Basea, Cesar Paul C.

JRU College of Law

B.M. No. 2112 July 24, 2012

IN RE: PETITION RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES,

EPIFANIO B. MUNESES, Petitioner,

Reyes, J.

Facts:
On June 8, 2009, a petition was filed by Epifanio B. Muneses (petitioner) with the Office
of the Bar Confidant (OBC) praying that he be granted the privilege to practice law in the
Philippines.

The petitioner alleged that he became a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) on March 21, 1966; that he lost his privilege to practice law when he became a
citizen of the United States of America (USA) on August 28, 1981; that on September 15,
2006, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225
or the "Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003" by taking his oath of
allegiance as a Filipino citizen in Washington D.C USA.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner’s re-acquisition of Filipino Citizenship under RA 9225 was
sufficient to reacquire his privilege to practice law in the Philippines.

Ruling:
YES. In Bar Matter No. 1678, dated December 17, 2007 (5 years prior to this petition),
the Court was confronted with a similar petition filed by Benjamin M. Dacanay (Dacanay)
who requested leave to resume his practice of law after availing the benefits of R.A. No.
9225. 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.

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.

Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of

morality, faithful observance of the legal profession, compliance with the mandatory
continuing legal education requirement and payment of membership fees to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for membership in good
standing in the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law.
 Basea, Cesar Paul C.
JRU College of Law

A.C. No. 5738 February 19, 2008

WILFREDO M. CATU, complainant,

vs.
ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA, respondent.
Corona, J.

Facts:
Complainant: Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot and the building located at 959 San
Andres Street, Malate, Manila. His mother and brother, Regina Catu and Antonio Catu,
contested the possession of Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu and Antonio Pastor of one of the
units in the building.

Respondent, ATTY. VICENTE G. RELLOSA as punong barangay of Barangay 723,

The parties were summoned by the respondent for conciliation meetings. When the
parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement, respondent issued a certification for the
filing of the appropriate action in court. Thereafter, Regina and Antonio filed a complaint
for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 11. Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in that
case. Because of this, complainant filed the instant administrative complaint, claiming that
respondent committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer when he
stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation
proceedings between the litigants as punong barangay.

In his defense, respondent claimed that one of his duties as punong barangay was to
hear complaints referred to the barangay's Lupong Tagapamayapa. As head of the
Lupon, he performed his task with utmost objectivity, without bias or partiality towards any
of the parties. After the parties didn’t arrive in conciliation it was then that Elizabeth
sought his legal assistance.

The complaint was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation,
report and recommendation and the IBP-CBD found sufficient ground to discipline
respondent. It found that respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility: Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he intervened while in
said service. Furthermore, as an elective official, respondent contravened the prohibition
under Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713:8 SEC. 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions xxx the
following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official xxx. (b)
Outside employment and other activities related thereto. - Public officials and employees
during their incumbency shall not: (2) Engage in the private practice of profession unless
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend
to conflict with their official functions; xxx

Further, IBP-CBD stated that it is a violation of CANON 1. A lawyer shall uphold the
constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote respect for law and legal
processes. The IBP-CBD recommended the respondent's suspension from the practice
of law for one month with a stern warning that the commission of the same or similar act
will be dealt with more severely and approved by the IBP Board of Governors.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is barred to practice law even if he is an incumbent public
official.

Ruling:
The Court modify the foregoing findings regarding the transgression of respondent as well
as the recommendation on the imposable penalty.

Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility Applies Only to Former

Government Lawyers. Respondent cannot be found liable for violation of Rule 6.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Rule applies only to a lawyer who has
left government service and in connection “with any matter in which he intervened while in
said service." In PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that Rule 6.03 prohibits
former government lawyers from accepting "engagement or employment in
connection with any matter in which [they] had intervened while in said service."
Respondent was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he committed the act
complained of.
 Basea, Cesar Paul C.
JRU College of Law

Section 90 of RA 7160, Not Section 7(b)(2) of RA 6713, Governs The Practice of

Profession of Elective Local Government Officials. For elective local government
officials, Section 90 of RA 7160 governs: SEC. 90. Practice of Profession. - (b)
Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or
teach in schools except during session hours:

No such interdiction is made on the punong barangay and the members of the
sangguniang barangay. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Since they are excluded
from any prohibition, the presumption is that they are allowed to practice their profession.
However, he should have procured prior permission or authorization from the head
of his Department, as required by civil service regulations. Section 12, Rule XVIII of
the Revised Civil Service Rules provides: No officer or employee shall engage
directly in any xxx profession xxx without a written permission from the head of
the Department. Respondent should have therefore obtained the prior written permission
of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government before he entered his appearance as
counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor. This he failed to do.

The failure of respondent to comply with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil
Service Rules constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer: to obey the laws. Their
paramount duty to society is to obey the law and promote respect for it. It is enshrined as
the first canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Indeed, a lawyer who
disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the
dignity of the legal profession.

Respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa is hereby found GUILTY. He is therefore

SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of six months. He is sternly WARNED
that any repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent is
strongly advised to look up and take to heart the meaning of the word delicadeza.