B.M. No.

3288

MERCURIA D. SO, Complainant

vs.
MA. LUCILLE P. LEE, Respondent
*

RESOLUTION

REYES, J. JR., J.:

Subject of this Resolution are the October 9, 2017 and March 15, 2019 Petitions to Retake the
1 2

Lawyer's Oath and to Sign the Roll of Attorneys of Ma. Lucille P. Lee (Lee), one of the successful
examinees of the 2016 Bar Examinations.

Factual Antecedents

On May 19, 2017, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received a letter from Mercuria D. So (So)
3

alleging that Lee is a defendant in Civil Case No. 740 and is not fit for admission to the Bar
considering her irresponsible attitude towards her monetary obligations. Attached in the said letter
was a copy of the Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money So had filed against Lee.
4

In her Comment, Lee claimed that she was unaware of the pendency of Civil Case No. 740 as she
5

learned of it only when she registered for the oath taking. She admitted that she obtained a
₱200,000.00 loan from So but had already paid a total of ₱140,000.00 for 10 months. Lee explained
that due to the losses her business suffered, she failed to pay the subsequent monthly payments.
She pointed out that she did not intend to evade her obligation to So, but had asked the latter to give
her ample time to settle it.

In its July 11, 2017 Report, the OBC noted that Lee was an applicant of the 2016 Bar Examinations
6

and in her application, she declared that a civil case was filed against her on January 29, 2014
docketed as Civil Case No. 1436 titled "Nonoy Bolos v. Ma Lucille Lee Jao" for collection of sum of
money. It highlighted that Civil Case No. 1436 pertained to the several loans Lee had incurred with
Joseph "Nonoy" Bolos (Bolos) in the aggregate amount of ₱1,450,000.00."

In its August 1, 2017 Resolution, the Court held in abeyance Lee's request to be allowed to sign the
7

Roll of Attorneys in view of the pendency of Civil Case Nos. 740 and 1436, and required her to
manifest the status of the aforementioned cases.

In her October 2017 petition, Lee manifested that Civil Case No. 740 had been dismissed in view of
the Compromise Agreement she had entered into with So. She manifested that she already paid So
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the approved Compromise Agreement. 8

In her March 2019 petition, Lee reiterated the dismissal of Civil Case No. 740 and the satisfaction of
her obligation in accordance with the Compromise Agreement with So. In addition, she noted that a
Judgment by Compromise had been issued dismissing Civil Case No. 1436 in view of the
Compromise Agreement she had executed with Bolos. It was agreed upon that Lee would pay Bolos
at least ₱15,000.00 a month starting one month after she signs the Roll of Attorneys. 9

In its March 28, 2019 Report, the OBC recommended that Lee be allowed to retake the Lawyer's
10

Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys subject to the condition that she inform the Court within one
month from the time she has made her first payment of ₱15,000.00 to Bolos and to inform the Court
upon full payment of the debt in accordance with the terms and conditions of the compromise.

The Issue

WHETHER LEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RETAKE THE

LAWYER'S OATH AND SIGN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS.

The Court's Ruling

The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show that
they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such
privilege. It is extended only to the few who possess the high standards of intellectual and moral
11

qualifications and the Court is duty-bound to prevent the entry of undeserving aspirants, as well as to
exclude those who have been admitted but have become a disgrace to the profession. Section 2,
12

Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides for the minimum requirements applicants for the admission
to the Bar must possess, to wit:

SEC. 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. - Every applicant for admission as
a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good
moral character, and a resident of the Philippines, and must produce before the Supreme Court
satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral
turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines. (Emphasis supplied)

Moral turpitude has been defined as an act of baselessness, vileness, or the depravity of private and
social duties that man owes to his fellow man or society in general, contrary to the accepted and
customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty or good morals. 13

Jurisprudence had deemed the following acts as crimes involving moral turpitude: abduction with
consent, bigamy, concubinage, smuggling, rape, attempted bribery, profiteering, robbery, murder,
estafa, theft, illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, issuance of bouncing checks, intriguing
against honor, violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, perjury,
forgery, direct bribery, frustrated homicide, adultery, arson, evasion of income tax, barratry,
blackmail, bribery, duelling, embezzlement, extortion, forgery, libel, making fraudulent proof of loss
on insurance contract, mutilation of public records, fabrication of evidence, offenses against pension
laws, perjury, seduction under the promise of marriage, falsification of public document, and estafa
through falsification of public document.14

Nevertheless, not every criminal act involves moral turpitude. The determination whether there is
15

moral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and frequently depends on all the circumstances. In
16

turn, it is for the Court to ultimately resolve whether an act constitutes moral turpitude. In the same
17

vein, not all civil cases pertain to acts involving moral turpitude. As defined, acts tainted with moral
turpitude are of such gravity that manifests an individual's depravity or lack of moral fiber.

As such, the pendency of a civil case alone should not be a deterrent for successful Bar examinees
to take their Lawyer's Oath and to sign the Roll of Attorneys especially since not all charges or cases
involve acts evincing moral turpitude. The facts and circumstances of each case should be taken
into account to establish that the applicant's actions tarnished his or her moral fitness to be a
member of the Bar. If it were otherwise, one's entitlement to be a member of the legal profession
would be seriously jeopardized by the expedient filing of civil cases, which do not necessarily reflect
one's moral character.
Thus, the pendency of Civil Case Nos. 740 and 1436 against Lee is not enough reason to prevent
her from taking her Lawyer's Oath and signing in the Roll of Attorneys. The existence of these civil
cases alone does not establish that she committed acts tainted with moral turpitude.

It is equally important to note that all civil cases filed against Lee had been dismissed on account of
the compromise she entered into with her creditors. Thus, there is no longer any obstacle which may
hinder her in officially becoming a member of the Bar by taking her oath and signing in the Roll of
Attorneys.

Nevertheless, Lee must still satisfactorily exhibit that she would not renege on her monetary
obligations to Bolos. As above-mentioned, Civil Case No. 1436 was dismissed after Lee had agreed
to enter into a compromise with Bolos and set the terms and conditions for her to settle her monetary
obligation. There is no question that Lee owes Bolos a sum of money.

It must be remembered that the deliberate failure to pay just debts constitutes gross misconduct, for
which a lawyer may be sanctioned with one year suspension from the practice of law. After taking
18

her Lawyer's Oath and signing in the Roll of Attorneys, Lee would be a full-fledged member of the
legal profession and subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Court. This is true even if there
would be no complainants, as the Court may motu proprio initiate disciplinary
proceedings. Concomitantly, she is bound to act in a manner consistent with the high standards
19

imposed on lawyers — otherwise, she could be subjected to administrative sanctions. The

requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of
law, but a continuing requirement for membership in the legal profession. 20

In sum, the pendency of civil cases alone should not prevent successful Bar examinees to take their
Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys, unless the same involves acts or omissions which had
been previously determined by the Court to be tainted with moral turpitude. This is of course without
prejudice to the filing of any administrative action against would-be lawyers who fail to continue to
possess the required moral fitness of members of the legal profession.

WHEREFORE, the Court adopts the recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant
to ALLOW Ma. Lucille P. Lee to retake the Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys subject to
the condition that she: (a) notify the Court within one (1) month from making her first monthly
payment to Joseph Bolos; and (b) inform the Court upon full satisfaction of her monetary obligation
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the January 29, 2019 Judgment by Compromise.

FERDINAND A. CRUZ, petitioner, vs. ALBERTO MINA, HON. ELEUTERIO F. GUERRERO and HON. ZENAIDA
LAGUILLES, respondents. G.R. No. 154207, THIRD DIVISION, April 27, 2007, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J p:
Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a nonlawyer is allowed,
irrespective of whether or not he is a law student. As succinctly clarified in Bar Matter No. 730, by virtue
of Section 34, Rule 138, a law student may appear, as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, without the
supervision of a lawyer before inferior courts. FACTS Ferdinand A. Cruz (petitioner) filed before the
MeTC a formal Entry of Appearance, as private prosecutor, in Criminal Case No. 00-1705 for Grave
Threats, where his father, Mariano Cruz, is the complaining witness. The petitioner, describing himself as
a third year law student, justifies his appearance as private prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of Rule
138 of the Rules of Court and the ruling of the Court En Banc in Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr. that a
non-lawyer may appear before the inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party litigant. The petitioner
furthermore avers that his appearance was with the prior conformity of the public prosecutor and a
written authority of Mariano Cruz appointing him to be his agent in the prosecution of the said criminal
case. ISSUE Whether the petitioner, a law student, may appear before an inferior court as an agent or
friend of a party litigant. (YES)

RULING The courts a quo held that the Law Student Practice Rule as encapsulated in Rule 138-A of the
Rules of Court, prohibits the petitioner, as a law student, from entering his appearance in behalf of his
father, the private complainant in the criminal case without the supervision of an attorney duly
accredited by the law school. However, in Resolution dated June 10, 1997 in Bar Matter No. 730, the
Court En Banc clarified: The rule, however, is different if the law student appears before an inferior
court, where the issues and procedure are relatively simple. In inferior courts, a law student may appear
in his personal capacity without the supervision of a lawyer. Section 34, Rule 138 provides: Sec. 34. By
whom litigation is conducted. — In the court of a justice of the peace, a party may conduct his litigation
in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an
attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and
his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar. Thus, a law student
may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a party without the supervision of a
member of the bar. The phrase "In the court of a justice of the peace" in Bar Matter No. 730 is
subsequently changed to "In the court of a municipality" as it now appears in Section 34 of Rule 138,
thus: SEC. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. — In the Court of a municipality a party may conduct his
litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid
of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney
and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar. Which is the
prevailing rule at the time the petitioner filed his Entry of Appearance with the MeTC. No real distinction
exists for under Section 6, Rule 5 of the Rules of Court, the term "Municipal Trial Courts" as used in
these Rules shall include Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. There is really no problem as to the application of Section 34
of Rule 138 and Rule 138-A. In the former, the appearance of a non-lawyer, as an agent or friend of a
party litigant, is expressly allowed, while the latter rule provides for conditions when a law student, not
as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, may appear before the courts. Petitioner expressly anchored
his appearance on Section 34 of Rule 138. The court a quo must have been confused by the fact that
petitioner referred to himself as a law student in his entry of appearance. Rule 138-A should not have
been used by the
Exceptions

1. CLEP students

Third year level 1 and 2 but under the supervision of a lawyer

Review DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

- In Re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys of Atty. Michael A. Medado, B.M. 2540, 24 September 2013, 706
SCRA 264 - Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. 1036, 10 June 2003, 403 SCRA 342 (2003)

will you let him sign the roll of atty

B.M. No. 3288 MERCURIA D. SO, Complainant vs. MA. LUCILLE P. LEE,* Respondent

medado - allowed to sign the roll of atty

rule 38 section 24

can a lawyer in the executive department practice law?

CANON II PROPRIETY A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC A lawyer shall, at all times, act with propriety and maintain
the appearance of propriety in personal and professional dealings, observe honesty, respect and
courtesy, and uphold the dignity of the legal profession consistent with the highest standards of ethical
behavior.

REVISED LAWYER'S OATH I, (name), do solemnly swear (affirm) that I accept the honor, privilege, duty,
and responsibility of practicing law in the Philippines as an Officer of the Court in the interest of our
people. I declare fealty to the Constitution of the Republic of Philippines. In doing so, I shall work
towards promoting the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace. I
shall conscientiously and courageously work for justice, as well as safeguard the rights and meaningful
freedoms of all persons, identities and communities. I shall ensure greater and equitable access to
justice. I shall do no falsehood nor shall I pervert the law to unjustly favor nor prejudice anyone. I shall
faithfully discharge these duties and responsibilities to the best of my ability, with integrity, and utmost
civility. I impose all these upon myself without mental reservation nor purpose of evasion.

RENATO L. CAYETANO v. CHRISTIAN MONSOD, GR No. 100113, 1991-09-

03

Facts:

The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1), Article IX-C:

"There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and

six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines
and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age,
holders of a college degree, and must not have been... candidates for any
elective position in the immediately preceding elections. However, a
majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the
Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least
ten years."

Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the

position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter received by the
Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991.

Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does... not

possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice
of law for at least ten years.

Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed

the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86.55%. He has been a
dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its
inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his... professional license
fees as a lawyer for more than ten years. (p. 124, Rollo)

After graduating from the College of Law (U.P.) and having hurdled the
bar, Atty. Monsod worked in the law office of his father. During his stint
in the World Bank Group (1963-1970), Monsod worked as an operations
officer for about two years in Costa Rica and

Panama, which involved getting acquainted with the laws of member-

countries, negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic, and
project work of the Bank. Upon returning to the Philippines in 1970, he
worked with the Meralco Group, served as chief executive officer of... an
investment bank and subsequently of a business conglomerate, and since
1986, has rendered services to various companies as a legal and
economic consultant or chief executive officer. As former Secretary-
General (1986) and National Chairman (1987) of NAMFREL, Monsod's,...
work involved being knowledgeable in election law. He appeared for
NAMFREL in its accredition hearings before the Comelec. In the field of
advocacy, Monsod, in his personal capacity and as former Co-Chairman of
the Bishops Businessmen's Conference for Human

Development, has worked with the under privileged sectors, such as the
farmer and urban poor groups, in initiating, lobbying for and engaging in
affirmative action for the agrarian reform law and lately the urban land
reform bill. Monsod also made use of his legal... knowledge as a member
of the Davide Commission, a guasi-judicial body, which conducted
numerous hearings (1990) and as a member of the Constitutional
Commission (1986-1987), and Chairman of its Committee on
Accountability of Public Officers, for which he was cited by the

President of the Commission, Justice Cecilia-Munoz-Palma for

"innumerable amendments to reconcile government functions with
individual freedoms and public accountability and the party-list system for
the House of Representative.

Issues:

petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for

Certiorari and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the
consequent appointment of Monsod... as Chairman of the Commission on
Elections be declared null and void.

Ruling:

The Commission on the basis of evidence submitted during the public

hearings on Monsod's confirmation, implicitly determined that he
possessed the necessary qualifications as required by law. The
judgment rendered by the Commission in the exercise of such an
acknowledged... power is beyond judicial interference except only upon a
clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1 Constitution). Thus, only where such
grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the Court... interfere with
the Commission's judgment. In the instant case, there is no occasion for
the exercise of the Court's corrective power, since no abuse, much less a
grave abuse of discretion, that would amount to lack or excess of
jurisdiction and would warrant the issuance... of the writs prayed, for has
been clearly shown.
Principles:

Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term "practice of

law", particularly the modern concept of law practice, and taking into
consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the
Constitution, Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as a... lawyer-
economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich
and the poor - verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement -
that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least... ten years.

Finally, one significant legal maxim is:

"We must interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by the spirit that
giveth life."

Take this hypothetical case of Samson and Delilah. Once, the procurator
of Judea asked Delilah (who was Samson's beloved) for help in capturing
Samson. Delilah agreed on condition that

"No blade shall touch his skin; No blood shall flow from his veins."

When Samson (his long hair cut by Delilah) was captured, the procurator
placed an iron rod burning white-hot two or three inches away from in
front of Samson's eyes. This blinded the man. Upon hearing of what had
happened to her beloved, Delilah was beside herself... with anger, and
fuming with righteous fury, accused the procurator of reneging on his
word. The procurator calmly replied: "Did any blade touch his skin? Did
any blood flow from his veins?" The procurator was clearly relying on the
letter, not the spirit of the... agreement.

Public Officials who are

ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED
to Practice Law in the Philippines
(1)Judges and other officials or
employees of the superior court
(Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec.
35)
(2)Official and employees of the
Office of the Solicitor General
(Rules of Court, Rule 138, Sec.
35)
(3)Government Prosecutors
(People vs. Villanueva, GR No.
L-19450, May 27, 1965)
(4)President, Vice-President,
Members of the Cabinet, their
deputies and assistants (Const.,
Art. VII, Sec. 13) (5)Chairman
andmembersoftheConstitutional
Commissions (Const., Art IX,
Sec. 2)
(6)Members of Judicial Bar
Council (IX-A, Sec. 2, Const.)
(7)Ombudsman and his deputies
(Const., Art. IX, Sec. 8, Par 2)
(8)Governors, city and municipal
mayors (RA 7160, Sec. 90)
(9)Civil service officers and
employees whose duties require
them to devote their entire time
at the disposal of the government
(Catu vs. Rellosa, AC No. 5738,
Feb. 19, 2008). (10)Those who,
by special law, are prohibited
from engaging in the practice of
their legal profession, but if so
authorized by the department
head, he may, in an isolated case,
act as counsel for a relative or
close family friend.

Can a la

How can you get a lawyer.

 Get New Legal Clients With Reviews and Referrals: Referrals bring in
most potential clients - up to 60% seek personal recommendations
when hiring a lawyer. Build your referral network by providing
excellent legal services and staying in touch with past clients.

Calling card, name associates, name of the firm address of the firm phone
numbers.

How an Attorney-Client Relationship Forms

An attorney-client relationship forms when there is an

expressed verbal or written representation agreement. A
casual conversation at a social event wouldn’t typically
be included, but asking for help with a legal matter and
seeking representation would. This agreement can take
many forms – some examples include:

 A verbal agreement regarding representation.

 A signed contract for representation.
 A retainer or payment made for the purpose of securing
representation.

An attorney-client relationship may also form if the client

believes the attorney is representing him or her, asks for
 advice or receives advice. Some examples of this type of
relationship formation include:
 The client furnishing information and seeking legal
advice.
 Frequent contact regarding a legal matter.
 Statements made from either the attorney or client that
there is a relationship.
 Past representation of the client by the attorney.
Benefits of the Attorney- Client Relationship

The primary benefit of an attorney-client relationship is

confidentiality of information. As part of his or her
professional responsibility, an attorney cannot reveal
information regarding the representation of a client
unless that client gives informed consent, the sharing of
information is implied as part of the representation, or as
other specific situations may apply.

What do each of these three exceptions mean? First,

informed consent means that the client must give
consent for information to be released, and must be fully
aware and informed of the agreement and the
consequences it could have. This avoids confusion,
misleading information, or simple ignorance.
 Secondly, if the sharing of information is implied as part
of the representation, then the attorney may share that
information. This means discussing specific information,
witnesses, evidence, and connections that will help you
win your case. Sharing this type of information is
essential for the attorney representing you.

Finally, there are specific other situations that may allow

an attorney to share certain information. For example, an
attorney may share information:
 To prevent reasonably certain death or bodily harm.
 To prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud
in the future that is reasonably certain to result in
substantial damage to the interests of another.
 To prevent, rectify, or mitigate substantial damage to the
interests of another that is reasonably certain to result
from, or has resulted from, the client’s commission of a
crime or fraud.
 To secure legal advice about the attorney’s compliance
with confidentiality rules.
 To establish a claim or defense on behalf of the attorney
in a legal dispute between the attorney and client
 To comply with another law or court order.
 To detect and resolve conflicts of interest that may
arise from changes in the ownership of the law firm or
changes in the attorney’s employment.
In general, this means that the attorney cannot share
what a client tells him or her in confidence, including
admissions of guilt and sharing details of a past crime.
However, if the client tells or indicates to the attorney
that he or she is planning to cause harm to someone or
something else, then the attorney may share the
information to prevent the future crime.

Finals:

Which is more important? Duty of a lawyer to the court? Or the duty of lawyer to
client?

Termination of the lawyer

(A) May a client hire additional counsel as collaborating counsel over and above the objection of
the original counsel?

(B) If the client insists, may the original counsel withdraw from the case, and how? SUGGESTED
ANSWER

(A)a client may hire additional counsel as collaborating counsel because it the client has the
freedom to choose, he has prerogative to choose. (B) as long as there is no conflict wth the original
counsel but The original counsel may withdraw based on Rule 22.01 (c), CPR because his
inability to work with the collaborating counsel will not promote the best interest of the client.
 A charging lien is defined as a type of attorney's lien under which a
lawyer acquires an interest in a judgment awarded to the client. This
may mean that the lawyer can eventually claim a portion of any money
paid to the client due to the judgment. The lien arises because of the
client's failure to pay for legal services.

SECTION 55. Termination of engagement upon death. -The death of the lawyer or client shall terminate
the lawyer-client relationship. The death of such lawyer shall not extinguish the lawyerclient
engagement between the law firm and the client handled by such law firm.