;,,Practice of Law

CAYETANO vs. MONSOD

FACTS:

Christian Monsod was nominated by former President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of Chairman of the
Commission on Elections in a letter received by the Secretariat on the Commission on Appointments. Petitioner
Renato Cayetano opposed the appointment because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required
qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law of at least ten years.

ISSUE:

Whether Monsod possesses the required qualifications for position of Chairman of Commission on Elections?

RULING:

The court ruled affirmative.

The Commission on the basis of evidence submitted doling the public hearings on Monsod's confirmation,
implicitly determined that he possessed the necessary qualifications as required by law.

Citing the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v.Agrava, The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and
special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and
courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in
matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services contemplating an
appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in
bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and
guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the preparation and drafting of legal
instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of
facts and conditions.

Definition:

Black defines “practice of law” – the rendition of services requiring the knowledge and application of legal
principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court,
or advising and assisting in litigation but embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to
actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds and giving legal
advice to clients.

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which
device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill."

"The principal duties of an attorney are

(1) to be true to the court and to his client;

(2) to manage the business of his client with care, skill, and integrity;

(3) to keep his client informed as to the state of his business;

(4) to keep his secrets confided to him as such. ... His rights are to be justly compensated for his
services."
CRUZ vs. Atty. CABRERA

FACTS:

Petitioner Ferdinand A. Cruz charged an administrative complaint against Atty. Stanley Cabrera for the
misconduct he showed in a hearing at RTC Branch 112 Pasay City presided by Judge Caridad Cuerdo.

In the hearing, where complainant appeared for and in his behalf of the cases, an exchange transpired. Engulfed
with anger, Atty. Cabrera uttered, “Appear ka ng appear. Pumasa ka muna.”

Petitioner claims that the respondent’s display of improper attitude, arrogance, misbehavior and misconduct in
his performance both as a lawyer and officer of the court, before the public and the court, is a transgression on
the very ethics that lawyers are to uphold.

Atty. Cabrera, in a decision from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, was recommended with a suspension from
the practice of law for a period of 3 months for violating Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides:

“A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper.”

Respondent Atty. Cabrera did not refute the complainant allegations that the utterances he hurled were abusive
and insulting.

ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Stanley Cabrera violated Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility on the ground of the
utterances her hurled against the complainant

Whether the complainant Ferdinand Cruz can or cannot represent his self or his case even without an aid of a
lawyer or not being a lawyer himself.

RULING:

The court ruled that Atty. Stanley Cabrera’s utterances of “Appear ka ng appear. Pumasa ka muna.” did not
amount to a violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The single outburst of Atty. Cabrera
is of no magnitude as to warrant his suspension or reproof as it is but a product of impulsiveness or the heat of
the moment in the course of an argument between them. It has been said that lawyers should not be held to too
strict an account for words said in the heat of the moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the big
way is for the court to condone even contemptuous language. Nevertheless, the complainant is not precluded
from the litigation of his case as the right of a party to conduct litigation is recognized in Section 34 of Rule 138
of the Rules of Court which provides:

SEC. 34. By whom litigation 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.

Further ruling that the practice of law though impossible to define exactly involves the exercise of a profession or vocation
usually for gain, mainly as attorney by acting in a representative capacity and as counsel by rendering legal advice to others.
The Court defines Private Practice as more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a
succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise. Practice of law to fall within the
prohibition of statute [referring to the prohibition for judges and other officials or employees of the superior courts or of the
Office of the Solicitor General from engaging in private practice] has been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding
one's self out to the public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services.

BERNARDO vs. ATTY. ISMAEL MEJIA

FACTS:

Respondent Atty. Ismael Mejia was disbarred from the practice of law for 15 years for the administrative case
filed against him by petitioner Rodolfo Bernardo.

He was found guilty for the following violations:

1. Misappropriation of funds and converting it to personal use

2. Falsification of documents
3. Issuance of check with insufficient funds

After 15 years of disbarment, Atty. Mejia filed for petition for reinstatement in the practice of law.

ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Ismael Mejia is qualified for the reinstatement in the practice of law.

RULING:

The Court granted the petition of reinstatement to Atty. Mejia taking into consideration the criteria that the
action depens on.

The action will depend on whether or not the Court decides that the public interest in the orderly and impartial
administration of justice will continue to be preserved even with the applicant’s reentry as a counselor at law. Just
like a candidate of admission to bar, the applicant must satisfy the Court that he is a person with good moral
standing and fit to practice law. The Court will take into consideration the applicant’s character and standing prior
to the disbarment, the nature and character of the charge/s for which he was disbarred, his conduct subsequent
to the disbarment, and the time that has elapsed between the disbarment and the application for reinstatement.

Atty. Mejia was able to show remorse and no transgression was attributed to him during his years of disbarment.
He repented and put up a publication containing his religious and social writings. Obviously, he has learned his
lesson from this experience, and his punishment has lasted long enough. Thus, while the Court is ever mindful of its
duty to discipline its erring officers, it also knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed has already
served its purpose. After all, penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to correct offenders.

The Court reiterated that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid
standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and faithful compliance with the
rules of the legal profession are the continuing requirements for enjoying the privilege to practice law.
ALAWI vs. ALAUYA

FACTS:

Complainant Sophia Alawi, a sales agent representative from Villarosa & Co. Ltd in Davao City filed an
administrative complaint against respondent Ashary Alauya, a Clerk of Court in 4 th Judicial Sharia District in
Marawi City.

Allegedly, Alauya executed a contract for the purchase on installment of a housing unit belonging to the above-
mentioned company with Alawi.

In a letter addressed to the President Villarosa & Co, he advised the termination of his contract with the
company stating that his consent to the contract was misrepresented with deceit and fraud by Sophia Alawi
rendering the contract void ab initio. Subsequent letters were delivered signed by Alauya.

Alawi, upon learning of the letters, filed a complaint regarding the malicious and libelous charges against her.
She also manifested that Alauya used the title of “Attorney” which only the regular members of the Philippine
Bar can use.

She pleaded that Alauya will be dismissed from senice or be appropriately disciplined.

Alauya filed his comment asserting that it was he who had suffered "undue injury, mental anguish, sleepless
nights, wounded feelings and untold financial suffering," considering that in six months, a total of P26,028.60
had been deducted from his salary. He also justified the use of title of Attorney by the assertion that it is
"lexically synonymous" with "Counsellors-at-law." a title to which Shari'a lawyers have a rightful claim and that
prefers the title Attorney because Counsellors are often mistaken as “councilor” or konsehal or the Marano term
“consial” connoting a legislator beholden to mayor.

ISSUE:

Whether Ashary Alauya is entitled to use the “Attorney” for passing the Sharia Bar.

RULING:

The Court ruled against Ashary Alauya and hereby ordered to be reprimanded.

The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713) inter alia enunciates the
State policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service. Section 4 of
the Code commands that "(p)ublic officials and employees at all times respect the rights of others, and refrain
from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public
interest."

As a member of the Shari'a Bar and an officer of a Court, Alawi is subject to a standard of conduct more stringent than for
most other government workers. As a man of the law, he may not use language which is abusive, offensive, scandalous,
menacing, or otherwise improper. 20 As a judicial employee, it is expected that he accords respect for the person and the
rights of others at all times, and that his every act and word should be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy,
dignity.
In regard to the use of “Attorney”, the 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. 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.

IN RE: ARGOSINO, BAR MATTER 712

FACTS:

A.C. Argosino was charged with criminal case along with 13 individuals with homicide for the death of Raul
Camaligan. The death was due to the inflicted injuries Camaligan sustained during the hazing conducted as part
of the university fraternity initiation rites.

Argosino pleaded for bargaining with the lower court in which he was charged guilty with lesser offense from
homicide through reckless imprudence. He then filed for an application of probation granting him 2 years of
probation.

Less a month later, he filed for Petition to Admission to Take the 1993 Bar Examinations declaring his criminal
conviction and probationary status. He was granted the petition and was able to pass the examinations. But he
was not allowed to take the lawyer’s oath of office.

He filed for another petition to allow him to take the lawyer’s oath of office and admit him into the practice of
law.

ISSUE:

Whether A.C. Argosino be allowed to take the laywer’s oath of office considering his criminal conviction

RULING:

The Court ruled that Argosino must submit to the Court or its examination and consideration, evidence that he
may be now regarded as complying with the requirement of good moral character imposed upon those seeking
admission to the bar. His evidence may consist, inter alia, of sworn certifications from responsible members of
the community who have a good reputation for truth and who have actually known Mr. Argosino for
a significant period of time, particularly since the judgment of conviction was rendered by Judge Santiago. He
should show to the Court how he has tried to make up for the senseless killing of a helpless student to the
family of the deceased student and to the community at large. Mr. Argosino must, in other words, submit
relevant evidence to show that he is a different person now, that he has become morally fit for admission to the
ancient and learned profession of the law.

The practice of law is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right to be granted to everyone who demands it.
Rather, it is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of good moral character, with special educational
qualifications, duly ascertained and certified. There is a very real need to prevent a general perception that
entry into the legal profession is open to individuals with inadequate moral qualifications. The growth of such a
perception would signal the progressive destruction of our people's confidence in their courts of law and in our
legal system as we know it.

Mr. Argosino fell far short of the required standard of good moral character. The deliberate (rather than merely
accidental or inadvertent) infliction of severe physical injuries which proximately led to the death of the
unfortunate Raul Camaligan, certainly indicated serious character flaws on the part of those who inflicted such
injuries. Mr. Argosino and his co-accused had failed to discharge their moral duty to protect the life and well-
being of a "neophyte" who had, by seeking admission to the fraternity involved, reposed trust and confidence in
all of them that, at the very least, he would not be beaten and kicked to death like a useless stray dog. Thus,
participation in the prolonged and mindless physical beatings inflicted upon Raul Camaligan constituted evident
rejection of that moral duty and was totally irresponsible behavior, which makes impossible a finding that the
participant was then possessed of good moral character.

RUTHIE LIM-SANTIAGO vs. ATTY. CARLOS SAGUCIO

FACTS:

Complainant Ruthie Lim-Santiago, head of Taggat Industries, Inc. charged Atty. Carlos Sagucio, Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor of Tuguegarao, with an administrative complaint for the violation of Rule 15.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility for conflict of interest on the ground that as the former Personnel Manager
of Taggat Industries, he should have inhibited himself from hearing, investigating and deciding the case filed by
the Taggat employees and engaging in private practice while working as a government prosecutor.

IBP found Atty. Sagucio guilty of conflict of interest, failing to safeguard a former client’s interest and violating
the prohibition against the private practice of law while working as a government prosecutor. He was imposed
with a penalty of 3 years suspension from practice of law.

ISSUES:

Whether Atty. Sagucio violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

RULING:

The Court exonerated the respondent’s charge of violation of Rule 15.03 of Code of Professional Responsibility.
However, the respondent was found liable for the violation of Rule 1.01 Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility due to unlawful conduct. Respondent committed unlawful conduct when he violated Section 7(b)
(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees or Republic Act No. 6713
("RA 6713").

Canon 6 provides that the Code "shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official
duties." A government lawyer is thus bound by the prohibition "not [to] represent conflicting
interests." However, this rule is subject to certain limitations. The prohibition to represent conflicting interests
does not apply when no conflict of interest exists, when a written consent of all concerned is given after a full
disclosure of the facts or when no true attorney-client relationship exists. Moreover, considering the serious
consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, clear preponderant evidence is necessary
to justify the imposition of the administrative penalty.

Respondent is also mandated under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 not to engage in "unlawful x x x conduct." Unlawful
conduct includes violation of the statutory prohibition on a government employee to "engage in the private
practice of [his] profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not
conflict or tend to conflict with [his] official functions.

Complainant’s evidence failed to substantiate the claim that the respondent represented conflict of interest.

In Quiambao v. Bamba, the Court enumerated various tests to determine conflict of interests. One test of
inconsistency of interests is whether the lawyer will be asked to use against his former client any confidential
information acquired through their connection or previous employment. In essence, what a lawyer owes his
former client is to maintain inviolate the client’s confidence or to refrain from doing anything which will
injuriously affect him in any matter in which he previously represented him. In the present case, the Court did
not find no conflict-of-interest respondent handled the preliminary investigation of the criminal complaint filed
by Taggat employees in 1997. In order to charge respondent for representing conflicting interests, evidence
must be presented to prove that respondent used against Taggat, his former client, any confidential information
acquired through his previous employment.

As to the respondent engaging with private practice while working as a government prosecutor, the Court
briefly defines practice of law as any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of
service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.

Private practice of practice, on the other hand, contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature habitually
or customarily holding one’s self to the public as a lawyer .

Respondent admitted that he rendered his legal services to complainant while working as a government
prosecutor. Even the receipts he signed stated that the payments by Taggat were for "Retainer’s fee” which was
correctly pointed out by the complainant thus violating the prohibition in RA 6713.

However, violations of RA 6713 are not subject to disciplinary action under the Code of Professional
Responsibility unless the violations also constitute infractions of specific provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Certainly, the IBP has no jurisdiction to investigate violations of RA 6713 – the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees – unless the acts involved also transgress provisions of
the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Respondent’s violation of RA 6713 also constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which mandates that "[a]
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Respondent’s admission that he
received from Taggat fees for legal services while serving as a government prosecutor is an unlawful conduct,
which constitutes a violation of Rule 1.01.

Atty. Sagucio is guilty of violation of Rule 1.01 Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He then
hereby be suspended from the practice of law for six months.
AGUIRRE vs. RANA

FACTS:

Petitioner Donna Marie Aguirre filed a petition for Denial Admission to the Bar charging Edwin Rana with
unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law and grave misrepresentation.

The complaint stemmed from when Rana, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as a counsel in the May 2001
elections before the MBEC of Mandaon, Masbate, for and in behalf of Vice-Mayoralty Candidate George Bunan.
Petitioner further alleges that respondent filed in the MBEC a pleading signed by his as “counsel for George
Bunan”.

On another charge, complainant claims that the respondent acted as a counsel while being a municipal
government employee as the Secretary of Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate.

Respondent was allowed by the Court to take the laywer’s oath but disallowed him from signing the Roll of
Attorneys until he was cleared of the charges against him.

In this comment, respondent admitted that Bunan sought for his specific assistance to represent him before the
MBEC. Further claiming that he assisted Bunan not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law.

On his employment in the Sangguniang Bayan, respondent claims that he submitted his resignation and was
approved on the same day.

The petition was referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation, report and recommendation.

OBC found indeed that the respondent appeared before the MBEC as counsel for Bunan in the May 2001
elections and actively participated in MBEC proceedings before taking the laywer’s oath. It recommended the
respondent be denied of the admission to the Philippine Bar.

ISSUE:

Whether Edwin Rana can engage with practice of law before being a member of the Philippine Bar

RULING:

The respondent engaged with an unauthorized practice of law and thus can not be admitted to the Philippine
Bar.

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of good
moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege
presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even public trust since a
lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the
bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar
examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a license.

True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath. However, it is the signing
in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar
examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law.
Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely:
his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.

PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS

FACTS:

Petitioner Michael A. Medado filed for petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys.

Medado, a UP graduate and bar passer, took the laywer’s oath at PICC but failed to sign in the roll of attorneys
because allegedly, he misplaced the Notice to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys given by the bar office.

Several years later, he found the notice and discovered during the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
seminar, that he wasn’t able to sign in the roll of attorneys. He was working mainly doing corporate and taxation
works but not actively involved in the litigation practice under the mistaken belief that since he took the
lawyer’s oath, the signing of roll of attorneys was not as urgent and crucial to his status as a lawyer.

Petitioner then filed for the petition praying that he be allowed to sign in the roll of attorneys.

OBC conducted a clarificatory conference where the petition was recommended to be denied for petitioner’s
gross negligence, gross misconduct, and utter lack of merit.

ISSUE:

Whether Michael Medado can practice the law without signing the roll of attorneys

RULING:

The Court granted Medado’s petition to sign in the roll of attorneys subject to payment of a fine and imposition
of penalty equivalent to suspension from practice of law.

While the practice of law is not a right but a privilege, the Court will not unwarrantedly withhold this privilege
from individuals who have shown mental fitness and moral fiber to withstand the rigors of the profession.

Petitioner demonstrated good faith and good moral character when he finally filed the instant Petition to Sign in
the Roll of Attorneys. It was Medado himself who acknowledged his own lapse, albeit after the passage of more
than 30 years. He has not been subject to any action for disqualification from the practice of law, which is more
than what we can say of other individuals who were successfully admitted as members of the Philippine Bar.
Petitioner strove to adhere to the strict requirements of the ethics of the profession, and that he has prima facie
shown that he possesses the character required to be a member of the Philippine Bar. And finally, Medado
appears to have been a competent and able legal practitioner.

However, petitioner cannot be fully exculpated from all liability for his years of inaction.
While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal consequences of his acts as it
negates malice or evil motive, a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is
presumed to know the law and its consequences. Ignorantia factiexcusat; ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

Under the Rules of Court, the unauthorized practice of law by one’s assuming to be an attorney or officer of the
court, and acting as such without authority, may constitute indirect contempt of court, which is punishable by
fine or imprisonment or both. Such a finding, however, is in the nature of criminal contempt and must be
reached after the filing of charges and the conduct of hearings. In this case, while it appears quite clearly that
petitioner committed indirect contempt of court by knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law, we
refrain from making any finding of liability for indirect contempt, as no formal charge pertaining thereto has
been filed against him.

Engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgresses Canon 9 of 'the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides:

CANON 9 -A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.

While a reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit lawyers from assisting in the unauthorized practice of
law, the unauthorized practice of law by the lawyer himself is subsumed under this provision, because at the
heart of Canon 9 is the lawyer's duty to prevent the unauthorized practice of law. This duty likewise applies to
law students and Bar candidates. As aspiring members of the Bar, they are bound to comport themselves in
accordance with the ethical standards of the legal profession.
ATTY. NOE LACSAMANA vs. ATTY. BUSMENTE

FACTS:

Atty. Edita Noe Lacsamana filed a disbarment case against respondent Atty. Yolando Busmente on the ground
that Busmente was represented by one Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa in Civil Case No. 284. Petitioner Atty.
Lacsamana was the counsel for Irene Bides, the plaintiff of Civil Case No. SCA-2481 before the RTC of Pasig City
Branch 167 while respondent Atty. Busmente was the counsel of Imelda Ulaso. Noe-Lacsamana alleged that
Busmente was misreperesented by one Atty. Elizabeth Dela Rosa as a collaborating counsel who was found to
be not a laywer upon verification with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Respondent Busmente alleged that Dela Rosa was a law graduate and was his paralegal assistant for a few
years. But her employment ended in 2000 and was misrepresented by Dela Rosa. Furthering alleging that
Busmente did not represented Ulaso in Civil Case No. 9284.

OBC, upon deliberate investigation, recommended respondent with suspension from practice of law for not less
than 5 years.

ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Yolando Busmente is guilty of directly or indirectly assisted Dela Rosa in her illegal practice of law
that warrants his suspension from practice of law.

RULING:

The Court agreed with IBP.

Respondent Busmente violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which states that:

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

Briefly defined by the Court, "practice of law" implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the public
as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of his services . The Court further ruled
that holding one’s self out as a lawyer may be shown by acts indicative of that purpose, such as identifying
oneself as attorney, appearing in court in representation of a client, or associating oneself as a partner of a law
office for the general practice of law.

The lawyer’s duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized practice of law is founded on
public interest and policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found
duly qualified in education and character. The permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and
limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional
conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence or
dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It
devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin
him not to permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to make possible the
unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate. And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his
part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law.

The counter-affidavit clearly showed that Busmente was the legal counsel in Civil Case No. 9284 and that he allowed Dela
Rosa to give legal assistance to Ulaso.

BELTRAN vs. ABAD

FACTS:

Respondent Elmo Abad was charged of administrative case filed by the Philippine Trial Lawyers Association for practicing law
without being a member of the Philippine Bar.

Abad wasn’t able to take the oath of lawyers and sign the Roll of Attorneys.

ISSUE:

Whether Abad can still practice law even without being a member of the Philippine Bar?

RULING:

The Court fined Abad of 500 pesos payable to the Court within 10 days from notice failing which he shall serve 25 days of
imprisonment.

Two of the essential requirements to be a full-pledged lawyer were not met.

(1) Taking of Oath of Lawyers to be administered by the Court

(2) Signing of Roll of Attorneys

TAN & PAGAYOKAN vs. BALAJADIA

FACTS:

Petitioners Rogelio Tan, Norma Tan and Maliyawao Pagayokan filed a petition of contempt against respondent Benedicto
Balajadia on the ground of misrepresenting himself a lawyer.

It was alleged that respondent filed a criminal case against the petitioners for the usurpation and grave coercion and
violation of tax due ordinance for the alleged illegal parking fees. Petitioners asserted in their complaint-affidavit that
respondent asserted that he is a practicing lawyer residing in Baguio City despite not being a member of the Philippine Bar.

Respondent avers the allegation in his comment asserting that it was an honest mistake. He claims that the secretary of Atty.
Paterno Aquino prepared the subject-affidavit which was patterned after Atty. Aquino’s complaint-affidavit. It appears that
Atty. Aquino previously filed a complaint against petitioners involving the same matter.

Liza Laconsay, secretary of Atty. Aquino, executed an affidavit admitting the mistake in the complaint-affidavit of the
respondent.

ISSUE:
Whether respondent Benedicto Balajadia is liable for indirect contempt

RULING:

The respondent is not liable but was warned to be more careful and circumspect in his actions. A review on the respondent’s
records supports his claim that he never intended to project himself as a lawyer to the public. It was a clear
inadvertence on the part of the secretary of Atty Aquino. The affidavit of Liza Laconsay attesting to the
circumstances that gave rise to the mistake in the drafting of the complaint-affidavit conforms to the
documentary evidence on record. Taken together, these circumstances show that the allegation in paragraph 5
of respondent’s complaint-affidavit was, indeed, the result of inadvertence.

No evidence was presented to show that respondent acted as an attorney or that he intended to practice law.
Consequently, he cannot be made liable for indirect contempt considering his lack of intent to illegally practice
law.

In Re: Juan Pablico, Petition for Reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys, February 20, 1981;

FACTS:

Petitioner Juan T. Publico was disbarred from the practice of law on the ground that he falsified his school
records and credentials.

Petitioner filed for petition to take the 1960 Bar Examination after failing the 1959 Bar Exams. The petition was opposed by
his uncle, Dulcisimo Tapel, alleging that the petitioner is not a person with good moral standing for having misrepresented
himself when he was 16 years old, that he was eligible for Third Year High School at University of Manila, utilizing his cousin
and namesake’s record Juan M. Publico, despite not completing Grade 6.

He passed the 1960 Bar Exams, took the oath and sign in the roll of Attorneys but was stricken out from the Roll of Attorneys
for violating the provisions of Sections 5 and 6, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, which require completion by a bar
examinee or candidate of the prescribed courses in elementary, high, pre-law and law school, prior to his
admission to the practice of law.

Approximately 11 years, petitioner filed a petition for reinstatement alleging that he never received not been
informed that nor did he have any knowledge of the Resolution of the Court ordering the Bar Division to strike
his name from the Roll of Attorneys until March 1969, when after taking his oath of office as Municipal Judge of
Gigmoto, Catanduanes, he was advised to inquire into the outcome of the disbarment case against him.

All of his 5 petitions were denied by the Court despite his good moral character and exemplary standing in the
community:

1. peace officer of Barangay 593, Zone 58 of the City of Manila

2. President of the Stallholders and Vendors Association of Pamilihang Sentral ng Sta. Mesa, Inc.

3. re-elected President of the Altura Elementary School General Parents-Teachers Association

4. re-elected President of the San Miguel (Catanduanes) Civic Association in Metro Manila
Petitioner submitted evidences showing his honesty and integrity and other manifestations of his good moral
character.

1. Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines

2. Resolution of the Sangguniang Bayan of San Miguel, Catanduanes

3. letter of the Municipal Mayor of San Miguel, Alejandro T. Tatel addressed to the late Chief Justice
Castro

4. Certification of Court of First Instance of Catanduanes

5. Court of First Instance of Catanduanes

6. Court of First Instance of Catanduanes

7. First Municipal Circuit Court, Bato-San Miguel, Bato, Catanduanes

ISSUE:

Whether petitioner Juan T. Publico eligible for the reinstatement

RULING:

The Court granted reinstatement of the petitioner’s name in the Roll of Attorneys.

The criterion for reinstatement has been stated as follows:

Whether or not the applicant shall be reinstated rests to a great extent in the sound discretion
of the court, The court action will depend, generally speaking, on whether or not it decides
that the public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of justice will be conserved
by the applicant's participation therein in the capacity of an attorney and counselor at law. The
applicant must, like a candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the court that he is a person of
good moral character — a fit and proper person to practice law. The court will take into
consideration the applicant's character and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and
character of the charge for which he was disbarred, his conduct subsequent to the disbarment,
and the time that has elapsed between the disbarment and the application for reinstatement.

The evidence submitted by petitioner, particularly, the testimonials presented on his behalf, as listed
heretofore, his good conduct and honorable dealings subsequent to his disbarment, his active involvement in
civic, educational, and religious organizations, render him fit to be restored to membership in the Bar, and that
petitioner has been sufficiently punished and disciplined.

FIGUEROA vs. BARRANCO

FACTS:
Complainant Patricia Figueroa filed a petition against respondent Simeon Barranco denying his admission to
legal profession on the ground that a son was born out of wedlock from them and did not fulfill his promise to
marry her.

Complainant and respondent were townmates who eventually became sweethearts and yielded a son, Rafael
Barranco. After the birth of their son, respondent allegedly promised complainant to marry her after he passes
the bar examinations. He gave 10.00 for the child on his birthdays. However, respondent married another
woman despite his promises to marry her.

Respondent filed a resolution denying the motion to dismiss filed against him on the ground of abandonment.
The Court denied the petition. Respondent then filed another motion citing his election as a member of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Janiuay, Iloilo from 1980-1986, his active participation in civic organizations and good
standing in the community as well as the length of time this case has been pending as reasons to allow him to
take his oath as a lawyer.

The Court dismissed the case for the failure of the complainant to prosecute the case for an unreasonable period
of time and to allow Simeon Barranco, Jr. to take the lawyer's oath upon payment of the required fees.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, after referring the case to them, recommended to dismiss the case and
allow respondent to take the lawyer’s oath.

ISSUE:

Whether respondent Simeon Barranco eligible to take the lawyer’s oath despite the abandonment case filed
against him.

RULING:

The Court dismissed the case and granted respondent to take the lawyer’s oath.

Respondent was prevented from taking the lawyer's oath in 1971 because of the charge of gross immorality
made by complainant.

This fact does not constitute gross immorality warranting the permanent exclusion of respondent from the legal
profession. His engaging in premarital sexual relations with complainant and promises to marry suggests a
doubtful moral character on his part but the same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct. The Court has
held that to justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly
immoral.

Gross Immoral:

is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be
reprehensible to a high degree." It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of respectable members of the community.

PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES vs. MACEDA & JAVELLANA

FACTS:
Respondent Judge Bonifaco Maceda gave the custody of private respondent Avelino T. Javellana who was
charged of criminal cases, under the Atty. Deogracias Del Rosario, Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 12 San Jose,
Antique on August 8, 1989. The trial court specifically ordered private respondent be detained in the house of
Atty. Del Rosario but was not allowed liberty to roam around and be held like a detention prisoner.

However, Javellana was roaming like a free man including engaging in the practice of law.

Senior State Prosecutor Patrick Guingoyon filed a petition seeking clarification on the ff:

(1) Does the resolution of this Honorable Court dated July 30, 1990, prohibiting Atty. Javellana from appearing as
counsel refer only to Criminal Case No. 4262?

(2) Is Atty. now (Judge) Deogracias del Rosario still the custodian of Atty. Javellana? and

(3) Since it appears that Atty. (now Judge) del Rosario never really held and detained Atty. Javellana as prisoner
in his residence, is not Atty. Javellana considered an escapee or a fugitive of justice for which warrant for his
arrest should forthwith be issued?"

ISSUE:

Whether private respondent Atty. Javellana can engage in the practice of law despite being detained for criminal
cases charged against him

RULING:

Atty. Javellana is to be detained in the Provincial Jail of Antique and shall not be allowed to go out of the jail for
any reason or guise, except, upon prior written permission of the trial court for a lawful purpose.

When a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed placed under the custody of the law. He is
placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the
offense.3 He must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case against him, unless he is authorized by the
court to be released on bail or on recognizance. Let it be stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive
detention or serving final sentence cannot practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation, or
hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention.

Petition to Reacquire the Privilege to Practice Law in the Philippines

FACTS:

Atty. Epifanio Muneses filed for petition with the Office of Bar Confidant (OBC) to be granted the privilege to
practice law in the Philippines.

Petitioner Muneses has become a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippine sin March 21, 1966 which he
lost the privilege to practice law when he became a citizen of the United States of the America on August 28,
1981. He re-acquired Philippine citizenship in September 15, 2006 in pursuant to RA. 9255 or the “Citizenship
Retention or Re-Acquisition Act of 2003” by taking his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the
Philippine Consulate General in Washington, D.C., USA. He reiterated that he intends to retire in the Philippines
and if granted, resume in the practice of law.

The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) required the petitioner to submit the original copies of the following
documents:

1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;

2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
4. Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration;
5. Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
6. Certification from the IBP indicating updated payments of annual membership dues;
7. Proof of payment of professional tax; and
8. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office.

Petitioner was able to comply with the said requirements.

1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;

2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
4. Certificate of Re-Acquisition/Retention of Philippine Citizenship issued by the Bureau of Immigration, in lieu of
the IC;
5. Certification dated May 19, 2010 of the IBP-Surigao City Chapter attesting to his good moral character as well as
his updated payment of annual membership dues;
6. Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) for the year 2010;
7. Certificate of Compliance with the MCLE for the 2nd compliance period; and
8. Certification dated December 5, 2008 of Atty. Gloria Estenzo-Ramos, Coordinator, UC-MCLE Program, University
of Cebu, College of Law attesting to his compliance with the MCLE.

ISSUE:

Whether petitioner Muneses id eligible for the readmission of member in Philippine Bar after being a citizen of US
and reacquiring Philippine citizenship.

RULING:

The Court granted the petition subject to the condition that petitioner shall re-take the lawyer’s oath on the
dated to be set by the Court and subject to the payment of appropriate fees.

Rule 138 Section 1:

Requisites of admission to bar:

1. Must be a citizen of Philippines

2. At least 21 years of age

3. Must be of good moral character

4. A resident of Philippines
 5. Must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence supporting good moral character

6. No charge against him have been filed and or pending in any court of the Philippines

Section 2:

Citizens of the United States of America who, before July 4, 1946, were duly licensed members of the Philippine
Bar, in active practice in the courts of the Philippines and in good and regular standing as such may, upon
satisfactory proof of those facts before the Supreme Court, be allowed to continue such practice after taking the
following oath of office

PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES vs. EUSTACIO DE LUNA

FACTS:

Defendant Eustacio De Luna together with other defendants took an oath before a notary public despite the
denial of the Court on their petition to take the oath despite not passing the bar examinations. This is in
pursuant of RA No 972 or the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953 stating that:

Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of seventy-five per cent in any subject in any bar
examination after July fourth, nineteen hundred and forty-six shall be deemed to have passed in
such subject or subjects and such grade or grades shall be included in computing the passing
general average that said candidate may obtain in any subsequent examinations that he may take.

The Lower Court ruled that there was no hint that any command, order or notification from the judicial court or
any non-judicial person, committee or body clothed by law with power to punish for contempt has been
disobeyed or violated by the herein accused.

Our statutes punish criminal contempt one 'assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court and acting as
such without authority.' The mere taking of oath of lawyers by herein accused, in the humble opinion of this
Court, is not tantamount to practice law.

However, if this had taken one step further, as for example, after taking their oaths, they have held out
themselves as lawyers to the public, received cases for litigants, appeared before any court of justice personally
or by filing pleadings therewith, would be considered that they are really engaged in the practice of law.

ISSUE:

Whether the defendant taking the oath before a notary public despite not passing the bar examination and
denied by the court to take the oath an intent to contempt the court

RULING:

The lower court is, seemingly, under the impression that appellees could not be guilty of contempt of court
unless they actually engaged in the practice of law or "held out to the public" as lawyers "by means of circulars."
Such view is inaccurate, for assuming to be an attorney . . . and acting as such without authority," is, only one of
the means by which contempt of court may be committed, under said Rule 64, section 3, of the Rules of Court.
At any rate, by taking "'the oath of office as attorney-at-law" and notifying the Supreme Court that they had
done so and would "practice law in all courts of the Philippines", the appellees had for all intents and purposes,
"held out to the public" as such attorneys-at-law (U.S. vs. Ney and Mosque, supra).

IN RE: PURISIMA

FACTS:

Petitioner Mark Anthony Purisima was conditionally admitted to the 1999 Bar Examination with a directive to
submit the required certification of completion of the pre-bar review course within sixty (60) days from the last
day of the examinations. He passed the 1999 Bar Examinations but was disqualified from becoming a member of
the Philippine Bar and declared his examinations null and void on two grounds:

1. Failure to submit the required certificate of completion of the pre-bar review course under oath for his
conditional admission to the 1999 Bar Examinations

2. Committed a serious act of dishonesty which rendered him unfit to become a member of the Philippine
Bar when he made it appear in his Petition to Take the 1999 Bar Examinations that he took his pre-bar
review course at the Philippine Law School (PLS) when, as certified by Acting Registrar Rasalie G.
Kapauan, PLS had not offered such course since 1967.

Petitioner claimed in the petition that the statement "he x x x enrolled in and passed the regular fourth year
(law) review classes at the Phil. Law School x x x x" was a "self-evident clerical error and a mere result of an
oversight which is not tantamount to a deliberate and willful declaration of a falsehood." Further explaining that
he requested his schoolmate/friend Ms. Lilian Felipe to fill up the form, have it notarized and then to file it for
him with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) and was not able to check the veracity of the information
supplied by Ms. Felipe.

He submitted the Certification of Completion of the Pre-Bar Review as Annex "D" of his Petition to prove that he
actually enrolled and attended the pre-bar review course in UST.

Corroborating his enrollment in UST, petitioner submitted the ff:

(a) the Official Receipt of his payment of tuition fee for the course;
(b) his identification card for the course;
(c) car pass to the UST campus;
(d) individual affidavits of classmates in the pre-bar review course in UST that petitioner was their classmate and
that he attended the review course;
(e) separate affidavits of five (5) UST students/acquaintances of petitioner that they saw him regularly attending
the review lectures;
(f) affidavit of Professor Abelardo T. Domondon attesting to the attendance of petitioner in his review classes
and
lectures in Taxation and Bar Review Methods at the UST Faculty of Civil Law;
(g) affidavit of Ms. Gloria L. Fernandez, maintenance staff at the UST Law Department that she knew petitioner
very well as he was among those who would arrive early and request her to open the reading area and turn
on the airconditioning before classes started; and,
(h) affidavit of Ms. Melicia Jane Parena, office clerk at the UST Faculty Civil Law, that Dean Dimayuga issued the
Certification dated 22 July 1999 to the effect that petitioner was officially enrolled in and had completed the
pre-bar review course in UST which started on 14 April 1999 and ended 24 September 1999.
ISSUE:

Whether petitioner Mark Anthony Purisima is not eligible to take the lawyer’s oath for the failure to submit the
required certificate of completion of pre-bar review classes.

RULING:

The petitioner ‘s petition was granted and is allowed to take the lawyer’s oath and be admitted to the Philippine
Bar. He is further allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys upon payment of the required fees.

The testimony of petitioner and Ms. Felipe during the 30 October 2002 hearing that the subject Certification of
Dean Dimayuga was duly submitted to the OBC a week after the filing of the Petition to take the bar appears to
be credible. It is supported by documentary evidence showing that petitioner actually enrolled and completed
the required course in UST. Granting that the Certification of Dean Dimayuga was defective as it certified
completion of the pre-bar review course which was still on-going, this defect should not be attributed to
petitioner considering that he had no participation in the preparation thereof. Whatever it is, the fact remains
that there is such a certification issued by the UST which appears to be genuine. This finding is backed by the
affidavit of Ms. Parena, office clerk at the UST Faculty of Civil Law, that she was the one who released the
Certification to petitioner on 26 July 1999.

PAGUIA vs. OFFICE of the PRESIDENT

FACTS:

Petitioner Alan Pagui, as a citizen and taxpayer, filed a petition of certiorari to invalidate President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo’s nomination of Chief Justice Hilario Davide as Permanent Respondent to the United Nations
or violation of Section 23 of Republic Act No. 7157 (RA 7157), the Philippine Foreign Service Act of 1991.
Petitioner argues that respondent Davide’s age at that time of his nomination in March 2006, 70, disqualifies
him from holding his post.

The argument of petitioner is grounded from on Section 23 of RA 7157 pegging the mandatory retirement age of
all officers and employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) at 65 theorizing that Section 23 imposes an
absolute rule for all DFA employees, career or non-career; thus, respondent Davide’s entry into the DFA ranks
discriminates against the rest of the DFA officials and employees.

Respondents Office of the President and Chief Justice Davide, in their comments, raise the issues on the standing
of the petitioner to file the suit because of his indefinite suspension in the practice of law, that his citizen or
taxpayer standing does not vests him with standing to question respondent Davide’s appointment because
petitioner remains without personal and substantial interest in the outcome of a suit which does not involve the
taxing power of the state or the illegal disbursement of public funds and, respondents question the propriety of
this petition, contending that this suit is in truth a petition for quo warranto which can only be filed by a
contender for the office in question.

ISSUE:

Whether the petitioner has standing to file the petition to bring this to a suit despite his indefinite suspension
from the practice of law
RULING:

The Court dismiss the petition.

An incapacity to bring legal actions peculiar to petitioner also obtains. Petitioner’s suspension from the practice
of law bars him from performing "any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience." Certainly, preparing a petition raising carefully crafted
arguments on equal protection grounds and employing highly legalistic rules of statutory construction to parse
Section 23 of RA 7157 falls within the proscribed conduct.

ULEP vs. LEGAL CLINIC

FACTS:

Petitioner Mauricio Ulep filed for the order of cease and desist of the respondent, The Legal Clinic, from issuing
advertisements and to perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining to the
exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law.

The advertisement complained was about an attorney in Guam giving free books on Guam Divorce through The
Legal Clinic.

Petitioner found the advertisement champterous, unethical and demeaning of the law profession and
destructive to the confidence of the members of the bar.

Respondent admits the publication of the advertisement but claims that it is not engaging in the practice of law
but in rendering legal support services through paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic
machines.

The Court, considering the critical implication on the legal professions of the issue raised, required the following
to submit their respective position papers on the controversy.

1. Integrated Bar of the Philippines

2. Philippine Bar Associations

3. Philippine Lawyers Association

4. U.P Womens Lawyer’s Circle

5. Women Lawyers Association of the Philippines

6. Federacion Internacional de Abogadas

ISSUE:

Whether or not the services rendered by the respondent constitute the practice of law

RULING:
IBP

The IBP accordingly declares in no uncertain terms its opposition to respondent's act of establishing a "legal clinic"
and of concomitantly advertising the same through newspaper publications.

The IBP would therefore invoke the administrative supervision of this Honorable Court to perpetually restrain
respondent from undertaking highly unethical activities in the field of law practice as afore described.

If respondent is allowed to advertise, advertising should be directed exclusively at members of the Bar, with a
clear and unmistakable disclaimer that it is not authorized to practice law or perform legal services.

The benefits of being assisted by paralegals cannot be ignored. But nobody should be allowed to represent himself
as a "paralegal" for profit, without such term being clearly defined by rule or regulation, and without any adequate
and effective means of regulating his activities. Before allowance of such practice may be considered, the
corporation's Article of Incorporation and By-laws must conform to each and every provision of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court.

PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION

Unquestionably, respondent's acts of holding out itself to the public under the trade name "The Legal Clinic, Inc.,"
and soliciting employment for its enumerated services fall within the realm of a practice which thus yields itself to
the regulatory powers of the Supreme Court.

Respondent's own commercial advertisement which announces a certain Atty. Don Parkinson to be handling the
fields of law belies its pretense. From all indications, respondent "The Legal Clinic, Inc." is offering and
rendering legal services through its reserve of lawyers. It has been held that the practice of law is not limited to the
conduct of cases in court, but includes drawing of deeds, incorporation, rendering opinions, and advising clients as
to their legal right and then take them to an attorney and ask the latter to look after their case in court.

The practice of law is not a profession open to all who wish to engage in it nor can it be assigned to another (See 5
Am. Jur. 270). It is a personal right limited to persons who have qualified themselves under the law. It follows that
not only respondent but also all the persons who are acting for respondent are the persons engaged in unethical
law practice.

PHILIPPINE LAWYER’S ASSOCIATION

The Philippine Lawyers' Association's position, in answer to the issues stated herein, are wit:

1. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law;

2. Such practice is unauthorized;

3. The advertisements complained of are not only unethical, but also misleading and patently immoral; and

4. The Honorable Supreme Court has the power to suppress and punish the Legal Clinic and its corporate officers
for its unauthorized practice of law and for its unethical, misleading and immoral advertising.

UP WOMEN LAWYER’s CIRCLE

The general public should also be protected from the dangers which may be brought about by advertising of legal
services. While it appears that lawyers are prohibited under the present Code of Professional Responsibility from
advertising, it appears in the instant case that legal services are being advertised not by lawyers but by an entity
staffed by "paralegals."

WOMEN LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION of the PHILIPPINES

Annexes "A" and "B" of the petition are clearly advertisements to solicit cases for the purpose of gain which, as
provided for under the above cited law, (are) illegal and against the Code of Professional Responsibility of lawyers
in this country.

Annex "A" of the petition is not only illegal in that it is an advertisement to solicit cases, but it is illegal in that in
bold letters it announces that the Legal Clinic, Inc., could work out/cause the celebration of a secret marriage
which is not only illegal but immoral in this country. While it is advertised that one has to go to said agency and pay
P560 for a valid marriage it is certainly fooling the public for valid marriages in the Philippines are solemnized only
by officers authorized to do so under the law. And to employ an agency for said purpose of contracting marriage is
not necessary.

FEDERACION INTERNACIONAL de ABOGADAS

2.10. Annex "A" may be ethically objectionable in that it can give the impression (or perpetuate the wrong notion)
that there is a secret marriage. With all the solemnities, formalities and other requisites of marriages (See Articles
2, et seq., Family Code), no Philippine marriage can be secret.

2.11. Annex "B" may likewise be ethically objectionable. The second paragraph thereof (which is not necessarily
related to the first paragraph) fails to state the limitation that only "paralegal services?" or "legal support services",
and not legal services, are available."

The Court hereby restrain and enjoin respondent The Legal Clinic from issuing or causing the publication or
dissemination of any advertisement in any form which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A"
and "B" of this petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, operation or transaction
proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein.

Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and
character. The permissive right conferred on the lawyers is an individual and limited privilege subject to
withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect
the public, the court, the client and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice
law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the court.

The same rule is observed in the American jurisdiction wherefrom respondent would wish to draw support for his
thesis. The doctrines there also stress that the practice of law is limited to those who meet the requirements for,
and have been admitted to, the bar, and various statutes or rules specifically so provide.

The practice of law is not a lawful business except for members of the bar who have complied with all the
conditions required by statute and the rules of court. Only those persons are allowed to practice law who, by
reason of attainments previously acquired through education and study, have been recognized by the courts as
possessing profound knowledge of legal science entitling them to advise, counsel with, protect, or defend the
rights claims, or liabilities of their clients, with respect to the construction, interpretation, operation and effect of
law.
The canon of the profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good
and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public
attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable
lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success.

Of course, not all types of advertising or solicitation are prohibited. The canons of the profession enumerate
exceptions to the rule against advertising or solicitation and define the extent to which they may be undertaken.
The exceptions are of two broad categories, namely, those which are expressly allowed and those which are
necessarily implied from the restrictions.

The first of such exceptions is the publication in reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of
conduct imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data.

The law list must be a reputable law list published primarily for that purpose; it cannot be a mere supplemental
feature of a paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical which is published principally for other purposes. For that
reason, a lawyer may not properly publish his brief biographical and informative data in a daily paper, magazine,
trade journal or society program. Nor may a lawyer permit his name to be published in a law list the conduct,
management or contents of which are calculated or likely to deceive or injure the public or the bar, or to lower the
dignity or standing of the profession.

Secondly, it is our firm belief that with the present situation of our legal and judicial systems, to allow the
publication of advertisements of the kind used by respondent would only serve to aggravate what is already a
deteriorating public opinion of the legal profession whose integrity has consistently been under attack lately by
media and the community in general.

In sum, it is undoubtedly a misbehavior on the part of the lawyer, subject to disciplinary action, to advertise his
services except in allowable instances 48 or to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law.

IN RE: ATTY. MARCIAL EDILION

FACTS:

Atty. Marcial Edilion is a practicing attorney in the Philippines who was charged with an administrative case by
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommending for his removal in the Roll of Attorneys on the ground of
“stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues”.

According to Edilion, Section 9 Rule of Court 139-A provision constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in
the sense that he is being compelled, as a pre-condition to maintaining his status as a lawyer in good standing,
to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a consequence of this compelled
financial support of the said organization to which he is admittedly personally antagonistic, he is being deprived
of the rights to liberty and property guaranteed to him by the Constitution.

The respondent subsequently questions the Court’s jurisdiction to strike his name from the Roll of Attorneys,
contending that the said matter is not among the justiciable cases triable by the Court but is rather of an
"administrative nature pertaining to an administrative body."

ISSUE:
Whether the payment of annual membership dues to IBP constitutional or not

RULING:

The Court ruled that Atty. Marcial Edilion be disbarred and his name is stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

An "Integrated Bar" is a State-organized Bar, to which every lawyer must belong, as distinguished from bar
associations organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership in which is voluntary. Integration of the
Bar is essentially a process by which every member of the Bar is afforded an opportunity to do his share in
carrying out the objectives of the Bar as well as obliged to bear his portion of its responsibilities. Organized by or
under the direction of the State, an integrated Bar is an official national body of which all lawyers are required
to be members. They are, therefore, subject to all the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar, including
the requirement of payment of a reasonable annual fee for the effective discharge of the purposes of the Bar,
and adherence to a code of professional ethics or professional responsibility breach of which constitutes
sufficient reason for investigation by the Bar and, upon proper cause appearing, a recommendation for discipline
or disbarment of the offending member.

The integration of the Philippine Bar was obviously dictated by overriding considerations of public interest and
public welfare to such an extent as more than constitutionally and legally justifies the restrictions that
integration imposes upon the personal interests and personal convenience of individual lawyers.

It must be stressed that all legislation directing the integration of the Bar have been uniformly and universally
sustained as a valid exercise of the police power over an important profession. The practice of law is not a
vested right but a privilege, a privilege moreover clothed with public interest because a lawyer owes substantial
duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes
part in one of the most important functions of the State — the administration of justice — as an officer of the
court.

LETTER OF ATTY. CECILIO AREVALO EXEMPTION TO PAYMENT OF IBP DUES

FACTS:

Atty. Cecilio Arevalo made a request for exemption from payment of membership dues of IBP of 12, 035 as
alleged unpaid accountability for the years he was inactive. He alleged that after being admitted to the
Philippine Bar in 1961, he became part of the Philippine Civil Service from July 1962 until 1986, then migrated to,
and worked in, the USA in December 1986 until his retirement in the year 2003. He alleged that after being
admitted to the Philippine Bar in 1961, he became part of the Philippine Civil Service from July 1962 until 1986,
then migrated to, and worked in, the USA in December 1986 until his retirement in the year 2003.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of his dues during the time that he was
inactive in the practice of law

RULING:

The Court denied petitioner’s request for exemption from payment of membership dues.
An "Integrated Bar" is a State-organized Bar, to which every lawyer must belong, as distinguished from bar
association organized by individual lawyers themselves, membership in which is voluntary. Integration of the Bar is
essentially a process by which every member of the Bar is afforded an opportunity to do his shares in carrying out
the objectives of the Bar as well as obliged to bear his portion of its responsibilities. Organized by or under the
direction of the State, an Integrated Bar is an official national body of which all lawyers are required to be
members. They are, therefore, subject to all the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar, including the
requirement of payment of a reasonable annual fee for the effective discharge of the purposes of the Bar, and
adherence to a code of professional ethics or professional responsibility, breach of which constitutes sufficient
reason for investigation by the Bar and, upon proper cause appearing, a recommendation for discipline or
disbarment of the offending member.

SANTOS vs. LLAMAS

FACTS:

Petitioner Soliman Santos filed for a complaint against respondent Atty. Francsico Llamas for misrepresentation
and non-payment of bar membership dues.

Allegedly, respondent Llamas, for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP O.R. Nos.
and data in his pleadings. He only indicates "IBP Rizal 259060" but he has been using this for at least three years
already while not indicating any PTR for the payment of his professional tax.

It is also to be noted that respondent has a track record of being dismissed as Pasay City Judge and his
conviction for Estafa.

Respondent argued in his comment that previous records were already set aside and reversed by the Court and
that he, as a senior citizen, is legally exempt under Section 4 of Rep. Act 7432 which took effect in 1992, in the
payment of taxes, income taxes as an example.

The IBP, upon the investigation conducted, was found guilty and recommended his suspension from the practice
of law for 3 months and until he pays his IBP duties.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent is exempted from the payment of membership dues in the ground that he is a
senior citizen

RULING:

The Court declares respondent Suspended from the practice of law for 1 year or until he has paid his IBP dues or
whichever is later.

Rule 139-A provides:

Sec. 9. Membership dues. — Every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay such annual dues as the
Board of Governors shall determine with the approval of the Supreme Court. A fixed sum equivalent to
 ten percent (10%) of the collections from each Chapter shall be set aside as a Welfare Fund for disabled
members of the Chapter and the compulsory heirs of deceased members thereof.

Sec. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues. — Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of this Rule, default in
the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant suspension of membership in the Integrated
Bar, and default in such payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the
delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys.

In accordance with these provisions, respondent can engage in the practice of law only by paying his dues, and it
does not matter that his practice is "limited." While it is true that R.A. No. 7432, §4 grants senior citizens
"exemption from the payment of individual income taxes: provided, that their annual taxable income does not
exceed the poverty level as determined by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) for that
year," the exemption does not include payment of membership or association dues.

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME IN PRACTICE OF LAW, DACANAY

FACTS:

Petitioner Benjamin Dacanay filed a petition for leave to resume in practice law after reacquiring Philippine
citizenship. He was practicing law in the Philippines before he migrated in Canada to seek for medical treatment
for his ailments. He applied for Canadian citizenship to be able to avail Canada’s free medical program.

2 years after his acquiring citizenship, he took an oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine
Consulate General in pursuant to RA 9225. He intends to practice law after reacquiring Filipino citizenship.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner can still practice law after losing his Filipino citizenship?

RULING:

The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens
save in cases prescribed by law.15 Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof
terminates membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law.

The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of another country but
subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225.

Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine
citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. Although he is also deemed never to have terminated
his membership in the Philippine bar, no automatic right to resume law practice accrues.

Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the Philippines and he reacquires his
Filipino citizenship pursuant to its provisions "(he) shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit
to engage in such practice." Stated otherwise, before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA
9225 can resume his law practice, he must first secure from this Court the authority to do so, conditioned on:

(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP;
(b) the payment of professional tax;

(c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is especially
significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal
developments and

(d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as
a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines.