 Holder of a professional degree in law from a recognized

law school in the Philippines, and has completed the following

courses: civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law,
public and private international law, political law, labor and
social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal
ethics
 Holder of a bachelor’s degree with academic credits in

certain required subjects (political science, logic, English,

Spanish, history and/or economics) from a recognized college
or university in the Philippines or abroad (Rule 138, ROC)
A citizen of the Philippines
 At least twenty-one (21) years of age
 Of good moral character
 A resident of the Philippines
 Must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of
good moral character
 No charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed
or are pending in any court in the Philippines (Rule 138, ROC)
 Pass the bar examinations
 Take the Lawyer’s Oath
 Sign the Roll of Attorneys
 In March 2010 the Philippine Supreme Court Issued Bar Matter
1153 amending provisions in sec 5 and 6 of rule 138 of the
rules of court now allowing Filipino foreign law school
graduates to take the bar exam provided that they comply
with the following:
◦ completion of all courses leading to a degree of Bachelor of laws or its
equivalent
◦ recognition or accreditation of the law school by proper authority
◦ completion of all fourth year subjects in a program of a law school
duly accredited by the Philippine Government
◦ present proof of completing a separate bachelors degree.
 Good and Regular Standing
 Membership in the IBP
 Payment of the IBP dues
 Payment of the PTR
 Compliance with MCLE
 Requirement of Good Moral Character
 A natural-born citizen of the Philippines
 Must be of proven competence, integrity, probity, and

independence
 A member of the Philippine bar
 At least forty (40) years of age
 Must have been for fifteen years or more a judge of a lower

court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines

(1987 Philippine Constitution, Rules of the Judicial and Bar
Council)
 A citizen of the Philippines
 Must be of proven competence, integrity, probity, and

independence
 A member of the Philippine bar
 At least thirty five (35) years of age
 For at least ten years, has engaged in the practice of law in

the Philippines, or has held a public office in the Philippines

requiring admission to the practice of law as an indispensable
requisite (B.P. Blg. 129 as amended, Rules of the Judicial and
Bar Council)
 A citizen of the Philippines
 Must be of proven competence, integrity, probity, and

independence
 A member of the Philippine bar
 At least thirty (30) years of age
 For at least five years, has engaged in the practice of law in

the Philippines, or has held a public office in the Philippines

requiring admission to the practice of law as an indispensable
requisite (B.P. Blg. 129 as amended, Rules of the Judicial and
Bar Council)
 Facts:
◦ Arturo Garcia is a Filipino citizen who graduated from the College of
Law of the Central University of Madrid with the degree of “Licenciado
en Derecho,” which entitled him to practice law in Spain. Invoking the
Treaty of Academic Degrees and the Exercise of Professions between
the Philippines and Spain, he has applied for admission to the practice
of law in the Philippines without submitting to the required bar
examinations.
 Issue:
◦ W/N a graduate of a foreign law school may practice law in the
Philippines without submission to the required bar examinations?
 Ruling:
No, a graduate of a foreign law school may not practice law in the Philippines
without submission to the required bar examinations.
 The applicant is a Filipino citizen who is subject to the laws of his own country and is not
entitled to the privileges extended to Spanish nationals desiring to practice their
profession in the Philippines. The Treaty of Academic Degrees and the Exercise of
Professions between the Philippines and Spain was intended to govern Filipino citizens
desiring to practice their profession in Spain, and the citizens of Spain desiring to
practice their professions in the Philippines.
 Article I of the said Treaty has expressly stated that the privileges are subject to the laws
and regulations of the contracting State in whose territory it is desired to exercise the
legal profession. In the Philippines, the Rules require that before anyone can practice the
legal profession in the Philippines he must successfully pass the required bar
examinations.
 The said Treaty could not have been intended to modify the laws and regulations
governing admission to the practice of law in the Philippines because the Executive
Department may not encroach upon the constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court
to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.
 Facts:
◦ Petitioner Epifanio B. Muneses became a lawyer in 1966 but acquired
American citizenship in 1981.
◦ On September 2006, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant
to RA 9225 by taking his oath of allegiance.
 Issue:
◦ W/N petitioner may automatically resume his practice of law upon his
re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship?
 Ruling:
The Court reiterates that Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to
the bar and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for the practice of law. The loss
thereof means termination of the petitioner’s membership in the bar; ipso jure
the privilege to engage in the practice of law.
Under R.A. No. 9225, natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are
deemed to have re-acquired their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of
allegiance to the Republic. Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of
another country and later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under R.A. No.
9225, remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar.  
However, as stated in Dacanay, the right to resume the practice of law is not
automatic. R.A. No. 9225 provides that a person who intends to practice his
profession in the Philippines must apply with the proper authority for a license
or permit to engage in such practice.
 Ruling:
Thus, in pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the Court for the practice of
law, the OBC required, and incompliance thereof, petitioner submitted the
following:
 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.
 Facts:
Complainant Corporation hired Atty. Nicolas Torres, a medical doctor and a
lawyer by profession, as its Legal and Claims Manager to serve as its legal counsel
and to oversee the administration and management of legal cases and medical
related claims instituted by seafarers against complainant's various principals.
In several cases, complainant issued several checks in different amounts as
settlement of claims of seafarers upon the request of Torres. However, it was later
discovered that Torres never gave the checks to the seafarers and instead had
them deposited at International Exchange Bank, Banawe, Quezon City Branch,
under a specified Account Number.
Complainant filed an administrative complaint with IBP, which found the
respondent administratively liable for violating the CPR, and accordingly
recommended the penalty of suspension from the practice for 2 years.
 Issue:
W/N the respondent should be held administratively liable for violation of the
CPR?
 Ruling:
Respondent's conduct of misappropriating complainant's money has made him
unfit to remain in the legal profession. He has definitely fallen below the moral
bar when he engaged in deceitful, dishonest, unlawful, and grossly immoral acts.
As a member of the Bar, he is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and refrain from any act or omission which might
lessen the trust and confidence reposed in him by the public in the fidelity,
honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.
Membership in the legal profession is a privilege, and whenever it is made to
appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his
clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the
Court to withdraw the same, as in this case. In view of the foregoing, respondent
deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment from the practice of law.