BAR MATTER NO.

914 The 1987 recognizes such which states that those born before January 17, 1973 of
Filipino mother, who elect Ph citizenship upon age of majority are Philippine citizens.
Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar
However, such provision is not intended to be curative of any irregularity on the
Vicente Ching, Petitioner election of Ph citizenship of those covered by the 1935 Constitution.

Kapunan| October 1, 1999
FACTS: Vicente Ching, the legitimate son of a Chinese father and a Filipina, was
born in La union in 1964. Since his birth, Ching resided in the Philippines.
After Ching completed his Bachelor of Laws degree at St. Louis University, Baguio
City, he filled an application to take the 1998 Bar Examinations. The Court allowed
him to take the Bar Exam that year under the condition that he must submit the proof
of his Philippine citizenship to the Court.
To prove his Philippine citizenship, Ching submitted the following:
1. Professional Regulations Commission certification showing he is a Certified
Public Accountant;
2. COMELEC Voter Certification, showing he is a registered voter in La Union;
3. Certification showing that he was an elected member of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Tubao during the 1992 elections.
CA No. 625 did not prescribe a time period within which the election of Ph citizenship
should be made, it only provides the it be made upon reaching the age of majority,
which was 21 years.
According the Secretary of Justice, in the case of Cuenco vs. Sec. of Justice,
reasonable time has been interpreted to mean 3 years from reaching the age of
majority.
In the case, Ching was already 35 years old when he complied with the requirements
of CA No 265 which 14 years after he reached the age of majority. Based on the
interpretation of “upon reaching age of majority”, Ching’s election was beyond the
allowable period within which he can exercise such privilege. Further, the
circumstances he invoked cannot vest in him Ph citizenship as the law and
jurisprudence constrain such.
Hence, the court denied Ching’s application for admission to the Ph Bar

Ching successfully passed the 1998 Bar Exams. However, due to the questionable
status of his citizenship, he was not allowed to take his oath. As such, the Court
required him to submit further proof of citizenship.

The OSG filed its comment and said that:

1. Under the 1935 Constitution, Ching is a Chinese Citizen and continued to be

so, unless he elected Philippine Citizenship upon reaching the age of majority
(Inchoate Philippine Citizenship);
2. If ever he were to formally elect Philippine citizenship, it will be beyond d
the “reasonable time” allowed by present jurisprudence (3 years).
BAR MATTER NO. 1678
In his manifestation, Ching stated that he elected Philippine Citizenship on July 15,
1999 in accordance with CA. No. 625. Resume Practice of Law

ISSUE: W/N Ching elected Ph citizenship within a reasonable time, hence may be Benjamin M. Dacanay, petitioner
admitted to the Phillipine Bar?
Corona| December 17, 2007
HELD: No. When Ching was born, 1935 Constitution was in effect. Under Art. IV of
the 1935 Constitution, the citizenship of a legitimate child born of a Filipino mother
and an alien father follows the citizenship of the father, unless the child elects Ph
citizenship upon the age of majority.
FACTS: Bnejamin Dacanay was admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1960. He practiced
law, until he migrated to Canada in 1998 to seek medical attention. Subsequently, he
applied and was approved for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada’s free medical
aid program.
In 2006, pursuant to the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 (R.A.
9225), Dacanay reacquired Ph citizenship before the Philippine Consulate General in
Canada. Thereafter, he returned to the Ph with an intention to resume his law practice.
ISSUE: W/N Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his
Ph citizenship in 2004?
Under Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, one of the requirements for all applicants for
admission to the bar is the s/he must be a citizen of the Philippine.
Hence, Dacanay may resume the practice of law, provided that he complies with said
conditions.
SEC1, RULE 138, RULES OF COURT:
Who may practice law – Any person duly admitted as a member of the bar, or
thereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this Rule, and who is
in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.

HELD: YES. Generally, a lawyer who lost his/her Filipino citizenship cannot practice MEMBERSHIP IN GOOD STANDING:
law in the Philippines. The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in
the Ph shall be limited to Filipino citizens (except those cases prescribed by law). 1. Continued membership;
2. Payment of annual membership dues in the IBP
Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, its loss terminates 3. Payment of the annual professional tax
membership to it, as well as the privilege to engage in the practice of law. Since 4. Compliance with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement for at
practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners, least
5. Faithful observance of the rules and ethics of the legal profession and being
The exception is that when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a continually subject to judicial disciplinary control.
citizen of another country, but subsequently reacquired it by RA 9225. This is because
all Philippine citizens who become citizen of another country shall be deemed not to
have lost their Ph citizenship under the conditions of RA 9225.

Therefore a Filipino lawyer, in this case Dacanay, who becomes a citizen of another
country is deemed never to have lost his Ph citizenship if he reacquires it in
accordance with RA 9225. However, though he is also deemed to have never
terminated his membership in the bar, he has no automatic right to practice law. BAR MATTER NO. 979 and 986

Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice law in the Ph, and he re-acquires his
Filipino citizenship pursuant to its provisions, he shall apply with the proper authority
license to engage in such practice. Otherwise, before he can resume his law practice,
he must first secure from the Court the authority to do so, conditioned on:
1. Payment of annual membership dues in the IBP
2. Payment of the annual professional tax
3. Compliance with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement for at
least 36 credit hours; and
4. Retaking of the lawyers oath (which will not only remind hims of his duties
and responsibilities as a lawyer, but also renew his pledge to maintain
allegiance to the RP.)
Compliance with said conditions will restore his good standing as a member of the PH
bar.
Re: 1999 Bar Examinations,
Mark Anthony Purisima, Petitioner
Bellosillo| December 10, 2002
FACTS: Mark Purisima was conditionally admitted to take the 1999 Bar Examinations
and passed the same. However, the Court disqualified him from becoming a member
of the Philippine Bar and declared his exam null and void for:
1. He failed to submit the required certificate of completion of the pre-bar
review course for his conditional admission to the 1999 bar exams; and
2. He committed a serious act of dishonesty when he made it appear that he
took his pre-bar review course at the Philippine Law School (when certified
by the Acting Registrar, PLS had not offered such course since 1967).
Purisima reasoned that the statement that he enrolled in and passed the regular fourth
year law review classes at the PLS, instead of the University of Santo Tomas where he
took said course (evidenced by the Certification of Dean Dimayuga of UST Civil
Law), was a self-evident clerical error and was not a deliberate and willful declaration
of falsehood.

He explained that he requested his friend/schoolmate Lilian Felipe to fill up his signed
ready-made form, and to have it notarized then file it for him with the Office of the
Bar Confidant. Consumed with the bar preparations, he admitted that he did not have
the opportunity to check the veracity of the information Felipe supplied. Had he done
this, he could have seen that Felipe erroneously typed PLS instead of UST.

Further, he explained that he did not submit the required certification of completion of
the pre-bar review course within 60 days because he thought that it was already
unnecessary in view of the Certification of Completion Dean Dimayuga issued which
not only attested his enrolment in UST, but also his completion of the pre-bar review
course.

ISSUE: W/N Purisima may take his lawyers oath and be admitted to the PH bar? BAR MATTER NO. 1036

HELD: Yes. Pursuant to jurisprudence and previous court decisions, which declared
similar disqualified applicants from the 1999 bar exams due to failure to submit the
certification of completition allowed to take the lawyer’s oath
Aguirre vs. Rana
FACTS: A day before the scheduled oath-taking of successful bar examinees, Donna
Aguirre filed a petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar against Edwin Rana for
unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law and grave
misrepresentation.

The Court allowed Rana to take his oath as a member of the bar, but they did not allow
him to sign the Attorney’s Roll.

Aguirre alleged that, Rana (who was not yet a lawyer) appeared as counsel for a
candidate in the 2001 elections before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers of
Masbate to which Rana filed pleadings and represented and signed himself as counsel
for Vice Mayor Candidate George Bunan.

Rana admitted that Bunan sought his assistance to represent him before the MBEC. He
claims that he assisted Bunan not as a lawyer, but as a person who knows the law.
Hence, his appearance before the MBEC was only to extend specific assistance to
Bunan.

Aguirre further alleged that Rana also signed as counsel for Emily Estipona Hao. OBC
found Rana engaged in unauthorized practice of law and undeserving to be admitted to
the Ph Bar.

ISSUE: W/N Rana should be admitted to the Bar?

HELD: No. In Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava, the court ruled that
PRACTICE OF LAW is not limited to the conduct of cases of litigation in court as it
also embraces preparation of pleadings , management of such actions and proceedings
on behalf of clients before judges in court.

In general, all advice to clients and all action from them in matter connected with the
law had been held to constitute law practice for the work done involves the trained
legal mind’s determination of the legal effects of facts and conditions.

Also, in Cayetano v.Monsod, the court held that PRACTICE of LAW means any
acitivty, in and out of crou, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, BAR MATTER NO. 712
knowledge, training and experience.
Re: Petition of Al Argosino to Take the Lawyer’s Oath
To engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually perforemed by
members of the legal profession, to render any kind of service which requires the use FACTS
of legal knowledge or skill.
Conviction of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
In the case, Rana was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the
proceedings before the MBEC and filed various pleadings without the license to do so, Death of Raul Camaligan, neophyte in frat initiation he and 7 others were convicted
which evidently is unauthorized practice of law. and were imprisoned for 2 years and 4 moths and 1 day to 4 years

Rana called himself counsel with full knowledge that he was not a member of the bar Later, the trial court granted Argosino’s application for probation. And later, the court
and without authority to practice law. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to ordered his discharged from the probation. Thereafter, Argosino petitioned to be
practice law simply by passing the bar exams. It is a priviledge and can be withheld allowed to take the lawyers oath pursuant to the court’s order of his discharge from
from a bar passed if the person seeking admission to it practiced law without license. probation.

The Court thru Justice Feliciano require Argosino to submit evidence that he may be
regarded to be of good moral character as required upon those seeking admission to
the bar.

In compliance Argosino submitted:

1. Certifications and letters

2. Evidence of scholarship foundation established in honor of Raul Camaligan
thru joint efforts of the latter’s family and the accused.

The court required Camaligan’s father to comment on Argsino’s petition, and he

believed that he is not in the position to say whether Argasino is morally fit to be
admitted to the bar, and refers it to the Court.

ISSUE: W/N Argosino is considered of good moral Character and may be admitted to
the bar?

HELD: YES. The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the
stricet intellectual moral qualification required to effectively administer justice. It is
the duty of the Court to “weed out” lawyers who have bcome a disgrace to the noble
profession of law.

Although participation in the mindless beatings inflicted to Raul constituted evidence

that moral fitness required to be admitted to the bar is absent, the court nonetheless,
the court found Argosino that he is not inherently of bad moral fiber for evidence
shows that he is a devout catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and public
service.
BAR MATTER NO 1153
The court is convinced that Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone for Camalinga’s
death and he was given a benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the tenedency LETTER OF ATTY ESTELITO MENDOZA PROPOSING REFORMS IN THE
of the you to be rash and uncalculating. BAR EXAMS THRU AMENDMENT TO RULE 138

Hence, Argosino is allowed to take the lawyer’s oath, sign the roll of attorneys and Foreigners are allowed to be admitted to the Philippine bar
practice the legal profession
THOSE WITH FOREIGN DEGREES ALLOW TO BE ADMITTED