BAR MATTER NO. 1153 In Re: Bar examinee Haron S.

Meling and for Disciplinary Action As

Member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc ATTY. FROILAN R. MELENDREZ, petitioner,
dated March 9, 2010 B.M. No. 1154. June 8, 2004
"B.M. No. 1153 (Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing Reforms in Facts:
the Bar Examinations Through Amendments to Rule 138 of the Rules of On October 14, 2002, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez (Melendrez) filed with the
Court). - The Court Resolved to APPROVE the proposed amendments to Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling
Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138, to wit: (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the
SEC. 5.Additional Requirement for Other Applicants. — All applicants for appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar.
admission other than those referred to in the two preceding sections shall,
before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they have In the Petition, Melendrez alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to
successfully completed all the prescribed courses for the degree of Bachelor take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has three (3) pending criminal cases
of Laws or its equivalent degree, in a law school or university officially before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Cotabato City,
recognized by the Philippine Government or by the proper authority in the namely: Criminal Cases Noa. 15685 and 15686, both for Grave Oral
foreign jurisdiction where the degree has been granted. Defamation, and Criminal Case No. 15687 for Less Serious Physical Injuries.

No applicant who obtained the Bachelor of Laws degree in this jurisdiction shall The above-mentioned cases arose from an incident which occurred on May
be admitted to the bar examination unless he or she has satisfactorily 21, 2001, when Meling allegedly uttered defamatory words against Melendrez
completed the following course in a law school or university duly recognized and his wife in front of media practitioners and other people. Meling also
by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public purportedly attacked and hit the face of Melendrez’ wife causing the injuries to
and private international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical the latter.
jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics.
Furthermore, Melendrez alleges that Meling has been using the title “Attorney”
A Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law school shall be admitted to in his communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the
the bar examination only upon submission to the Supreme Court of fact that he is not a member of the Bar. Attached to the Petition is an
certifications showing: (a) completion of all courses leading to the degree of indorsement letter which shows that Meling used the appellation and appears
Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree; (b) recognition or accreditation of on its face to have been received by the Sangguniang Panglungsod of
the law school by the proper authority; and (c) completion of all the fourth year Cotabato City on November 27, 2001.
subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic program in a law school duly
recognized by the Philippine Government. Pursuant to this Court’s Resolution dated December 3, 2002, Meling filed his
SEC. 6.Pre-Law. — An applicant for admission to the bar examination shall Answer with the OBC.
present a certificate issued by the proper government agency that, before
commencing the study of law, he or she had pursued and satisfactorily In his Answer, Meling explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases filed
completed in an authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for against him by Melendrez because retired Judge Corocoy Moson, their former
admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course, the course professor, advised him to settle his misunderstanding with
of study prescribed therein for a bachelor's degree in arts or sciences. Melendrez. Believing in good faith that the case would be settled because the
said Judge has moral ascendancy over them, he being their former professor
A Filipino citizen who completed and obtained his or her Bachelor of Laws in the College of Law, Meling considered the three cases that actually arose
degree or its equivalent in a foreign law school must present proof of having from a single incident and involving the same parties as “closed and
completed a separate bachelor's degree course. terminated.” Moreover, Meling denies the charges and adds that the acts
complained of do not involve moral turpitude.
The Clerk of Court, through the Office of the Bar Confidant, is hereby directed
to CIRCULARIZE this resolution among all law schools in the country." As regards the use of the title “Attorney,” Meling admits that some of his
communications really contained the word “Attorney” as they were, according
to him, typed by the office clerk.
 Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M. Dacanay, BM
In its Report and Recommendation dated December 8, 2003, the OBC No. 1678, December 17, 2007
disposed of the charge of non-disclosure against Meling in this wise:
FACTS:
The reasons of Meling in not disclosing the criminal cases filed against him in Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced law
his petition to take the Bar Examinations are ludicrous. He should have known until he migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for
that only the court of competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases, not a retired his ailments. He subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to avail of
judge nor a law professor. In fact, the cases filed against Meling are still Canada’s free medical aid program. His application was approved and he
pending. Furthermore, granting arguendo that these cases were already became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.
dismissed, he is still required to disclose the same for the Court to ascertain
his good moral character. Petitions to take the Bar Examinations are made In July 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and
under oath, and should not be taken lightly by an applicant. Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship. On
that day, he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine
Issue: WON the imposition of appropriate sanctions upon Haron S. Meling is Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, he returned to the
proper and shall subsequently barred him from taking his lawyer’s oath and Philippines and now intends to resume his law practice.
signing on the Roll of Attorneys
ISSUE: Whether petitioner may still resume practice?
Held:
RULING:
The Petition is GRANTED insofar as it seeks the imposition of appropriate Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides an applicant for admission
sanctions upon Haron S. Meling as a member of the Philippine Shari’a to the bar be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of
Bar. Accordingly, the membership of Haron S. Meling in the Philippine Shari’a good moral character and a resident of the Philippines.5 He must also produce
Bar is hereby SUSPENDED until further orders from the Court, the suspension before this Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character and that no
to take effect immediately. Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S. charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending
Meling from taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys as a in any court in the Philippines.
member of the Philippine Bar, the same is DISMISSED for having become
moot and academic. Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof
terminates membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege
Rationale: to engage in the practice of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship
ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The practice
Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Shari’a Court, is not a matter of law is a privilege denied to foreigners.
of right but merely a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only
learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as
character. The requirement of good moral character is not only a condition a citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225.
precedent to admission to the practice of law, its continued possession is also This is because “all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country
essential for remaining in the practice of law. shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the
conditions of [RA 9225].” Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen
The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to determine whether of another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he
there is satisfactory evidence of good moral character of the applicant. The reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225.
nature of whatever cases are pending against the applicant would aid the
Court in determining whether he is endowed with the moral fitness demanded Before he can can resume his law practice, he must first secure from this Court
of a lawyer. By concealing the existence of such cases, the applicant then the authority to do so, conditioned on: the updating and payment of of IBP
flunks the test of fitness even if the cases are ultimately proven to be membership dues; the payment of professional tax; the completion of at least
unwarranted or insufficient to impugn or affect the good moral character of the 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is especially
applicant. significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws
and update him of legal developments and the retaking of the lawyer’s oath.
 In the matter of the Petition for Disbarment of Telesforo Diao vs. Severino ii. Therefore, Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations
Martinez iii. Such admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be,
and is hereby revoked.
FACTS:
1. DIAO was admitted to the Bar. 2. Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to become an
1. 2 years later, Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular
application for the Bar examination, that he had the requisite academic manner is equally essential.
qualifications.
2. Solicitor General investigated and recommended that Diao's name be erased
from the roll of attorneys
i. DIAO did not complete pre-law subjects:
1. Did not complete his high school training
2. Never attended Quisumbing College
3. Never obtained a diploma.
2. DIAO admitting first charge but claims that although he had left high school in
his third year, he entered the service of the U.S. Army, passed the General
Classification Test given therein, which (according to him) is equivalent to a
high school diploma
1. Upon return to civilian life, the educational authorities considered his
2. army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high school.
3. No certification. However, it is unnecessary to dwell on this, since the second
charge is clearly meritorious:
i. Never obtained his diploma. from Quisumbing College; and yet his
application for examination represented him as an A.A. graduate.
ii. Now, asserting he had obtained his A.A. title from the Arellano
University in April, 1949
1. He said erroneously certified, due to confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing
College, in his school records.

ISSUE:
WON - DIAO still continue admission to the Bar, for passing the Bar despite
not completing pre-law requirements? NO.

HELD:
STRIKE OUT NME OF DIAO IN ROLL OF ATTORNEYS. DIAO REQUIRED
TO RETURN HIS LAWYER’S DIPLOMA WITHIN 30 DAYS.
1. Explanation of error or confusion is not acceptable.
1. Had his application disclosed his having obtained A.A. from Arellano
2. University, it would also have disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby
showing that he began his law studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six
months before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree.
3. He would not have been permitted to take the bar tests:
i. Bar applicant must affirm under oath, "That previous to the study of
law, he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal
education (A.A.).
IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS MICHAEL A. Not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys would be akin to imposing
MEDADO, PETITIONER. B.M. No. 2540 September 24, 2013 upon him the ultimate penalty of disbarment, a penalty reserved for the most
serious ethical transgressions. In this case, said action is not warranted.
TOPIC: Admission to the Bar, Unauthorized Practice of Law, Canon 9,
Signing of the Roll of Attorneys The Court considered Medado’s demonstration of good faith in filing the
petition himself, albeit after the passage of more than 30 years; that he has
FACTS: shown that he possesses the character required to be a member of the
Philippine Bar; and that he appears to have been a competent and able legal
practitioner, having held various positions at different firms and companies.
Michael A. Medado passed the Philippine bar exams in 1979. On 7 May 1980,
he took the Attorney’s Oath at the PICC. He was scheduled to sign in the Roll
of Attorneys on 13 May 1980, but failed to do so allegedly because he had However, Medado is not free from all liability for his years of inaction.
misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. Several years later, while
rummaging through his things, he found said Notice. He then realized that he A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone
had not signed in the roll, and that what he had signed at the entrance of the is presumed to know the law and its consequences.
PICC was probably just an attendance record.
Medado may have at first operated under an honest mistake of fact when he
He thought that since he already took the oath, the signing of the Roll of thought that what he had signed at the PICC entrance before the oath-taking
Attorneys was not as important. The matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys was already the Roll of Attorneys. However, the moment he realized that what
was subsequently forgotten. he had signed was just an attendance record, he could no longer claim an
honest mistake of fact as a valid justification. At that point, he should have
In 2005, when Medado attended MCLE seminars, he was required to provide known that he was not a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar, as it was
his roll number for his MCLE compliances to be credited. Not having signed in the act of signing therein that would have made him so. When, in spite of this
the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to provide his roll number. knowledge, he chose to continue practicing law, he willfully engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law.
About seven years later, in 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition, praying that
he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. Medado justifies this lapse by Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgresses
characterizing his acts as “neither willful nor intentional but based on a Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. At the heart of Canon 9 is
mistaken belief and an honest error of judgment. 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 conduct themselves in accordance with the ethical standards
The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the instant petition be
of the legal profession.
denied for petitioner’s gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of
merit, saying that petitioner could offer no valid justification for his negligence
in signing in the Roll of Attorneys. Medado cannot be suspended as he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer. However,
the Court imposed upon him a penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to
ISSUE: sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of the Resolution. He
was also made to pay a fine of P32,000. Also, during the one-year period,
petitioner was not allowed to engage in the practice of law.
Whether or not petitioner may be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.

RULING:

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition subject to the payment of a fine
and the imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of
law.
In Re: Application of Adriano Hernandez to take the 1993 Bar
Examination 225 SCRA, July 27, 1993

FACTS:

Adriano Hernandez, a Filipino citizen, a degree holder of Juris Doctor from

Columbia Law School in New York and a bar passer in NY in year 1990 took
bar subjects in Ateneo Law School and 5-month bar review course there. He
sought the Supreme Court and prayed to allow him to take the bar exam in the
Philippines

ISSUE:

Whether or not Hernandez should be allowed to take the bar examination even
if he is unable to present requirements under Sec. 5 and 6 of Rule 138

HELD:

The Supreme Court ruled to allow the applicant to take the 1993 Bar
Examinations with high regard of Filipinos with same case in which the court
allowed to take the bar examination. Non-graduates of Philippine law schools
have also been allowed to take the bar examination. However, the court held
in this resolution that in the following year, all applicants for the bar must
comply with the requirements stipulated in Sec. 5 and 6 of Rule 138 including
the completion to studying law in any of the Philippine law schools.
In re: Lanuevo A.M. No. 1162 August 29, 1975 ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Lanuevo is guilty defrauding the examiners into re-

evaluating Galang’s exam notebook.
FACTS:
2. Whether or not Galang is guilty of fraudulently concealing and
Landicho wrote a confidential letter to the court about the startling fact that withholding from the court his pending case.
the grade in one examination (Civil Law) of at least one bar candidate was
raised for one reason or another, before the bar results were released that
year and that there are grades in other examination notebooks in other
subjects that underwent alterations to raise the grades prior to the release of RULING:
results. The Court checked the records of the 1971 Bar Examinations and 1. Yes. It is evident that Lanuevo staged the plot to convince the examiners
found that the grades in five subjects — Political Law and Public International to individually re-examine the grades of Galang to help him pass even without
Law, Civil Law, Mercantile Law, Criminal Law, and Remedial Law — of a the authority of the Court.
successful bar candidate with office code no. 954, Ramon Galang, underwent
some changes which, however, were duly initialed and authenticated by the 2. Yes. Ramon Galang is guilty of fraudulently concealing and withholding
respective examiner concerned. Each of the five examiners in his individual from the Court his pending criminal case for physical injuries in 1961, 1962,
sworn statement admitted having re-evaluated and/or re-checked the 1963, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1969, and 1971; and in 1966, 1967, 1969, and 1971,
notebook involved pertaining to his subject upon the representation to him by he committed perjury when he declared under oath that he had no pending
Bar Confidant Lanuevo that he has the authority to do the same and that the criminal case in court. That the concealment of an attorney of the fact that he
examinee concerned failed only in his particular and/or was on the borderline had been charged with, or indicted for, an alleged crime, in his application to
of passing. take the Bar Exam is a ground for revocation of his license to practice law as
well-settled. He is therefore unworthy of becoming a member of the noble
The investigation showed that the re-evaluation of the examination papers profession of law.
of Ramon E. Galang alias Roman Galang, was unauthorized, and therefore he
did noy obtain a passing average in the 1971 Bar Examinations.

Lanuevo admitted having brought the five examination notebooks of

Ramon E. Galang back to the respective examiners for re-evaluation or re-
checking. The five examiners having re-evaluated or re-checked the notebook
to him by the Bar Confidant.

As investigator conducted by the NBI also showed that Ramon Galang

was charged with the crime of slight physical injuries committed on certain de
Vera, of the same University. Confronted with this information, respondent
Galang declared that he does not remember having been charged with the
crime of slight physical injuries in that case.

It must also be noted that immediately after the official release of the results
of the 1971 Bar Examinations, Lanuevo gained possession of few properties,
including that of a house in V+BF Homes, which was never declared in his
declaration of assets and liabilities. But Lanuevo’s statement of assets and
liabilities were not taken up during the investigation but were examined as
parts of the records of the court.
IN RE: VICENTE CHING twenty-one (21) years. The Supreme Court noted that the period is originally
3 years but it was extended to 7 years. (It seems it can’t be extended any
BAR MATTER No. 914 October 1, 1999 further). Ching’s special circumstances can’t be considered. It is not enough
that he considered all his life that he is a Filipino; that he is a professional
and a public officer (was) serving this country. The rules for citizenship are in
FACTS:
place. Further, Ching didn’t give any explanation why he belatedly chose to
elect Filipino citizenship (but I guess it’s simply because he never thought
Vicente D. Ching, the legitimate son of the spouses Tat Ching, a Chinese he’s Chinese not until he applied to take the bar). The prescribed procedure
citizen, and Prescila A. Dulay, a Filipino, was born in Francia West, Tubao, in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious and painstaking
La Union on 11 April 1964. Since his birth, Ching has resided in the process. All that is required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election
Philippines. In 1998, Vicente Ching finished his law degree at the Saint Louis of Philippine citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil
University in Baguio City. He eventually passed the bar but he was advised registry. Ching’s unreasonable and unexplained delay in making his election
that he needs to show proof that he is a Filipino citizen before he be allowed cannot be simply glossed over.
to take his oath.
DECISION:
Apparently, Ching’s father was a Chinese citizen but his mother was a
Filipino citizen. His parents were married before he was born in 1963. Under
The Court Resolves to DENY Vicente D. Ching's application for admission to
the 1935 Constitution, a legitimate child, whose one parent is a foreigner,
the Philippine Bar.
acquires the foreign citizenship of the foreign parent. Ching maintained that
he has always considered himself as a Filipino; that he is a certified public
accountant – a profession reserved for Filipinos; that he even served as a
councilor in a municipality in La Union.

The Solicitor-General commented on the case by saying that as a legitimate

child of a Chinese and a Filipino, Ching should have elected Filipino
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Ching did elect Filipino
citizenship, but he only did so when he was preparing for the bar in 1998 or
14 years after reaching the age of majority. In conclusion, the OSG points out
that Ching has not formally elected Philippine citizenship and, if ever he
does, it would already be beyond the "reasonable time" allowed by present
jurisprudence. However, due to the peculiar circumstances surrounding
Ching's case, the OSG recommends the relaxation of the standing rule on
the construction of the phrase "reasonable period" and the allowance of
Ching to elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with C.A. No. 625 prior to
taking his oath as a member of the Philippine Bar.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ching should be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.

HELD:

No. In the present case, Ching was already thirty-five (35) years old when he
complied with the requirements of CA No. 625 or fourteen years after he had
reached the age of majority. The age of majority commenced upon reaching
In re: Amparo 65 SCRA 120 (1974) Cayetano vs. Monsod 201 SCRA 210 September 1991

FACTS: FACTS:

Amparo is a bar examinee who was caught by the head watcher reading a Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C.
piece of paper during the bar examination in Criminal Law. He refuses to Aquino to the position of chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the
surrender the paper until the head watcher threatened to report him to the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not posses required qualification
authorities. The paper contains the list of duration of penalties and formula of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The 1987
computing them, which Amparo justifies as just a piece of paper that fell out constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission
of his pocket as he tried to get his handkerchief. A report was filed and an on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be
investigation ensued. 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
ISSUE: members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law
for at least ten years.
WON Amparo is guilty for his actions.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent does not possess the required qualification
of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

HELD:
RULING:
In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: The practice
Yes. He violated Rule 133, section 10 prohibiting examinees from bringing of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces
papers, books, or notes into the examination room. Amparo committed an the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special
overt act indicative of an attempt to cheat by reading notes. The report of the proceeding, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of
bar showed that he did not passed the bar thus the court ordered he will not clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all
be allowed to re-take the bar the following year. 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 judicial body, the foreclosure of
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. Practice of
law means any activity, in or out court, which requires the application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.

The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification of
having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years is incorrect since
Atty. Monsod’s past work experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-
manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts,
and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor – verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement for the position of COMELEC chairman, The
respondent has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years does
In the view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.
Yumol vs Atty. Ferrer, Sr. A.C. No. 6585 April 21, 2005
FACTS:
The petitioner, OIC of the Commission on Human Rights, files a disbarment
case against respondent, Attorney IV said commission on ground for grave
misconduct. The respondent was found to have issued 2 orders awarding
custody of a child to a complainant in the Commission, ordered a bank to
reinstate the bank account of the said complainant, engaging in private
practice, notarizing public documents, and attending court hearings while filling
up his DTR at the Commission as present at the same time. The case was
referred to the IBP and the investigating commissioner recommended
suspension for 2 years which was modified by the IBP Board to 6 months.
ISSUE:
WON respondent has committed gross misconduct arising from the following
alleged acts:
1. Engaging in the private practice of his profession while being a
government employee;
2. Falsifying his Daily Time Records
3. Issuing unauthorized orders; and
4. Continuously engaging in private practice even after the filing of case
against him for engaging in private practice.
RULING:
The court held on the following:
1. CHR Resolution No. (III) A2002-133 authorizes CHR lawyers to
engage in private practice (adopting the Civil Service Commission
Resolution) subject to some conditions with indispensable
requirement to secure approval from the CHR. In the absence of such
approval, the respondent is not allowed in private practice and proved
to have falsified his attendance in the DTR while appearing in court at
the same time without approved leave of absence.
2. The respondent has been notarizing even before the CHR authorized
his practice as a notary public.
3. The authority granted with the CHR in their function is merely to
investigate all forms of human rights violation. They cannot try and
decide cases. With the above constituting grounds for suspension of
lawyers stated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the court
ruled to modify the suspension of 1 year as sufficient sanction.
AGUIRRE VS RANA
EN BANC [ B.M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003 ] 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
DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, COMPLAINANT, ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes
VS. 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
EDWIN L. RANA, RESPONDENT 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.
FACTS:
True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the
Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. before the
lawyer’s oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally
scheduled mass oath-taking, complainant Aguirre filed against respondent a
makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar
Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar.
examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to
The Court allowed respondent to take his oath. Respondent took the lawyer’s become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential
oath on the scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of Attorneys up to now. 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.
Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as
counsel for a candidate in an election.
On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that respondent is a
municipal government employee, being a secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan
of Mandaon, Masbate. As such, respondent is not allowed by law to act as
counsel for a client in any court or administrative body.
On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant
accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice mayoralty candidate George
Bunan without the latter engaging respondent’s services. Complainant claims
that respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the proclamation of the
winning vice mayoralty candidate.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and
thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar

RULING:
The Court held that “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 acts which are
usually performed by members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice
law is to render any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge
or skill.
Mauricio C. Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic, Inc. Respondent’s Comment:
B.M. No. 553. June 17, 1993
- They are not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of leg
FACTS: support services thru paralegals with the use of modern computers
Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays this Court "to order the respondent,The and electronic machines
Legal Clinic Inc.,to cease and desist from issuing advertisements similar to or - Even if they are leg services, the act of advertising them should be
of the same tenor as that of Annexes `A' and `B' (of said petition) and to allowed under Bates v. State bar of Arizona
perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining
to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law.” ISSUES:
1. WON the services offered by The Legal Clinic constitutes practice of law?
Petitioner prays that respondent cease and desist from issuing ads similar to 2. WON their services can be advertised?
annexes A and B and to prohibit them from making ads pertaining to the
exercise of the law professions other than those allowed by law HELD:
1. Yes. The Practice of law involves any activity, in or out of the court, which
The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as follows: requires the application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and
expertise
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE? To engage in the practice is to perform those acts which are characteristic of
P560 for a valid marriage the profession; to give advice or render any kind of service that involves legal
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA. knowledge/skill
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Pls call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041 Not limited to the conduct of cases in court; includes legal advice and counsel
8:30am-6pm and preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are
7F Victoria Bldg, UN Ave, Mla secured regardless of

Annex B 2. WON they’re pending in court

GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON 3 types of legal profession activity:
An Atty in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce thru the 1. legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights
Leg Clinic beg Mon-Fri during office hours Guam divorce. Annulment of and obligations
Marriage. 2. preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal
Immigration Probs, Visa principles not possessed by ordinary layman
ext. Quota/Non-quota Res and Special Retiree’s Visa. 3. appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power
Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. and authority to determine rights of life, liberty and property according
Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina to law, in order to assist in proper inter and enforcement of law
Sp/Shil. Call Marivic THE LEGAL CLINIC, etc
Petitioner’s Claim: Respondent’s description of its services shows it falls within the practice of
law:
Ads are unethical and demeaning of the law profession and destructive of the
confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar. - Giving info by paralegals to laymen and lawyers thru the use of comps and
modern info tech
As a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the ads.
- computerized legal research, document search, evidence gathering,
locating parties/witnesses to a case, fact finding investigations, assistance to
laymen in need of services from agencies like birth, marriage, prop, bus
registrations, etc., *even if some of the services offered merely involve
mechanical and technical knowhow like installing computer system for law
offices, this doesn’t make it an exception to the general rule

- gives out leg info to laymen and lawyers not non-advisory and non-diagnostic
ex. foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption – have to explain to client
the intricacies of the law and advise him on the proper course of action

- what its ads represent and what it will be paid for

- It doesn’t matter that they don’t represent clients in court since practice of law
isn’t limited to ct appearances but also leg research, leg advice and drafting
contracts Phil Star Art – Rx for Leg Probs, int by proprietor Atty Nogales:

- Takes care of probs as complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion domestic sit

- lawyers, who like drs, are specialists in various fields and can take care of it
(taxation, crim law, medico-leg probs, labor, litigation, fam law)

- backed up by paralegals, counselors and attys

- caters to clients who can’t afford big firms

- can prepare a simple deed of sale or affidavit of loss and also those w/ more
extensive treatment

-The fact that they employ paralegals to carry out its services doesn’t matter;
what’s important is that it’s engaged in the practice of law ‘cause of the nature
of the services it renders, which brings it within the statutory prohibitions
against ads only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who’s
in good and regular standing is entitled to the practice of law

- public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals
found duly qualified in education and character to protect the public,
court, client and bar from incompetence/dishonesty of those unlicensed to
the practice and not subject to the discipline of court
 In Re: Al C. Argosino 246 SCRA 14 (1995) of those seeking admission to the Bar.
 Requirement of good moral character to be satisfied by those who wouldseek
admission to the bar must be a necessity more stringent than the norm of
FACTS: conduct expected from members of the general public.
 Participation in the prolonged mindless physical beatings inflicted upon Raul
On February 4, 1992 ,Argosino, together with 13 others, was charged with the
Camaligan constituted evident rejection of that moral duty and was totally
crime of homicide in connection with the death of one Raul Camaligan. The irresponsible behavior, which makes impossible a finding that the participant
death of Camaligan stemmed from the affliction of severe physical injuries was possessed of good moral character.
uponhim in course of "hazing" conducted as part of the university fraternity
 Good moral character is a requirement possession of which must be
initiation rites. On February 11, 1993, the accused were consequently
demonstrated at the time of the application for permission to take the
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period ranging from two (2) years, four
barexaminations and more importantly at the time of application for admission
(4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years.Eleven (11) days later, Mr.
to the bar and to take the attorney's oath of office.
Argosino and his colleagues filed an application for probation with the lower
court. The application was granted on June 18 1993. The period of probation
was set at two (2) years, counted from the probationer's initial report to the
probation officer assigned to supervise him. Less than a month later, Argosino
filed a petition to take the bar exam. He was allowed and he passed the exam,
but was not allowed to take the lawyer's oath of office.On April 15, 1994,
Argosino filed a petition to allow him to take the attorney's oath and be
admitted to the practice of law. He averred that his probation period had been
terminated. It is noted that his probation period did not last for more than 10
months.

ISSUE:

Whether Argosino should be allowed to take the oath of attorney and be

admitted to the practice of law.

HELD:

Mr. Argosino must submit to this Court evidence that he may now be regarded
as complying with the requirement of good moral character imposed upon
those who are seeking admission to the bar. 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. In short, he
mustshow evidence that he is a different person now, that he has become
morally fitfor admission to the profession of law.
He is already directed to inform the Court, by appropriate written manifestation,
of the names of the parents or brothers and sisters of Camaligan from notice.

NOTES:
 The practice of law is a high personal privilege limited to citizens of
goodmoral character, with special education qualifications, duly ascertained
and certified.
 Requirement of good moral character is of greater importance so far as the
general public and proper administration of justice is concerned.
 All aspects of moral character and behavior may be inquired into in respect
In Resolution: Cunanan, et. al, 18 March 1954 The Constitution, has not conferred on Congress and the S.C. equal
responsibilities concerning the admission to the practice of law. The primary
power and responsibility which the constitution recognizes continue to reside
FACTS: in this court.

In the manner of the petitions for Admission to the Bar of unsuccessful Its retroactivity is invalid in such a way, that what the law seeks to “cure” are
candidates of 1946 to 1953; Albino Cunanan et. al petitioners. not the rules set in place by the S.C. but the lack of will or the defect in
judgment of the court, and this power is not included in the power granted by
In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so much public interest the Const. to Congress, it lies exclusively w/in the judiciary.
and concern as R.A. 972 popularly known as the “Bar Flunkers’ Act of 1953.”
Generally a candidate is deemed passed if he obtains a general ave of 75% in Reasons for Unconstitutionality:
all subjects w/o falling below 50% in any subject, although for the past few 1. There was a manifest encroachment on the constitutional
exams the passing grades were changed depending on the strictness of the responsibility of the Supreme Court.
correcting of the bar examinations (1946- 72%, 1947- 69%, 1948- 70% 1949- 2. It is in effect a judgment revoking the resolution of the court, and only
74%, 1950-1953 – 75%). the S.C. may revise or alter them, in attempting to do so R.A. 972
Believing themselves to be fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered violated the Constitution.
and passed by the S.C., and feeling that they have been discriminated against, 3. That congress has exceeded its power to repeal, alter, and
unsuccessful candidates who obtained averages of a few percentages lower supplement the rules on admission to the bar (since the rules made
than those admitted to the bar went to congress for, and secured in 1951 by congress must elevate the profession, and those rules promulgated
Senate Bill no. 12, but was vetoed by the president after he was given advise are considered the bare minimum.)
adverse to it. Not overriding the veto, the senate then approved senate bill no. 4. It is a class legislation
372 embodying substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. The bill then 5. Art. 2 of R.A. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary to
became law on June 21, 1953 what the constitution enjoins, and being inseparable from the
provisions of art. 1, the entire law is void.
Republic Act 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit to the Bar
those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of reading materials and
inadequate preparations. By and large, the law is contrary to public interest HELD:
since it qualifies 1,094 law graduates who had inadequate preparation for the
practice of law profession, as evidenced by their failure in the exams. Under the authority of the court:

1. That the portion of art. 1 of R.A. 972 referring to the examinations of

1946 to 1952 and all of art. 2 of the said law are unconstitutional and
ISSUES: therefore void and w/o force and effect.
Due to the far reaching effects that this law would have on the legal profession 2. The part of ART 1 that refers to the examinations subsequent to the
and the administration of justice, the S.C. would seek to know if it is approval of the law (1953- 1955) is valid and shall continue in force.
CONSTITUTIONAL. (those petitions by the candidates who failed the bar from 1946 to
1952 are denied, and all the candidates who in the examination of
An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of 1953 obtained a GEN Ave. of 71.5% w/o getting a grade of below 50%
the law that should be developed constantly and maintained firmly. in any subject are considered as having passed whether they have
filed petitions for admissions or not.)
The Judicial system from which ours has been derived, the act of admitting,
suspending, disbarring, and reinstating attorneys at law in the practice of the
profession is concededly judicial.
 PCGG V SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS: ISSUE:

In 1976 the General Bank and Trust Company (GENBANK) encountered Whether Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility applies to
financial difficulties. GENBANK had extended considerable financial support respondent Mendoza. The prohibition states: “A lawyer shall not, after leaving
to Filcapital Development Corporation causing it to incur daily overdrawing on government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with
its current account with Central Bank. any matter in which he had intervened while in the said service.”

Despite the mega loans GENBANK failed to recover from its financial woes. HELD:
The Central Bank issued a resolution declaring GENBANK insolvent and
unable to resume business with safety to its depositors, creditors and the The case at bar does not involve the “adverse interest” aspect of Rule 6.03.
general public, and ordering its liquidation. Respondent Mendoza, it is conceded, has no adverse interest problem when
he acted as SOlGen and later as counsel of respondents et.al. before the
A public bidding of GENBANK’s assets was held where Lucio Tan group Sandiganbayan. However there is still the issue of whether there exists a
submitted the winning bid. Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza filed a petition “congruent-interest conflict” sufficient to disqualify respondent Mendoza from
with the CFI praying for the assistance and supervision of the court in representing respondents et. al. The key is unlocking the meaning of “matter”
GENBANK’s liquidation as mandated by RA 265. and the metes and bounds of “intervention” that he made on the matter.
Beyond doubt that the “matter” or the act of respondent Mendoza as SolGen
After EDSA Revolution I Pres Aquino established the PCGG to recover the involved in the case at bar is “advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed
alleged ill-gotten wealth of former Pres Marcos, his family and cronies. with the said bank’s liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation in
Pursuant to this mandate, the PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan a complaint CFI of Manila.
for reversion, reconveyance, restitution against respondents Lucio Tan, at.al.
PCGG issued several writs of sequestration on properties allegedly acquired The Court held that the advice given by respondent Mendoza on the procedure
by them by taking advantage eof their close relationship and influence with to liquidate GENBANK is not the “matter” contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the
former Pres. Marcos. Code of Professional Responsibility. ABA Formal Opinion No. 342 is clear in
stressing that “drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency
The abovementioned respondents Tan, et. al are represented as their counsel, procedures, regulations and laws, or briefing abstract principles of law
former Solicitor General Mendoza. PCGG filed motions to disqualify are actswhich do not fall within the scope of the term “matter” and cannot
respondent Mendoza as counsel for respondents Tan et. al. with disqualify. Respondent Mendoza had nothing to do with the decision of the
Sandiganbayan. It was alleged that Mendoza as then Sol Gen and counsel to Central Bank to liquidate GENBANK. He also did not participate in the sale of
Central Bank actively intervened in the liquidation of GENBANK which was GENBANK to Allied Bank. The legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not
subsequently acquired by respondents Tan et. al., which subsequently an issue in the sequestration cases. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the PCGG does
became Allied Banking Corporation. not include the dissolution and liquidation of banks.

The motions to disqualify invoked Rule 6.03 of the Code Thus, the Code 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
of Professional Responsibility which prohibits former government lawyers from cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his alleged intervention while
accepting “engagement” or employment in connection with any matter in which SolGen is an intervention on a matter different from the matter involved in the
he had intervened while in the said service. The Sandiganbayan issued a Civil case of sequestration. In the metes and bounds of the “intervention”.
resolution denyting PCGG’s motion to disqualify respondent Mendoza. It failed
to prove the existence of an inconsistency between respondent Mendoza’s The applicable meaning as the term is used in the Code of Professional Ethics
former function as SolGen and his present employment as counsel of the Lucio is that it is an act of a person who has the power to influence the subject
Tan group. PCGGs recourse to this court assailing the Resolutions of the proceedings. The evil sought to be remedied by the Code do not exist where
Sandiganbayan. the government lawyer does not act which can be considered as innocuous
such as “ drafting, enforcing, or interpreting government or agency procedures,
regulations or laws or briefing abstract principles of law.” The court rules that
the intervention of Mendoza is not significant and substantial. He merely
petitions that the court gives assistance in the liquidation of GENBANK. The
role of court is not strictly as a court of justice but as an agent to assist the
Central Bank in determining the claims of creditors. In such a proceeding the
role of the SolGen is not that of the usual court litigator protecting the interest
of government.

Petition assailing the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan is denied.

Relevant Dissenting Opinion of Justice Callejo:
Rule 6.03 is a restatement of Canon 36 of the Canons of Professional Ethics:
“ A lawyer, having once held public office or having been in the public employ,
should not after his retirement accept employment in connection with any
matter which he has investigated or passed upon while in such office or
employ.”

Indeed, the restriction against a public official from using his public position as
a vehicle to promote or advance his private interests extends beyond his
tenure on certain matters in which he intervened as a public official. Rule 6.03
makes this restriction specifically applicable to lawyers who once held public
office.” A plain reading shows that the interdiction:

1. Applies to a lawyer who once served in the government and

2. Relates to his accepting “engagement or employment” in
connection with any matter in which he had intervened while
in the service