practice
law before Shaira Courts. “Counsellors-at-law” does not allow him to use the title of
“Attorney”. Title of atty is reserved only to those who passed the bar exams and
were admitted to the IBP.
• (on the issue of libelous statements given by Alauya) the court ruled that while
Alauya’s statements were in his defense to his rights as a consumer but “As a
member of the Shari'a Bar and an officer of a Court, Alawi is subject to a standard
of conduct more stringent than for most other government workers. As a man of the
law, he may not use language which is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing,
or otherwise improper. As a judicial employee, it is expected that he accord respect
for the person and the rights of others at all times, and that his every act and word
should be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy, dignity. His radical
deviation from these salutary norms might perhaps be mitigated, but cannot be
excused, by his strongly held conviction that he had been grievously wronged.”