The petitioner Epifanio Muneses, who became a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in 1966 but lost his privilege to practice law when he became a US citizen, filed a petition to re-acquire his privilege after regaining his Philippine citizenship in 2006. The Supreme Court granted the petition, noting that regaining Philippine citizenship through re-acquisition satisfies the citizenship requirement to practice law, but the petitioner must still apply for a license to practice given the standards and obligations of the legal profession.
The petitioner Epifanio Muneses, who became a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in 1966 but lost his privilege to practice law when he became a US citizen, filed a petition to re-acquire his privilege after regaining his Philippine citizenship in 2006. The Supreme Court granted the petition, noting that regaining Philippine citizenship through re-acquisition satisfies the citizenship requirement to practice law, but the petitioner must still apply for a license to practice given the standards and obligations of the legal profession.
The petitioner Epifanio Muneses, who became a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in 1966 but lost his privilege to practice law when he became a US citizen, filed a petition to re-acquire his privilege after regaining his Philippine citizenship in 2006. The Supreme Court granted the petition, noting that regaining Philippine citizenship through re-acquisition satisfies the citizenship requirement to practice law, but the petitioner must still apply for a license to practice given the standards and obligations of the legal profession.
PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES, EPIFANIO B. MUNESES
JULY 24, 2012
Facts of the Case Petition was filed by Epifanio B. Muneses with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) praying that he be granted the privilege to practice law in the Philippines Petitioner alleged that he became a member of the IBP in 1966 but lost such privilege when he became a citizen of the USA. Facts of the Case On September 15, 2006, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to R.A. No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003) by taking his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General in Washington, D.C., and he intends to resume the practice of law. Issue of the Case Whether or not the petitioner be allowed to resume his practice of law? Decision of the Court Yes, the petition is granted 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. The loss thereof means termination of the petitioner’s membership in the bar; ipso jure the privilege to engage in the practice of law. Section 2, Rule 138 (Attorneys and Admission to Bar) of the Rules of Court:
SECTION 2. Requirements for all applicants for
admission to the bar. – Every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines. Decision of the Court Under R.A. No. 9225, natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic. Decision of the Court However 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 Decision of the Court The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions: Rigid standards of mental fitness maintenance of the highest degree of morality,
Antonio A. S. Valdez, Petitioner, vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch 102, Quezon City, and Consuelo M. Gomez-Valdez, Respondents. G.R. No. 122749 July 31, 1996