Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • AGUIRRE VS RANA Final

    Uploaded by

    Kristanne Louise Yu
    82 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court denied Edwin L. Rana admission to the Philippine Bar after finding him guilty of unauthorized practice of law. While Rana passed the bar exam, the right to practice law is a privilege limited to those of good moral character. The Court found Rana engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by representing a candidate before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers while still a government employee and before being formally admitted to the bar. Though the candidate authorized Rana, he did not have the authority or qualifications to legally practice law at that time. As an officer of the court, lawyers must possess integrity, legal knowledge, and public trust, which Rana lacked prior to admission.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    AGUIRRE VS RANA final

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court denied Edwin L. Rana admission to the Philippine Bar after finding him guilty of unauthorized practice of law. While Rana passed the bar exam, the right to practice law is a privilege limited to those of good moral character. The Court found Rana engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by representing a candidate before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers while still a government employee and before being formally admitted to the bar. Though the candidate authorized Rana, he did not have the authority or qualifications to legally practice law at that time. As an officer of the court, lawyers must possess integrity, legal knowledge, and public trust, which Rana lacked prior to admission.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    82 views2 pages

    AGUIRRE VS RANA Final

    Uploaded by

    Kristanne Louise Yu
    The Supreme Court denied Edwin L. Rana admission to the Philippine Bar after finding him guilty of unauthorized practice of law. While Rana passed the bar exam, the right to practice law is a privilege limited to those of good moral character. The Court found Rana engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by representing a candidate before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers while still a government employee and before being formally admitted to the bar. Though the candidate authorized Rana, he did not have the authority or qualifications to legally practice law at that time. As an officer of the court, lawyers must possess integrity, legal knowledge, and public trust, which Rana lacked prior to admission.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    AGUIRRE VS RANA

    403 SCRA 342


    EN BANC B. NO. 1036, JUNE 10, 2003
    DONNA MARIE AGUIRRE, COMPLAINANT,
    VS.
    EDWIN L. RANA, RESPONDENT

    DOCTRINE: Practice of Law means any activity, in or out of the court,


    which requires the knowledge of the 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.

    FACTS:

    Respondent Rana is among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examination.
    Before the schedule mass oath-taking, complainant Aguirre filed against
    respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. The court allowed
    respondent to take his oath. Respondent took the lawyer’s oath on the
    scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of Attorney up to now.

    Complainant charges respondent for unathorized practice of Law and grave


    misconduct. Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer,
    appeared as counsel for a candidate in the May 2001 elections before the
    Municipal Board of Election Canvassers (MBEC) of Mandoan, Masbate and
    filed with the MBEC a pleading where he represented himself as counsel for
    and in behalf of Vice Mayorlty Candidate, George Bunan, and signed the
    pleading as counsel for George Bunan.

    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 adiministrative body.

    On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant


    accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice mayorlty candidate George
    Bunan without the latter engaging respondents 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, trainign
    and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which are
    usually performed by members of the legl profession. Generally, to practice
    law is to render any kind of service which requires use of legal knowledge
    or skills.

    The right to prectice 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 by simply passing
    the bar.

    On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, evidence shows


    that Bunan indeed authorized respondent to represent him as his counsel
    before the court and similar bodies. While there is no representation,
    respondent nonetheless had no authority to practice law.

    Wherefore, respondent Edwin L. Rana is denied admission to the Philippine


    Bar.

    You might also like