SOPHIA ALAWI v. ASHARY M.
ALAUYA, letter, and of the above mentioned envelope
AM SDC-97-2-P, 1997-02-24
Facts:
Sophia Alawi was (and presumably still is) a
sales representative (or coordinator) of E. B.
Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. of Davao City, a
real estate and housing company. Ashari M.
Alauya is the incumbent executive clerk of court
of the 4th Judicial
Shari'a District in Marawi City. They were
classmates, and used to be friends.
It appears that through Alawi's agency, a
contract was executed for the purchase on
installments by Alauya of one of the housing
units belonging to the above mentioned firm
(hereafter, simply Villarosa & Co.); and in
connection therewith, a housing loan was also
granted to
Alauya by the National Home Mortgage Finance
Corporation (NHMFC).
Not long afterwards, or more precisely on
December 15, 1995, Alauya addressed a letter to
the President of Villarosa & Co. advising of the
termination of his contract with the company.
He then proceeded to expound in considerable
detail and quite acerbic language on the
"grounds which could evidence the bad faith,
deceit, fraud, misrepresentation, dishonesty and
abuse of confidence by the unscrupulous sales
agent ** ;" and closed with the plea that Villarosa
& Co. "agree for the mutual rescission of our
contract, even as I inform you that I categorically
state on record that I am terminating the
contract **. I hope I do not have to resort to any
legal action before said onerous and
manipulated contract against my interest be...
annulled. I was actually fooled by your sales
agent, hence the need to annul the controversial
contract."
Alauya justified his use of the title, "attorney," by
the assertion that it is "lexically synonymous"
with "Counsellors-at-law," a title to which
Shari'a lawyers have a rightful claim, adding that
he prefers the title of "attorney" because
"counsellor" is often mistaken for
"councilor," "konsehal or the Maranao term
"consial," connoting a local legislator beholden
to the mayor. Withal, he does not consider
himself a lawyer.
Issues:
On learning of Alauya's letter to Villarosa & Co.
of December 15, 1995, Sophia Alawi filed with
this Court a verified complaint dated January 25,
1996 -- to which she appended a copy of the
bearing the typewritten words, "Free
Postage PD 26."[1] In that complaint, she
accused Alauya of:
Usurpation of the title of "attorney," which only
regular members of the Philippine Bar may
properly use.
Ruling:
As regards Alauya's use of the title of "Attorney,"
this Court has already had occasion to declare
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.[21] 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 "counsellors," in the sense that they
give counsel or advice in a professional capacity,
only the latter is an "attorney." The title of
"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.
Alauya says he does not wish to use the title,
"counsellor" or "counsellor-at-law," because in
his region, there are pejorative connotations to
the term, or it is confusingly similar to that given
to local legislators. The ratiocination, valid or
not, is of no moment. His... disinclination to use
the title of "counsellor" does not warrant his use
of the title of attorney.
Finally, respecting Alauya's alleged unauthorized
use of the franking privilege, the record contains
no evidence adequately establishing the
accusation.
WHEREFORE, respondent Ashari M. Alauya is
hereby REPRIMANDED for the use of
excessively intemperate, insulting or virulent
language, i.e., language unbecoming a judicial
officer, and for usurping the title of attorney;
and he is warned that any similar... or other
impropriety or misconduct in the future will be
dealt with more severely.