Alawi vs.

Alauya (268 SCRA 628, February

24, 1997)
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 letter, and
of the above mentioned envelope 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.

12. Abella vs. Atty. Cruzabra (A.C. No.

5688, June 4, 2009)

Facts:
Complainant alleged that respondent was admitted to the Philippine Bar on 30 May 1986 and was
appointed as Deputy Register of Deeds of General Santos City on 11 August 1987.
Complainant asserted that as Deputy Register of Deeds, respondent filed a... petition for commission
as a notary public and was commissioned on 29 February 1988 without obtaining prior authority
from the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Complainant claimed that respondent has notarized some 3,000... documents.[5] Complainant
pointed out that respondent only stopped notarizing documents when she was reprimanded by the
Chief of the Investigation Division of the Land Registration Authority.
Complainant believed... that even if respondent  had obtained authority from the DOJ, respondent
would still be guilty of violating Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 because her practice as a notary public 
conflicts with her official functions.
In her Comment, respondent admitted that she was a notary public from 29 February 1988 to 31
December 1989.[8] Respondent stated that she was authorized by her superior, the Register of Deeds,
to act as a notary public.
Respondent explained that the Register of Deeds imposed the following conditions for her
application as a notary public:

4. That the application for commission was on the condition that respondent cannot charge fees
for documents required by the Office to be presented and under oath.

Respondent contended that when she filed her petition for commission as a notary public, the
requirement of approval from the DOJ Secretary was still the subject of a pending query by one of
the Registrars and this fact was not known to respondent.[11]
Respondent maintained that she had no intention to violate any rule of law. Respondent, as a new
lawyer relying on the competence of her superior, admitted that an honest mistake may have been
committed but such mistake was committed without willfulness, malice or... corruption.
Respondent argued that she was not engaged in illegal practice as a  notary public because she was
duly commissioned by the court.[13] Respondent denied that she violated Section 7(b)(2) of RA
6713 because she was authorized by her superior to act as a... notary public.
Respondent reasoned that her being a notary public complemented her functions as Deputy Register
of Deeds because respondent could immediately have documents notarized instead of the registrants
going out of the office to look for a notary public. Respondent added... that she did not charge fees
for the documents required by the office to be presented under oath
Respondent insisted that contrary to complainant's claims, she only notarized 135 documents as
certified by the Clerk of Court of the 11th Judicial Region, General Santos City.
Records further showed that after having been reprimanded by Atty. Flestado for said mistake which
was done in good faith respondent ceased and desisted to perform notarial work since then up to the
present
Issues:
Felipe E. Abella (complainant) filed a complaint for violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Section 7(b)(2) of Republic Act No. 6713[1] (RA 6713) or the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees against Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra (respondent). In his affidavit-complaint[2]
dated 8 May 2002, complainant charged respondent with engaging in private practice while
employed in the government service.
Ruling:
Memorandum Circular No. 17[18] of the Executive Department allows government employees to
engage directly in the private practice of their profession provided there is a written permission from
the Department head. It provides:
Sec. 12. No officer or employee shall engage directly in any private business, vocation, or profession
or be connected with any commercial, credit, agricultural, or industrial undertaking without a written
permission from the head of Department;
It is clear that when respondent filed her petition for commission as a notary public, she did not
obtain a written permission from the Secretary of the DOJ.
Respondent's superior, the Register of Deeds, cannot issue any authorization because he is not the
head of the
Department. And even assuming that the Register of Deeds authorized her, respondent failed to
present any proof of that written permission.
Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, engaging in the private
practice of profession, when unauthorized, is classified as a light offense punishable by reprimand.
Wherefore, we find Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra guilty of engaging in notarial practice without the
written authority from the Secretary of the  Department of Justice, and accordingly we REPRIMAND
her. She is warned that a repetition of the same or similar act in... the future shall merit a more severe
sanction.