IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS

MICHAEL A. MEDADO

Facts:

Petitioner graduated with a degree of Bachelor of Laws and thereafter passed the bar
examinations. He took the Attorney’s Oath together with the other bar passers and was scheduled to
sign in the Roll of Attorneys but failed to do so for allegedly misplacing the Notice to Sign the Roll of
Attorneys. He would later find the said document several years after and realized that he had not signed
on the Roll of Attorneys.

Respondent’s Contention:

The OBC alleges that petitioner committed gross negligence, gross misconduct, and utter lack of
merit and explained that based on his answers, the petitioner could offer no valid justification for his
negligence.

Issue:

1. Whether or not petitioner should be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.

2. Whether or not petitioner should be fully exculpated from all liability for his years of
inaction.

Decision:

1. Yes. The practice of law is not a right but a privilege. The Court exercises jurisdiction as to
who may or may not exercise such a privilege. As such, the same will not withhold such a
privilege from individuals who have shown mental fitness and moral fiber to withstand the
rigors of the profession. In the case at hand, the petitioner demonstrated his worth to
become a member of the Bar given several reasons. First, he had demonstrated good faith
and good moral character as it was he who had acknowledged his own lapse; Second, he
strove to adhere to the strict requirements of the ethics of the profession as he has not
been subject to any action of disqualification from the practice of law; and (3) he had shown
himself to be a competent and able legal practitioner having held various positions in
various fields.

2. No. Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that, “A lawyer shall not,
directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.” While an honest mistake of
fact could be used to excuse a person from legal consequences of his acts as it negates
malice or evil motive, a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification as everyone
is presumed to know the law and its consequences. When petitioner had already realized
that he had not signed on the Roll of Attorneys, he could no longer claim an honest mistake
of fact as a valid justification. In spite of this knowledge, he continued in his practice without
trying to complete the requirements in his admission, he willfully engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law.