Basic Legal and Judicial Ehics

Rubis, John Russ P. | 18-08973 | russrubis4@gmail.com

For our discussion, please answer the following:

Under Topic II of the syllabus:

1. ) In the Case of Pimentel, et.al vs LEB, how did the Supreme Court differentiate law
admission from admission to practice of law?

In the case of Pimentel, et. al. vs LEB, the petitioners thought that the term “law admission”
pertains to the practice of law, while in fact, LEB’s power to prescribe minimum standards for
law admissions refer only to the requirements necessary for enrollment in law course, or law
school, or legal education.

Thus, the term “law admission” refers to enrollment to legal education; a mere preparatory
program for the “admission to the practice of law” which is an admission to legal profession.

Moreover, LEB can exercise authority to prescribe minimum requirements for law admission,
while in the admission to the practice of law, it is only the Court which has the exclusive power
to prescribe minimum requirements.

2. ) May a foreigner, pursuant to a Treaty or International Executive Agreements, be allowed

to practice law in the Philippines? Explain your answer.

Yes, foreigners, pursuant to a Treaty or International Executive Agreements, may be allowed to

practice law in the Philippines.

In the case of Arturo Efren Garcia for his admission to the Philippine BAR, it was held that
under the Treaty of Academic Degrees between Spain and the Philippines, Spanish nationals
who had been in practice of legal profession in Spain, with confirmation of the competent
national authorities, shall be deemed authorized to practice legal profession in the Philippines.

Under such treaty, even the requirements admission to the practice of law has been modified for
the foreigners. It was no longer needed for the applicants to pass the Philippine BAR
Examination for them to be admitted. However, such rights are only reserved for Spanish
nationals, al least based on the abovementioned treaty.

3. ) May a dual citizen practice law in the Philippines? Explain your answer.

 Yes, a dual citizen may practice law in the Philippines.

In the petition of Benjamin Dacanay to resume to the practice of law, he was a Filipino Citizen
admitted to the BAR, yet, acquired citizenship in Canada. On his petition, he wanted to resume
his membership to IBP to resume to the practice of law in the Philippines.

The court held that, pursuant to RA 9225, although he became a citizen of the other country, he
has not lost his Philippine citizenship. Also, he is also deemed never to have terminated his
membership in the Philippine BAR.
 However, such dual citizenship, under such circumstances, does not guarantee an automatic
right to Dacanay to resume law practice. Under RA 9225, the following conditions shall be
complied with;

a. Updating and payment in full the annual membership dues in IBP;

b. The payment of professional tax;
c. The completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory Continuing Legal Education; and,
d. Retaking of the Lawyer’s Oath.

Thus, a dual citizen may practice law in the Philippines as manifested in the case of Dacanay.

Under Topic III of the syllabus

1. ) How did the Supreme Court define/explain “Practice of Law” in Cayetano vs Monsod?

There has been an issue if whether or not Monsod possesses the required qualification for the
position of Chairman of COMELEC, particularly, whether or not he has been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten (10) years. In measuring such, the court applied the following
construction of the phrase “practice of law”:

The practice of law includes more than just managing cases and courtroom litigation; it also
includes drafting pleadings and other papers related to actions and special proceedings,
managing them on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and conveying.

Thus, based on the abovementioned definition, he satisfied the constitutional requirement for
having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten (10) years.

2. ) Please prepare a case digest for: Victor C. Lingan vs Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and
Jimmy P. Baliga, A.C. No. 5377, June 30, 2014.

Facts:

The Commission on Human Rights, En Banc issued the resolution while Baliga was barred
from the practice of law, suspended him from his post as Director/Attorney VI of the
Commission on Human Rights, dated January 16, 2007. His suspension is due to his
suspension from the practice of law. However, Atty. Baliga contended that he cannot be
suspended for actions unrelated to his duties as the regional director of the Commission on
Human Rights. Attorney claims that the suspension from holding public office was separate
from his suspension from the practice of law.

On May 8, 2009, the court received a letter from the complainant the Baliga, despite the
order, still practicing law and still discharging his function as a Regional Director of CHR.

According to the complainant Lingan, a Commission on Human Rights Regional Director

must necessarily practice law in order to carry out their duties. A Commission on Human
Rights Regional Director is classified as Attorney VI and is required to be a member of the
bar. Since this court removed Attorney. Baliga from the legal profession, Atty. Baliga "was
disqualified to occupy the job of Regional Director, during the effectivity of the order of
suspension " because she was "a non-lawyer."
A counsel for Atty. Baliga submitted a manifestation, contending that his prohibition from
holding public office did not also apply to his suspension from the practice of law.  To
extend the scope of his suspension from the practice of law to his public office, according to
Baliga, would amount to a violation of both his constitutional right to due process and the
statutory principle that "what is not included is deemed excluded."

Issue:

We must decide whether to allow Baliga's request to lift the order suspending him.

Held:

We discover Atty. Baliga disobeyed the suspension order from this court. As a result, we
further suspend him from the practice of law for a period of six months. "Any action, in or
out of court, requiring the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and
experience" is defined as "practicing law."

Each regional office is led by the Regional Director who is given the position of Attorney VI.
These powers and functions are characteristics of the legal profession. The Commission on
Human Rights is an independent office established under the Constitution with the power
to investigate "all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights."

Baliga's position as regional director was suspended, but the Commission on Human Rights
did not transgress Atty. Baliga's right to a fair trial. First, the Commission on Human Rights
Legal and Probe Office investigation was the only reason for his suspension. The
Commission also granted Atty. Baliga held a hearing when he submitted his motion for
reconsideration.

All things considered, carrying out the duties of a regional director for the Commission on
Human Rights amounted to the practice of law. Atty. Baliga ought not to have continued
serving as Regional Director.

So we further suspend Attorney. Jimmy P. Baliga is barred for six (6) months from
practicing law. Atty. Baliga will be suspended from the practice of law for a total of one year
and six months effective upon the receipt of the copy of this resolution.