Topic: Canon 9 – A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized

practice of law

Alawi v. Alauya, A.M. SDC-97-2-P, February 24, 1997, 268 SCRA 639 (1997)

Facts:

Sophia Alawi filed a complaint against Ashary Alauya on the grounds of imputation of
malicious and libelous charges with no solid basis which manifested ignorance and
evident bad faith. Further, through this, it caused undue injury to and blemished her
honour. Moreover, usurpation of the title of attorney, which only regular members of
the Philippine Bar may properly use. 

Alawi avers that the Alauya’s use of “unscrupulous, swindler, forger, manipulator, etc.
without even a bit of evidence to cloth his allegations with the essence of truth. She
avers that her dealings with Alauya had been regular and completely transparent. 

Alauya contends that the complaint had no factual basis. Further, he justified the use
of “Attorney”, by assertion that it is lexically synonymous with Counsellors-at-law, a
title to which Shari’a lawyers have a rightful claim. He added that he prefers the title
of “attorney” because the word cousellor is often mistaken for counsilor.

Issue:

Whether or not. Alauya violated Canon 9 of the Code of the Professional

Responsibility. 

Ruling:

No. 

Canon 9 provides that a lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the
unauthorized practice of law.

In the case at bar, Alauya, a member of the Shari’a Bar, used the term “Attorney” as
he does not want to be called counsellor because it sounds like counsilor. 

Therefore, Alauya is not guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professinal

Responsibility because in the first place, he is not a lawyer. However, the Court held
that Alauya will be dealt with more severely punishment if similar situation, such as
usurpation of the title “Attorney” and use of intemperate words are anew performed.