Case Digest in Re - Michael Medado

IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLLS OF
ATTORNEYS
MICHAEL A. MEDADO, Petitioner
BM No. 2540, September 24, 2013
FACTS:
Medado graduated and passed the 1979’s bar examinations. 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 he failed to do so on his scheduled
date because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys when
he went home to his province for a vacation. Several years later, while
rummaging through his old college files, Medado found the Notice to Sign the
Roll of Attorneys. It was then that he realized that he had not signed in the
roll, and that what he had signed at the entrance of the PICC was probably
just an attendance record.
By the time Medado found the notice, he was already working. He stated
that he was mainly doing corporate and taxation work, and that he was not
actively involved in litigation practice. Thus, he operated “under the mistaken
belief that since he had already taken the oath, the signing of the Roll of
Attorneys was not as urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer”; and “the
matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys lost its urgency and compulsion, and
was subsequently forgotten.”
In 2005, when Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

(MCLE) seminars, he was required to provide his roll number in order for his
MCLE compliances to be credited. Not having signed in the Roll of Attorneys,
he was unable to provide his roll number. About seven years later, Medado
filed an instant petition praying that he be allowed to sign the Roll of
Attorneys. The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that his petition be
denied on the ground go his own gross negligence, misconduct, and utter lack
of merit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Medado should be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys
despite the lapse of several years.
RULING:
Yes, the Court allowed the petitioner to sign the Roll of Attorneys subject
to the payment of a fine and the imposition of a penalty equivalent to
suspension from the practice of law.
The Court cannot forbid the petitioner from signing the Roll of Attorneys
because such action constitutes disbarment. Such penalty is reserved to the
most serious ethical transgressions of members of the Bar. The Court cited
three main points which demonstrate Medado’s worth to become a full-
fledged member of the Philippine Bar.
First, Medado 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 admitted his own error and not any third person.
Second, petitioner has not been subject to any action for disqualification
from the practice of law. He 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.
Third, Medado appears to have been a competent and able legal
practitioner, having held various positions at the Laurel Law Office, Petron,
Petrophil Corporation, the Philippine National Oil Company, and the Energy
Development Corporation.
However, the Court cannot fully free Medado from all liability for his years
of inaction. His justification of his action, that it was “neither willful nor
intentional but based on a mistaken belief and an honest error of judgment”
was opposed by the Court.
“A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because
everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences.” Although an
honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal
consequences of his acts he could no longer claim it as a valid justification by
the moment he realized that what he had signed was merely an attendance
record. His action of continuing the practice of law in spite of his knowledge of
the need to take the necessary steps to complete all requirements for the
admission to the bar constitutes unauthorized practice of law.
Such action 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.
With respect to the penalty, previous violations of Canon 9 have warranted
the penalty of suspension from the practice of law. However, in the instant
case the Court could not warrant the penalty of suspension from the practice
of law to Medado because he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer.
Instead, the Court see it fit to impose upon him a penalty similar to
suspension by allowing him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one ( 1) year after
receipt of the Resolution and to fine him in the amount of P32,000.
The instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys is Affirmed. Petitioner
Michael A. Medado is ALLOWED to sign in the Roll of Attorneys ONE (1)
YEAR after receipt of the Resolution. Petitioner is likewise ORDERED to pay
a FINE of P32,000 for his unauthorized practice of law. During the one year
period, petitioner is NOT ALLOWED to practice law, and is STERNLY
WARNED that doing any act that constitutes practice of law before he has
signed in the Roll of Attorneys will be dealt with severely by the Court.

Case Digest in Re - Michael Medado

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest in Re - Michael Medado

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLLS OF

Medado graduated and passed the 1979’s bar examinations. On 7 May

In 2005, when Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

You might also like