I.
Legal Education and Admission to the Bar; Rule
138 sec. 2
A. Requirements before admission to the Bar
 Every applicant for admission as a member of the
bar must be a:
1) citizen of the Philippines;
2) at least twenty-one years of age;
3) of good moral character;
4) resident of the Philippines; and
5) 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.
6) Additional requirements for other
applicants. — All applicants for admission
other than those referred to in the two
preceding section (lawyers who are US
Citizens and applicants from other
jurisdiction) shall, before being admitted to
the examination, 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.
Applicants from other jurisdiction – in the discretion
of court, admit them without examination, provided
the following concur:
1) Filipino citizens;
2) Enrolled attorneys in good standing in the SC of
the US or in any circuit court of appeals or district
court therein, or in the highest court of any State or
Territory of the US; and
3) who can show satisfactory certificates that they
have practiced at least five (5) years in any of said
courts
4) they have not been suspended or disbarred
Philippines[3](“IBP”), evidence of which is reflected
B. Procedure for admission
All applications for bar admission must be filed with
the Supreme Court through the Office of the Bar
Confidant. Applicants’ degrees, including high
school, college, and law school, must be from
officially approved and recognized schools, as
authorized by the Secretary of Education. Applicants
must file affidavits attesting to such facts,
accompanied by certificates from each university or
school of law. Further evidence may be required by
the court.    Besides maintaining membership in the IBP, a
C. Bar examinations distinguished from Shari’a bar
examinations
"Philippine Shari'a Bar Examination is one being
administered by the Supreme Court of the
Philippines every two years for purposes of, to wit:
"1. Qualifying for the position of JUDGESHIP in the
Shari'a courts.
"2. Admission to special membership in the
Philippine Bar to practice to practice in the Shari'a
courts (P.D. 1083)
"No person shall be appointed Judge of the Shari'a
Circuit Court unless he is a natural born citizen of
the Philippines, at least twenty five years of age, and
has passed an examination in the Shari'a and Islamic
Jurisprudence (figh) to be given by the Supreme
Court for admission to special membership in the
Philippine Bar to practice in the Shari'a Courts
(Art.152, PD 1083 otherwise known as the 'Code of
Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines'.)
D. Requirements after admission to the Bar
Once admitted to the practice of law, a lawyer must
remain in good standing in order to maintain such
practice. This includes being a member of and
paying the yearly dues to the Integrated Bar of the
in the IBP official receipt number which must be
stated in all pleadings, motions and papers signed
and filed by lawyers before Philippine courts.[4]The
consequences of using an outdated IBP official
number include the court not acting upon said
pleading, motion or paper and disciplining the non-
complying lawyer.[5]In extreme cases, the use of an
expired IBP official receipt number can lead to the
dismissal of a case.[6]
practicing lawyer must also comply with the
requirements on Mandatory Continuing Legal
Education[7](“MCLE”), which entails completing
“every three (3) years at least thirty-six (36) hours of
continuing legal education activities approved by the
MCLE Committee”,[8]unless exempt.[9]As with the
IBP official receipt number, practicing members of
the bar are required to indicate the number and date
of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance
“in all pleadings filed before the courts or quasi-
judicial bodies”.
E. Lawyer’s Oath
            “I, __________________, do solemnly
swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines; I will support its 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 willingly nor wittingly 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 court

as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this
voluntary obligations without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me
God.” (Form 28, RRC)
Bar Matter 1153, Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P.
Mendoza Proposing Reforms in the Bar
"B.M. No. 1153 (Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P.
Mendoza Proposing Reforms in the Bar
Examinations Through Amendments to Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court). - The Court Resolved to
APPROVE the proposed amendments to Sections 5
and 6 of Rule 138, to wit:
SEC. 5.Additional Requirement for Other
Applicants. — All applicants for admission other
than those referred to in the two preceding sections
shall, before being admitted to the examination,
satisfactorily show that they have successfully
completed all the prescribed courses for the degree
of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree, in a
law school or university officially recognized by the
Philippine Government or by the proper authority in
the foreign jurisdiction where the degree has been
granted.
No applicant who obtained the Bachelor of Laws
degree in this jurisdiction shall be admitted to the bar
examination unless he or she has satisfactorily
completed the following course 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. 
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.
SEC. 6.Pre-Law. — An applicant for admission to
the bar examination shall present a certificate issued
by the proper government agency that, before
commencing the study of law, he or she 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.
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.
The Clerk of Court, through the Office of the Bar
Confidant, is hereby directed to CIRCULARIZE this
resolution among all law schools in the country."
Examinations through Amendments to Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, March 9, 2010
In the latest issuance, the SC added a provision
stating that ”a Filipino citizen who graduated from a
foreign law school shall be admitted to the bar
examination only upon submission to the Supreme
Court 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.”  deliberate silence constitutes concealment, done
In re: Bar examinee Haron S. Meling and for
Disciplinary Action As Member of the Philippine
Shari’a Bar, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez, BM No.
1154, June 8, 2004
Facts:
Atty. Froilan Melendrez filed with the Office of the
Bar Confidant (OBC) a petition to disqualify Meling
from taking the 2002 Bar Exams and to impose on
him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member
of the Philippine Shari’a Bar. Meling was alleged not
disclosing that he has 3 pending grave oral
defamation cases in MTCC of Cotabato City.
Furthermore, Melendrez alleges that Meling has
been using the title "Attorney" in his
communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of
Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a
member of the Bar.
In his Answer,3 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. Meling also
denies the charges consist of moral turpitude.
Issue:
Ruling: Merits of the cases are immaterial. What
matters is his act of concealing them which
constitutes dishonesty.
The standard form issued in connection with the
application to take the 2002 Bar Examinations
requires the applicant to aver that he or she "has not
been charged with any act or omission punishable by
law, rule or regulation before a fiscal, judge, officer
or administrative body, or indicted for, or accused or
convicted by any court or tribunal of, any offense or
crime involving moral turpitude; nor is there any
pending case or charge against him/her." Despite the
declaration required by the form, Meling did not
reveal that he has three pending criminal cases. His
under oath at 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 "counselors," in the sense that they give
counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only the
latter is an "attorney." The title "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.
Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law,
Benjamin M. Dacanay, BM No. 1678, December
17, 2007
Facts:
Petitoner was admitted to the PH bar in March 1960,
practiced law and migrated to Canada in 1998 to
seek medical attention for his ailments. He
subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to
avail Canada’s free medical aid program. This was
approved in 2004.
Pursuant to RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-
Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his
PH Citizenship, took his oath of allegiance before
the PH consul general in Toronto. He returned to the
PH wanting to resume the practice of law.
Issue: WoN Dacanay lost his admission to the PH
bar when he became a Canadian citizen.
RULING: YES
Pursuant thereto, any person admitted as a member
of the PH bar in accordance with statutory
requirements, in good and regular standing is entitled
to practice law.
The Constitution provides that the practice of all
professions in the Philippines shall be limited to
Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by
law.15 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.
Before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship
pursuant to RA 9225 can resume his law practice, he
must first secure from this Court the authority to do
so, conditioned on:
(a) the updating and payment in full of the
annual membership dues in the IBP;  A.A. title from the Arellano University in April
(b) the payment of professional tax;
(c) the completion of at least 36 credit
hours of mandatory continuing legal
education; this is specially significant to
refresh the applicant/petitioner’s
knowledge of Philippine laws and update
him of legal developments and
(d) the retaking of the lawyer’s
oath which will not only remind him of his
duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and
as an officer of the Court, but also renew
his pledge to maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines.
In the matter of the Petition for Disbarment of
Telesforo A. Diao, AC No. 244, March 29, 1963
Facts:
Two years after passing the 1953 bar exam,
Telesforo Diao was charged by Severino Martinez
for having falsely represented his application for the
Bar exams. It was alleged that Diao:
- Did not complete his HS; and
- Never attended Quisimbing College.
Diao, admitting the first one, claimed that he entered
the US Army which is equivalent to 3 rd and 4th year
high school.
ISSUE: WoN Diao should continue being a member
of the Bar.
RULING: Him hurdling the bar is immaterial. Name
removed from Roll of Attorneys.
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
1949, he says he was erroneously certified, due to
confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing College, in
his school records.
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."
In re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys
Michael A. Medado, BM No. 2540, September 24,
2013
Facts:
Medado graduated from UP with the degree of
Bachelor of Laws in 1979 and passed the same
year’s bar examination. He thereafter took the
Attorney’s Oath at the PICC together with the
successful bar examinees. He was scheduled to sign
the Roll of Attorneys on May 13, 1980 but he failed
to so because he lost his Notice to Sign the Roll of
Attorneys given by the Bar Office when he went
home to the province for a vacation.
Several years later, rummaging through old college
files, he found the Notice to Sign the Roll of
Attorneys and that what he signed at the PICC was
probably just an attendance record. By this time, he
was already working. Mainly doing corporate and
taxation work and was not actively involved in
litigation practice. He operated under the belief that
signing the Roll of Attorneys was not an urgent
matter nor crucial to his status as a lawyer.
In 2005, in attending an MCLE seminar, he was
asked to provide his roll number for his compliance
to be credited, not having signed the Roll, he was
unable to provide the same.
7 years later, he filed this petition praying that he be
allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. The Office
of the Bar Confidant recommended that it be denied
due to gross negligence and gross misconduct.
ISSUE: Whether or not Medado should be allowed
to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.
RULING:
Yes. The petition could not be denied for prohibiting
him would be akin to imposing upon him the
ultimate penalty of disbarment. A penalty reserved
for the most serious ethical transgressions of
members of the Bar.
Factual circumstances that justified the granting
of the Petition.
- Medado demonstrated good faith and good moral
character when he himself filed the Petition. It is not
a third party who called the Court’s attention to the
omission. He is the one who acknowledged his own
lapse notwithstanding the passage of more than 30
years.
- He had not been subject to any action for
disqualification from the practice of law which is
more than what we could say of other individuals
who were successfully admitted as members of
the Bar.
- Medado appears to be a competent and able legal
practitioner having held various positions in Laurel
Law Office, Petron, Petrophil Corporation,
Philippine National Oil Company, and the Energy
Development Corporation.
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, 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.
TO THIS NOTWITHSTANDING, A PENALTY
IS IMPOSED UPON MEDADO FOR
WILLFULLY ENGAGING IN THE
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
SUSPENSION CANNOT BE IMPOSED AS HE
IS NOT YET A FULL FLEDGED LAWYER
(Tho sabi ni Court pwede ka lang mag sign in the
Roll 1 year after the receipt of the Resolution).
FINE ORDERED PAID.
An honest mistake of facts could excuse a person
from the legal consequences of his acts. However, a
mistake of LAW cannot be used as a justification.
Everyone is presumed to know the law and its
consequences. While Medado may have first have
been operating under an honest mistake of fact when
he though what he signed at the PICC before the
oath taking was already the Roll of Attorneys, the
moment he realized that it 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. 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 in violation of
CANON 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
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.
II. Practice of Law
A. What constitutes practice of law
-  "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. (Cayetano v
Monsod)
B. Practice of law: privilege, profession
A lawyer has the privilege and right
to practice law only during good behavior and can
only be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and
declared by judgment of the court after opportunity
to be heard has been afforded him.
C. Power to regulate practice of law
The Supreme Court has the power to control and
regulate the practice of law. Thus, the Constitution,
under  Article  VIII, Sec. 5 (5) provides:
                        Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have
the following powers:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice and procedure in all courts, the admission
to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
assistance to the under privileged.
D. Who may practice law (Sec. 1, Rule 138)
Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of
the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in accordance
with the provisions of this rule, and who is in good
and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
E. Practice by corporation 5. Members of the Constitutional
Of Counsel – to distinguish them from attorneys of
F. Counsel de parte; counsel de oficio; attorney of
record; “of counsel”; amicus curiae; bar; bench record, associate attorneys are referred to as “of Commission (Art IX-A, Sec. 2, 1987
Attorney in fact – an agent whose authority is counsel” (5 Am. Jur. 261). Constitution)

strictly limited by the instrument appointing him,
though he may do things not mentioned in his
appointment necessary to the performance of the
duties specifically required of him by the power of
attorney appointing him, such authority being
necessarily implied.  He is not necessarily a lawyer.
Counsel de Oficio – a counsel, appointed or
assigned by the court, from among members of the
Bar in good standing who, by reason of their
experience and ability, may adequately defend the
accused.
Note: In localities where members of the Bar are not
available, the court may appoint any person, resident
of the province and good repute for probity and
ability, to defend the accused. Sec. 7, Rule 116,
Rules of Court.
Attorney ad hoc – a person named and appointed by
the court to defend an absentee defendant in the suit
in which the appointment is made (Bienvenu v.
Factor’s of Traders Insurance Cp., 33 La.Ann.209)
Attorney of Record – one who has filed a notice of
appearance and who hence is formally mentioned in
court records as the official attorney of the party.
Person whom the client has named as his agent upon
whom service of papers may be made.
(Reynolds v. Reynolds, Cal.2d580).
BAR – Refers to the whole body of attorneys and
body of judges.
BENCH – denotes the whole body of counselors,
collectively the members of the legal profession.
G. Persons authorized to represent the government
Office of Solicitor General shall represent the
Government of the Philippines, its agencies and
instrumentalities and its officials and agents in any
litigation, proceeding, investigation or matter
requiring the services of a lawyer. When authorized
by the President or head of the office concerned, it
shall also represent government-owned or controlled
corporations.
H. Public officials prohibited to practice law in the
Philippines
Public Officials who cannot engage in the private
practice of Law in the Philippines:
1. Judges and other officials as employees of
the Supreme Court (Rule 148, Sec. 35,
RRC).
2. Officials and employees of the
OSG (Ibid.)
3. Government prosecutors (People v.
Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109).
4. President, Vice-President, members of the
cabinet, their deputies and assistants (Art.
VIII Sec. 15, 1987 Constitution).
6. Ombudsman and his deputies (Art. IX, Sec.
8 (2nd par), 1987 Constitution)
7. All governors, city and municipal
mayors (R.A. No. 7160, Sec. 90).
8. Those prohibited by special law
Public Officials with Restrictions in the Practice
of Law:
1. No Senator as member of the House of
Representative may personally appear as
counsel before any court of justice as before
the Electoral Tribunals, as quasi-judicial and
other administration bodies (Art. VI, Sec. 14,
1987 Constitution).
2. Under the Local Government Code (RA
7160, Sec. 91) Sanggunian members may
practice their professions provided that if
they are members of the Bar, they shall not:
1. appear as counsel before any
court in any civil case wherein a
local government unit or any office,
agency, or instrumentality of the
government is the adverse party;
2. appear as counsel in any criminal
case wherein an officer or employee
of the national or local government
is accused of an offense committed
in relation to his office;
 3. collect any fee for
appearance in administrative
proceedings involving the local
government unit of which he is an
official;
4. use property and personnel of the
government except when
Sanggunian member concerned is
defending the interest of
government.
J. “Adverse-interest conflict”; “congruent-interest
representation conflict”
 "Adverse-interest conflicts" exist where the matter
in which the former government lawyer represents a
client in private practice is substantially related to a
matter that the lawyer dealt with while employed by
the government and the interests of the current and
former are adverse. On the other hand, "congruent-
interest representation conflicts" are unique to
government lawyers and apply primarily to former
government lawyers
(PCGG v Sandiganbayan)
K. Liability for unauthorized practice
Under Sec 3(e), Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, a person assuming to be an attorney or an
officer of a court, and acting as such without
authority is liable for indirect contempt.
Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210, September 3,
1991
Facts:
On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments
confirmed the nomination of Monsod as Chairman of
the COMELEC. Challenging the validity of the
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments
of Monsod’s nomination, petitioner as a citizen and
taxpayer, filed the instant petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the
their consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of
the Commission on Elections be declared null and
void.
Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments of Monsod’s
nomination, petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, filed
the instant petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
praying that said confirmation and the consequent
the appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the
Commission on Elections be declared null and void.
the Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the
Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations
of 1960 with a grade of 86.55%. After graduating
from the College of Law (U.P.) and having hurdled
the bar, Atty. Monsod worked in the law office of his
father. During his stint in the World Bank Group
(1963-1970), Monsod worked as an operations
officer for about two years in Costa Rica and
Panama, which involved getting acquainted with the
laws of member-countries, negotiating loans and
coordinating legal, economic, and project work of
the Bank. Upon returning to the Philippines in 1970,
he worked with the Meralco Group, served as chief
executive officer of an investment bank and
subsequently of a business conglomerate, and since
1986, has rendered services to various companies as
a legal and economic consultant or chief executive
officer. As former Secretary-General (1986) and
National Chairman (1987) of NAMFREL. Monsod’s
work involved being knowledgeable in election law.
He appeared for NAMFREL in its accreditation
hearings before the Comelec. In the field of
advocacy, Monsod, in his personal capacity and as
former Co-Chairman of the Bishops Businessmen’s
Conference for Human Development, has worked
with the under privileged sectors, such as the farmer
and urban poor groups, in initiating, lobbying for and
engaging in affirmative action for the agrarian
reform law and lately the urban land reform bill.
Monsod also made use of his legal knowledge as a
member of the Davide Commission, a quasi-judicial
body, which conducted numerous hearings (1990)
and as a member of the Constitutional Commission
(1986-1987), and Chairman of its Committee on
Accountability of Public Officers, for which he was
cited by the President of the Commission, Justice
Cecilia Muñoz-Palma for "innumerable amendments
to reconcile government functions with individual
freedoms and public accountability and the party-list
system for the House of Representative."
ISSUE: WON Atty. Monsod is engaged in the
practice of law for him to qualify as the Chairman of
the COMELEC.
RULING: YES. The 1987 Constitution provides in
Section 1(1), Article IX-C.
"There shall be a Commission on Elections
composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners
who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines
and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-
five years of age, holders of a college degree, and
must not have been candidates for any elective
position in the immediately preceding elections.
However, a majority thereof, including the
Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar
who have been engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years."
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 those acts
which are characteristics of the profession.
Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render
any kind of service, which device or service requires
the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill."
The following records of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission show that it has adopted a liberal
interpretation of the term "practice of law."
"To avoid any misunderstanding which would result
in excluding members of the Bar who are now
employed in the COA or Commission on Audit, we
would like to make the clarification that this
provision on qualifications regarding members of the
Bar does not necessarily refer or involve actual
practice of law outside the COA. We have to
interpret this to mean that as long as the lawyers who
are employed in the COA are using their legal
knowledge or legal talent in their respective work
within COA, then they are qualified to be considered
for appointment as members or commissioners, even
chairman, of the Commission on Audit.
"To avoid any misunderstanding which would result
in excluding members of the Bar who are now
employed in the COA or Commission on Audit, we
would like to make the clarification that this
provision on qualifications regarding members of the
Bar does not necessarily refer or involve actual
practice of law outside the COA. We have to
interpret this to mean that as long as the lawyers who
are employed in the COA are using their legal
knowledge or legal talent in their respective work
within COA, then they are qualified to be considered
for appointment as members or commissioners, even
chairman, of the Commission on Audit.
In addition, the Court ruled that “Appointment is an
essentially discretionary power and must be
performed by the officer in which it is vested
according to his best lights, the only condition being
that the appointee should possess the qualifications
required by law. If he does, then the appointment
cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others
better qualified who should have been preferred.
This is a political question involving considerations
of wisdom which only the appointing authority can
decide."
Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic, Inc., Bar Matter No. 553
June 17, 1993
RULING:
"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).
"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. (Moran, Comments on the Rules
of Court, Vol. 3 [1973 ed.], pp. 665-666, citing In Re
Opinion of the Justices [Mass.], 194 N.E. 313,
quoted in Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile
Service Assoc. [R.I.] 179 A. 139, 144)."
The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range
of activities in and out of court. Applying the
aforementioned criteria to the case at bar, we agree
with the perceptive findings and observations of
the aforestated bar associations that the activities of
respondent, as advertised, constitute "practice of
law."
The contention of respondent that it merely offers
legal support services can neither be seriously
considered nor sustained. Said proposition is belied
by respondent's own description of the services it has
been offering, to wit:
"Legal support services basically consist of giving
ready information by trained paralegals to laymen
and lawyers, which are strictly non-diagnostic, non-
advisory, through the extensive use of computers and
modern information technology in the gathering,
processing, storage, transmission and reproduction of
information and, communication, such as
computerized, legal research; encoding and
reproduction of. documents and pleadings prepared
by laymen or lawyers; document search; evidence
gathering; locating parties or witnesses to a case; fact
finding investigations; and assistance to laymen in
need of basic institutional services from government
or non-government agencies, like birth, marriage,
property, or business registrations; educational or
employment records or certifications, obtaining
documentation like clearances, passports, local or
foreign visas; giving information about laws of other
countries that they may find useful, like foreign
divorce, marriage or adoption laws that they can
avail of preparatory to emigration to that foreign
country, and other matters that do not involve
representation of clients in court; designing and
installing computer systems, programs, or software
for the efficient management of law offices,
corporate legal departments, courts, and other
entities engaged in dispensing or administering legal
services."
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation
gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers.
Its contention that such function is non-advisory and
non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. In
providing information, for example, about foreign
laws on marriage, divorce and adoption, it strains the
credulity of this Court that all that respondent
corporation will simply do is look for the law,
furnish a copy thereof to the client, and stop there as
if it were merely a bookstore. With its attorneys and
so called paralegals, it will necessarily have to
explain to the client the intricacies of the law and
advise him or her on the proper course of action to
be taken as may be provided for by said law. That is
what its advertisements represent and for which
services it will consequently charge and be paid.
That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential
definition of "practice of law." Such a conclusion
will not be altered by the fact that respondent
corporation does not represent clients in court since
law practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not
limited merely to court appearances but extends to
legal research, giving legal advice, contract drafting,
and so forth.
In re: Al C. Argosino, BM No. 712, July 13, 1995,
246 SCRA 14
FACTS:Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar exams
in 1993. But SC deferred his oath taking due to his
previous conviction for reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide which arose from the death of
a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites sometime
in September 1991. Al and 7 other accused plead
guilty to reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
RTC sentenced them to imprisonment of from
2y4m1d to 4y. On June 18, 1993, RTC then granted
Al’s application for probation. On April 11, 1994,
the probation officer recommended Al’s discharge
from probation. on April 14, 1994, Al filed in SC a
petition to be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath based
on his discharge from probation.
As evidence of good moral character, Al submitted
15 certifications/letters executed by, among others, 2
senators, 5 trial court judges, and 6 members of
religious orders. He also submitted evidence that a
scholarship foundation had been established in honor Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known
of Raul Camaligan, the hazing victim, thru joint as the Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The title of the law
efforts of the latter’s family and the 8 accused. SC was, “An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar
required Atty. Gilbert Camaligan, father of Raul Examinations from 1946 up to and including 1955.”
Camaligan, to comment on the petition. Atty.
Camaligan says that he has forgiven Al and his co- Section 1 provided the following passing marks:
accused but leaves it to SC’s discretion to determine
whether Al is morally fit for admission to the bar.
1946-1951………………70%
ISSUE: Whether Al Argosino may now be allowed
to take the lawyer’s oath considering his discharge 1952 …………………….71%
from probation, the certifications, and his
participation in establishing the scholarship fund. 1953……………………..72%
RULING: YES.
1954……………………..73%
The senseless beatings inflicted upon Raul
Camaligan constituted evident absence of that moral
fitness required for admission to the bar since they 1955……………………..74%
were totally irresponsible and uncalled for. But after
careful evaluation of the case, we resolve to allow Al Provided however, that the examinee shall have no
to take the lawyer’s oath. Al is not inherently of bad grade lower than 50%.
moral fiber. He is a devout catholic with a genuine
concern for civic duties and public service. SC is
Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate
persuaded that Al has exerted all efforts to atone for
who obtained a grade of 75% in any subject shall be
the death of Raul. We are prepared to give him the
deemed to have already passed that subject and the
benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the
grade/grades shall be included in the computation of
general tendency of youth to be rash, temerarious
the general average in subsequent bar examinations.”
and uncalculating.
We stress to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's oath is
NOT a mere ceremony or formality for practicing ISSUE:
law. Every lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh his
actions according to the sworn promises he makes Whether or not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
when taking the lawyer's oath. If all lawyers
conducted themselves strictly according to the
RULING:
lawyer's oath and the CPR, the administration of
justice will undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier
for everyone concerned. Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the
fatal defect of not being embraced in the title of the
Act. As per its title, the Act should affect only the
In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar examinations. 
Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to 1953; Section2 establishes a permanent system for an
Albino Cunanan, Et Al, March 18, 1954 indefinite time.  It was also struck down for allowing
partial passing, thus failing to take account of the
fact that laws and jurisprudence are not stationary.
As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was
declared unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to
1955 was declared in force and effect.  The portion
that was stricken down was based under the
following reasons:
1. The law itself admits that the candidates
for admission who flunked the bar from 1946
to 1952 had inadequate preparation due to the
fact that this was very close to the end of
World War II;
2. The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking
the resolution of the court on the petitions of
the said candidates;
3. The law is an encroachment on the Court’s
primary prerogative to determine who may be
admitted to practice of law and, therefore, in
excess of legislative power to repeal, alter and
supplement the Rules of Court. The rules laid
down by Congress under this power are only
minimum norms, not designed to substitute
the judgment of the court on who can practice
law; and
4. The pretended classification is arbitrary
and amounts to class legislation.
As to the portion declared in force and effect, the
Court could not muster enough votes to declare it
void. Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to take
effect in 1953. Hence, it will not revoke existing
Supreme Court resolutions denying admission to the
bar of an petitioner.  The same may also rationally
fall within the power to Congress to alter,
supplement or modify rules of admission to the
practice of law.
PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan, GR Nos. 151809-12,
April 12, 2005
In 1976 the General Bank and Trust Company
(GENBANK) encountered financial difficulties.
GENBANK had extended considerable financial
support to Filcapital Development Corporation
causing it to incur daily overdrawings on its current
accountwith Central Bank. Despite the mega loans
GENBANK failed to recover from its financial
woes. The Central Bank issued a resolution declaring
GENBANK insolvent and unable to resume business
with safety to its depositors, creditors and the general
public, and ordering its liquidation. A public bidding
of GENBANK’s assets was held where Lucio Tan
group submitted the winning bid. Solicitor General
Estelito Mendoza filed a petition with the CFI
praying for the assistance and supervision of the
court in GENBANK’s liquidation as mandated by
RA 265. After EDSA Revolution I Pres Aquino
established the PCGG to recover the alleged ill-
gotten wealth of former Pres Marcos, his family and
cronies. Pursuant to this mandate, the PCGG filed
with the Sandiganbayan a complaint for reversion,
reconveyance, restitution against respondents Lucio
Tan, at.al. PCGG issued several writs of
sequestration on properties allegedly acquired by
them by taking advantage of their close relationship
and influence with former Pres. Marcos. The
abovementioned respondents Tan, et. al are
represented as their counsel, former Solicitor
General Mendoza. PCGG filed motions to disqualify
respondent Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan
et. al. with Sandiganbayan. It was alleged that
Mendoza as then Sol Gen and counsel to Central
Bank actively intervened in the liquidation of
GENBANK which was subsequently acquired by
respondents Tan et. al., which subsequently became
Allied Banking Corporation. The motions to
disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which prohibits former
government lawyers from accepting “engagement”
or employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in the said service.
The Sandiganbayan issued a resolution denyting
PCGG’s motion to disqualify respondent Mendoza.
It failed to prove the existence of an inconsistency
between respondent Mendoza’s former function as
SolGen and his present employment as counsel of
the Lucio Tan group. PCGGs recourse to this court
assailing the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE: Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility applies to respondent
Mendoza. The prohibition states: “A lawyer shall
not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any
matter in which he had intervened while in the said
service.”
HELD
The case at bar does not involve the “adverse
interest” aspect of Rule 6.03. Respondent Mendoza,
it is conceded, has no adverse interest problem when
he acted as SOlGen and later as counsel of
respondents et.al. before the Sandiganbayan.
However there is still the issue of whether there
exists a “congruent-interest conflict” sufficient to
disqualify respondent Mendoza from representing
respondents et. al. The key is unlocking the meaning
of “matter” and the metes and bounds of
“intervention” that he made on the matter. Beyond
doubt that the “matter” or the act of respondent
Mendoza as SolGen involved in the case at bar is
“advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with
the said bank’s liquidation and even filing the
petition for its liquidation in CFI of Manila. The
Court held that the advice given by respondent
Mendoza on the procedure to liquidate GENBANK
is not the “matter” contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. ABA Formal
Opinion No. 342 is clear in stressing that “drafting,
enforcing or interpreting government or agency
procedures, regulations and laws, or briefing abstract
principles of law are acts which do not fall within the
scope of the term “matter” and cannot disqualify.
Respondent Mendoza had nothing to do with the
decision of the Central Bank to liquidate
GENBANK. He also did not participate in the sale of
GENBANK to Allied Bank. The legality of the
liquidation of GENBANK is not an issue in the
sequestration cases. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the
PCGG does not include the dissolution and
liquidation of banks. Thus, the Code 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility cannot apply to
respondent Mendoza because his alleged
intervention while SolGen is an intervention on a
matter different from the matter involved in the Civil
case of sequestration. In the metes and bounds of the
“intervention”. The applicable meaning as the term is
used in the Code of Professional Ethics is that it is an
act of a person who has the power to influence the
subject proceedings. The evil sought to be remedied
by the Code do not exist where the government
lawyer does not act which can be considered as
innocuous such as “ drafting, enforcing, or
interpreting government or agency procedures,
regulations or laws or briefing abstract principles of
law.” The court rules that the intervention of
Mendoza is not significant and substantial. He
merely petitions that the court gives assistance in the
liquidation of GENBANK. The role of court is not
strictly as a court of justice but as an agent to assist
the Central Bank in determining the claims of
creditors. In such a proceeding the role of the
SolGen is not that of the usual court litigator
protecting the interest of government.
Petition assailing the Resolution of the
Sandiganbayan is denied.
Relevant Dissenting Opinion of Justice Callejo:
Rule 6.03 is a restatement of Canon 36 of
the Canons of Professional Ethics: “ A lawyer,
having once held public office or having been in the
public employ, should not after his retirement accept
employment in connection with any matter which he
has investigated or passed upon while in such office
or employ.”
Indeed, the restriction against a public official from
using his public position as a vehicle to promote or
advance his private interests extends beyond his
tenure on certain matters in which he intervened as a
public official. Rule 6.03 makes this restriction
specifically applicable to lawyers who once held
public office.” A plain reading shows that the
interdiction 1. applies to a lawyer who once served
in the government and 2. relates to his accepting
“engagement or employment” in connection with
any matter in which he had intervened while in the
service.