Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digest - Sophia Alawi vs. Ashary M. Alauya
Case Digest - Sophia Alawi vs. Ashary M. Alauya
Alauya
FACTS:
On December 15, 1995, Alauya addressed a letter to the President of Villarosa & Co. advising of
the termination of his contract with the company, on the grounds that his consent was vitiated by
gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by the sales agent
SOPHIA ALAWI which made said contract void ab initio.
Alauya sent a copy of the letter to the Vice-President of Villarosa & Co. at San Pedro, Gusa,
Cagayan de Oro City. The envelope containing it, and which actually went through the post, bore
no stamps. Instead at the right corner above the description of the addressee, the words, "Free
Postage - PD 26," had been typed.
On the same date, December 15, 1995, Alauya also wrote to Mr. Fermin T. Arzaga, Vice-
President, Credit & Collection Group of the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation
(NHMFC) asking for cancellation of his housing loan in connection therewith, which was
payable from salary deductions at the rate of P4,338.00 a month.
Alauya wrote three other letters to Mr. Arzaga of the NHMFC, dated February 21, 1996, April
15, 1996, and May 3, 1996, in all of which, for the same reasons already cited, he insisted on the
cancellation of his housing loan and discontinuance of deductions from his salary on account
thereof. a He also wrote on January 18, 1996 to Ms. Corazon M. Ordoñez, Head of the Fiscal
Management & Budget Office, and to the Chief, Finance Division, both of this Court, to stop
deductions from his salary in relation to the loan in question, again asserting the anomalous
manner by which he was allegedly duped into entering into the contracts by "the scheming sales
agent."
On learning of Alauya's letter to Villarosa & Co. of December 15, 1995, Sophia Alawi filed with
this Court a verified complaint dated January 25, 1996 — to which she appended a copy of the
letter, and of the above mentioned envelope bearing the typewritten words, "Free Postage - PD
26."1 In that complaint, she accused Alauya of:
1. "Imputation of malicious and libelous charges with no solid grounds through manifest
ignorance and evident bad faith;"
2. "Causing undue injury to, and blemishing her honor and established reputation;"
4. Usurpation of the title of "attorney," which only regular members of the Philippine Bar may
properly use.
ISSUES:
Whether or not Alauya is allowed to use title “Attourney”
HELD:
No. His disinclination to use the title of "counsellor" does not warrant his use of the title of
attorney
This Court has already had occasion to declare that persons who pass the Shari'a Bar are not full-
fledged members of the Philippine Bar, hence may only practice law before Shari'a courts. While
one who has been admitted to the Shari'a Bar, and one who has been admitted to the Philippine
Bar, may both be considered "counsellors," in the sense that they give counsel or advice in a
professional capacity, only the latter is an "attorney." The title of "attorney" is reserved to those
who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar
Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members
thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are authorized to practice law in this
jurisdiction.