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:
Peitioner petitioned the Court to disqualify respondent from taking the 2002 Bar
Examinations as well as impose the proper penalty to the same as a member of the Philippine
Shari’a Bar.

Petitioner’s Contention:
Petitioner alleges that respondent did not disclose in his Petition to take the Bar exams
that he has three pending criminal cases which arose from an incident when the latter uttered
defamatory words against petitioner and his wife in front of media practitioners as well as
hitting the face of the same’s wife, causing injuries. Further, he used the title “Attorney” in his
communications despite not being a member of the Bar.

Respondent’s Contention:
Respondent maintains that he did not disclose the said criminal cases as retired Judge
Corocoy Moson advised him to settle the “misunderstanding” with petitioner, trusting that the
case would be settled as the Judge has moral ascendancy over them and therefore, considered
the cases closed and terminated. He further denies the charges and sees the acts complained of
do not involve moral turpitude. He does admit that some of his communications did contain the
word Attorney that were typed by his office clerk.

Issues:
1. Whether or not non-members of the Bar may use the title, “Attorney”
2. Whether or not respondent possesses good moral character.

Held:
1. No. Aware that he is not a member of the Bar, there was no valid reason why he
signed as “attorney” whoever may have typed the letters. The unauthorized use of
the appellation “attorney” may render a person liable for indirect contempt of court.
Hence, he may not use such a title. The title “attorney” is reserved to those who,
having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and successful taken the
 Bar Examinations. Shari’a Bar passers however are not full-fledged members of the
Philippine Bar and cannot use the title “attorney”.

2. No. The practice of law whether under the regular of the Shari’a Court is not a
matter of right but merely a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only
learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character. The
respondent did not reveal his pending cases on his application to take the 2002 Bar
Examinations even though it required him to. Such a disclosure would determine
whether there is satisfactory evidence of good moral character of the applicant. His
concealment of his pending cases reveals his lack of good moral character and alro
results in the forfeiture of his privilege as a member of the Shari’a Bar. Further, his
use of the appellation “Attorney” even when he was not entitled to supports this
fact.