1)Practice of Law
their rights under the law, or while so
Cayetano v Monsod
G.R. No. 100113
September 3, 1991
Facts:
Monsod was nominated by President
Aquino to the position of Chairman of
the COMELEC on April 25, 1991.
Cayetano opposed the nomination
because allegedly Monsod does not
possess the required qualification of
having been engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years. Challenging
the validity of the confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments of
Monsod’s nomination, petitioner filed a
petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
praying that said confirmation and the
consequent appointment of Monsod as
Chairman of the Commission on
Elections be declared null and void
because Monsod did not meet the
requirement of having practiced law for
the last ten years.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent posses the
required qualifications of having
engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years.
HELD:
The practice of law is not limited to the
conduct of cases in court. A person is
also considered to be in the practice of
law when he: “. . . for valuable
consideration engages in the business
of advising person, firms, associations
or corporations as to their rights under
the law, or appears in a representative
capacity as an advocate in
proceedings pending or prospective,
before any court, commissioner,
referee, board, body, committee, or
commission constituted by law or
authorized to settle controversies.
Otherwise stated, one who, in a
representative capacity, engages in
the business of advising clients as to
engaged performs any act or acts
either in court or outside of court for
that purpose, is engaged in the
practice of law.”
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of
the Philippine Bar, having passed the
bar examinations of 1960 with a grade
of 86.55%. He has been a dues paying
member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines since its inception in 1972-
73. He has also been paying his
professional license fees as lawyer for
more than ten years. Atty. Monsod’s
past work experiences as a lawyer-
economist, a lawyer-manager, a
lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a
lawyer-legislator of both the rich and
the poor, verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement that he has
been engaged in the practice of law for
at least ten years.
2)MAURICIO ULEP V. THE LEGAL
CLINIC
223 SCRA 378 – 42 SCAD 287 –
Legal Ethics – Advertisement in the
Legal Profession – Practice of Law
In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed
by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim,
according to Nogales was to move
toward specialization and to cater to
clients who cannot afford the services
of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio
Ulep filed a complaint against The
Legal Clinic because of the latter’s
advertisements which contain the
following:
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-
2041
8:30am – 6:00pm
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE
BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The
Legal Clinic beginning Monday to
Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage.
Immigration Problems, Visa Ext.
Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special
Retiree’s Visa. Declaration of
Absence. Remarriage to Filipina
Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the
Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina
Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
nr. US Embassy
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041,
521-0767
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic
published an article entitled “Rx for
Legal Problems” in Star Week of
Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated
that they The Legal Clinic is composed
of specialists that can take care of a
client’s problem no matter how
complicated it is even if it is as
complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-
Gabby Concepcion situation. He said
that he and his staff of lawyers, who,
like doctors, are “specialists” in various
fields, can take care of it. The Legal
Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation
and criminal law, medico-legal
problems, labor, litigation and family
law. These specialists are backed up
by a battery of paralegals, counselors
and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said
it should be allowed in view of the
jurisprudence in the US which now
allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar
of Arizona). And that besides, the
advertisement is merely making known
to the public the services that The
Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal
Clinic is engaged in the practice of law;
whether such is allowed; whether or
not its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is
engaged in the practice of law
however, such practice is not allowed.
The Legal Clinic is composed mainly
of paralegals. The services it offered
include various legal problems wherein
a client may avail of legal services
from simple documentation to complex
litigation and corporate undertakings.
Most of these services are
undoubtedly beyond the domain of
paralegals, but rather, are exclusive
functions of lawyers engaged in the
practice of law. Under Philippine
jurisdiction however, the services
being offered by Legal Clinic which
constitute practice of law cannot be
performed by paralegals. Only a
person duly admitted as a member of
the bar and who is in good and
regular standing, is entitled to practice
law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the
questioned advertisements, the Code
of Professional Responsibility provides
that a lawyer in making known his
legal services shall use only true,
honest, fair, dignified and objective
information or statement of facts. The
standards of the legal profession
condemn the lawyer’s advertisement
of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without
violating the ethics of his profession,
advertise his talents or skills as in a
manner similar to a merchant
advertising his goods. Further, the
advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to
promote divorce, secret marriage,
bigamous marriage, and other
circumventions of law which their
experts can facilitate. Such is highly
reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which
forms of advertisement are allowed.
The best advertising possible for a
lawyer is a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to
trust, which must be earned as the
outcome of character and conduct.
Good and efficient service to a client
as well as to the community has a way
of publicizing itself and catching public
attention. That publicity is a normal by-
product of effective service which is
right and proper. A good and reputable
lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to
generate it and to magnify his success.
He easily sees the difference between
a normal by-product of able service
and the unwholesome result of
propaganda. The Supreme Court also
enumerated the following as allowed
forms of advertisement:
1. Advertisement in a reputable
law list
2. Use of ordinary simple
professional card
3. Listing in a phone directory but
without designation as to his
specialization
3)Legal Profession- In re: Cunanan
Resolution Cunanan, et. al
18March1954
FACTS: In the manner of the petitions
for Admission to the Bar of
unsuccessful candidates of 1946 to
1953; Albino Cunanan et. al
petitioners.
In recent years few controversial
issues have aroused so much public
interest and concern as R.A. 972
popularly known as the “Bar Flunkers’
Act of 1953.” Generally a candidate is
deemed passed if he obtains a general
ave of 75% in all subjects w/o falling
below 50% in any subject, although for
the past few exams the passing
grades were changed depending on
the strictness of the correcting of the
bar examinations (1946- 72%, 1947-
69%, 1948- 70% 1949-74%, 1950-
1953 – 75%).
Believing themselves to be fully
qualified to practice law as those
reconsidered and passed by the S.C.,
and feeling that they have been
discriminated against, unsuccessful
candidates who obtained averages of
a few percentages lower than those
admitted to the bar went to congress
for, and secured in 1951 Senate Bill
no. 12, but was vetoed by the
president after he was given advise
adverse to it. Not overriding the veto,
the senate then approved senate bill
no. 372 embodying substantially the
provisions of the vetoed bill. The bill
then became law on June 21, 1953
Republic Act 972 has for its object,
according to its author, to admit to the
Bar those candidates who suffered
from insufficiency of reading materials
and inadequate preparations. By and
large, the law is contrary to public
interest since it qualifies 1,094 law
graduates who had inadequate
preparation for the practice of law
profession, as evidenced by their
failure in the exams.
ISSUE:
Due to the far reaching effects that this
law would have on the legal profession
and the administration of justice, the
S.C. would seek to know if it is
CONSTITUTIONAL.
An adequate legal preparation is
one of the vital requisites for the
practice of the law that should be
developed constantly and maintained
firmly.
The Judicial system from which ours
has been derived, the act of admitting,
suspending, disbarring, and reinstating
attorneys at law in the practice of the
profession is concededly judicial.
The Constitution, has not conferred
on Congress and the S.C. equal
responsibilities concerning the
admission to the practice of law. The
primary power and responsibility which
the constitution recognizes continue to
reside in this court.
Its retroactivity is invalid in such a
way, that what the law seeks to “cure”
are not the rules set in place by the
S.C. but the lack of will or the defect in
judgment of the court, and this power
is not included in the power granted by
the Const. to Congress, it lies
exclusively w/in the judiciary.
Reasons for Unconstitutionality:
1. There was a manifest encroachment
on the constitutional responsibility of
the Supreme Court.
2. It is in effect a judgment revoking
the resolution of the court, and only the
S.C. may revise or alter them, in
attempting to do so R.A. 972 violated
the Constitution.
3. That congress has exceeded its
power to repeal, alter, and supplement
the rules on admission to the bar
(since the rules made by congress
must elevate the profession, and those
rules promulgated are considered the
bare minimum.)
4. It is a class legislation
5. Art. 2 of R.A. 972 is not embraced in
the title of the law, contrary to what the
 constitution enjoins, and being
inseparable from the provisions of art.
1, the entire law is void.
HELD: Under the authority of the court:
1. That the portion of art. 1 of R.A. 972
referring to the examinations of 1946
to 1952 and all of art. 2 of the said law
are unconstitutional and therefore void
and w/o force and effect.
2. The part of ART 1 that refers to the
examinations subsequent to the
approval of the law (1953- 1955) is
valid and shall continue in force. (those
petitions by the candidates who failed
the bar from 1946 to 1952 are denied,
and all the candidates who in the
examination of 1953 obtained a GEN
Ave. of 71.5% w/o getting a grade of
below 50% in any subject are
considered as having passed whether
they have filed petitions for admissions
or not.)
4)In the matter of the
Disqualification of Bar Examinee,
Haron S. Meiling in the 2002 bar
examinations and for disciplinary
action as member of Philippine
Shari'a Bar, Melendrez.
FACTS:
1. MELENDREZ filed with the Office of
the Bar Confidant (OBC) a Petition to
disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling)
from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations
and to impose on him the appropriate
disciplinary penalty as a member of
the Philippine Shari’a Bar.
1. Alleges that Meling did not disclose in
his Petition to take the 2002 Bar
Examinations that he has three (3)
pending criminal cases both for Grave
Oral Defamation and for Less Serious
Physical Injuries.
i. Meling allegedly uttered
defamatory words against Melendrez
and his wife in front of media
practitioners and other people.
ii. Meling also purportedly
attacked and hit the face of Melendrez’
wife causing the injuries to the latter.
2. Alleges that Meling has been using the
title “Attorney” in his communications,
as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato
City, despite the fact that he is not a
member of the Bar.
2. MELING explains that he did not
disclose the criminal cases because
retired Judge Corocoy Moson, their
former professor, advised him to settle
misunderstanding.
1. Believing in good faith that the case
would be settled because the said
Judge has moral ascendancy over
them, considered the three cases that
arose from a single incident as “closed
and terminated.”
i. Denies the charges and
added that the acts do not involve
moral turpitude.
2. Use of the title “Attorney,” Meling
admits that some of his
communications really contained the
word “Attorney” as they were typed by
the office clerk.
3. Office of Bar Confidant disposed of the
charge of non-disclosure against
Meling:
1. Meling should have known that only
the court of competent jurisdiction can
dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor
a law professor. In fact, the cases filed
against Meling are still pending.
2. Even if these cases were already
dismissed, he is still required to
disclose the same for the Court to
ascertain his good moral character.
ISSUE:
WON Meling’s act of concealing cases
constitutes dishonesty. YES.
HELD:
 PETITION IS GRANTED.
MEMBERSHIP IS SUSPENDED until
further orders from the Court, the
suspension to take effect immediately.
Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent
Haron S. Meling from taking the
Lawyer’s Oath and signing the Roll of
Attorneys as a member of the
Philippine Bar, the same is
DISMISSED for having become moot
and academic (Meling did not pass the
bar).
1. Rule 7.01: “A lawyer shall be
answerable for knowingly making a
false statement or suppressing a
material fact in connection with his
application for admission to the bar.”
1. He is aware that he is not a member of
the Bar, there was no valid reason why
he signed as “attorney” whoever may
have typed the
letters. i.
Unauthorized use of the appellation
“attorney” may render a person liable
for indirect contempt of court.
2. PRACTICE OF LAW IS A HIGH
PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.
1. Limited to citizens of good moral
character, with special educational
qualifications, duly ascertained and
certified.
2. Requirement of good moral character
is, in fact, of greater importance so far
as the general public and the proper
administration of justice are
concerned, than the possession of
legal learning.
3. Application form of 2002 Bar
Examinations requires the applicant
that applicant to aver that he or she
“has not been charged with any act or
omission punishable by law, rule or
regulation before a fiscal, judge, officer
or administrative body, or indicted for,
or accused or convicted by any court
or tribunal of, any offense or crime
involving moral turpitude; nor is there
any pending case or charge against
him/her.”
1. Meling did not reveal that he has three
pending criminal cases. His deliberate
silence constitutes concealment, done
under oath at that.
5) In Re: Dacanay, B.M NO. 1678,
December 17, 2007
Facts:
Petitioner was admitted to the
Philippine bar in March 1960. He
practiced law until he migrated to
Canada in December 1998 to seek
medical attention for hisailments. He
subsequently applied for Canadian
citizenship to avail of Canada’sfree
medical aid program. His application
was approved and he became a
Canadian citizen in May 2004.On July
14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act
(RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and
Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner
reacquired his Philippine
citizenship.On that day, he took his
oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen
before the Philippine Consulate
General in Toronto, Canada.
Thereafter, he returned to the
Philippines and now intends to resume
his law practice.
Issue: WON petitioner may still
resume practice? YES
Held:
Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court provides an applicant for
admission to the bar be a citizen of the
Philippines, at least twenty-one years
of age, of good moral character and a
resident of the Philippines.5 He must
also produce before this 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.Since Filipino
citizenship is a requirement for
 admission to the bar, loss thereof
terminates membership in the
Philippine bar and, consequently, the
privilege to engage in the practice of
law. In other words, the loss of Filipino
citizenship ipsojure terminates the
privilege to practice law in the
Philippines. The practice of law is a
privilege denied to foreigners.The
exception is when Filipino citizenship
is lost by reason of naturalization as a
citizen of another country but
subsequently reacquiredpursuant to
RA 9225. This is because “all
Philippine citizens who become
citizens of another country shall be
deemed not to have lost their
Philippine citizenship under the
conditions of [RA 9225].” Therefore, a
Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen
of another country is deemed never to
have lost his Philippine citizenship if he
reacquires it in accordance with RA
9225.Before he can can resume his
law practice, he must first secure from
this Court the authority to do so,
conditioned on:o the updating and
payment of of IBP membership dues;o
the payment of professional tax;o the
completion of at least 36 credit hours
of mandatory continuing legal
education; this is specially significant
to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s
knowledge of Philippine laws and
update him of legal developments
ando the retaking of the lawyer’s oath.
6)Philippine Association of Free
Labor Unions (PAFLU), Enrique
Entila and Victoriano Tenazas vs.
Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Company,
Court of Industrial Relations and
Quintin Muning.
FACTS:
1. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS ORDERED
REINSTATEMENT WITH
BACKWAGES FOR ENTILA AND
TENAZAS.
1. Cipriano Cid & Associates, counsel of
Entila and Tenazas filed a notice of
attorney's lien equivalent to 30% of the
total backwages.
i. Entila and Tenazas filed
manifestation indicating their non-
objection to an award of attorney's
fees for 25% of their backwages
ii. Quentin Muning filed a
"Petition for the Award of Services
Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the
backwages.
1. Opposed by Cipriano Cid &
Associates the ground that he is not a
lawyer.
a. Court of Industrial Relations awarded
25% of the backwages as
compensation for professional services
rendered in the case, apportioned as
follows:
i. Cipriano
10%
ii. Quintin
Muning 10%
iii. Atanacio
Pacis 5%
iii. CANON 34: condemns an
agreement providing for the division of
attorney's fees, whereby a non-lawyer
union president is allowed to share in
said fees with lawyers
1. Sec 5(b) of RA 875 that —No
justification for a ruling, that the person
representing the party-litigant in the
Court of Industrial Relations, even if he
is not a lawyer, is entitled to attorney's
fees
a. Duty and obligation of the Court or
Hearing Officer to examine and cross
examine witnesses on behalf of the
parties and to assist in the orderly
presentation of evidence.
b. Representation should be exclusively
entrusted to duly qualified members of
the bar.
2. The permission for a non-member
does not entitle the representative to
compensation for such representation.
1. Sec 24, Rule 138 Compensation of
attorney's agreement as to fees:
i. An attorney shall be
entitled to have and recover from his
client no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services.
a. Petition to take the Bar Exam in 1960
after failing in the 1959 Bar
Examination.
b. His uncle, TAPEL, opposed the
petition alleging that his nephew is not
a person of good moral character for
having misrepresented, sometime in
1950, when he was 16 years old, that
he was eligible for 3rd year high school
by utilizing the school records of his
cousin and name-sake, Juan M.
Publico.
ii. PUBLICO has not
completed Grade 4
iii. Tapel instituted an
administrative case against his
nephew for falsification of school
records or credentials.
3. PUBLICO PASSED THE BAR, took
the lawyer's oath, and signed the Roll
of Attorneys.
4. Legal Officer-Investigator, Ricardo
Paras, Jr., investigated and reported:
1. September 1961, Dulcisimo Tapel
dropped the complaint on the ground
that his witnesses had turned hostile.
i. Motion denied, his
witnesses had already testified.
2. Recommended PUBLICO’s name to
be stricken off the roll of attorneys.
i. Respondent falsified his
school records
ii. Thereby violating the
provisions of Sections 5 and 6, Rule
127 of the Rules of Court, which
require completion by a bar examinee
or candidate of the prescribed courses
in elementary, high, pre-law and law
school, prior to his admission to the
practice of law.
5. 11 years later, PUBLICO filed a
Petition for Reinstatement alleging that
he had never received, for had he
been informed, nor did he have any
knowledge of the Resolution of the
Court ordering the Bar Division to
strike his name from the Roll of
Attorneys.
1. He was advised to inquire into the
outcome of the disbarment case
against him.
2. He resigned from all his positions in
public and private offices, and
transferred to Manila.
3. Prayed that Court allow reinstatement
taking into consideration his exemplary
conduct from the time he became a
lawyer, his services to the community
the numerous awards, resolutions
and/'or commendations he received,
i. Court denied the Petition.
ii. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration was denied by the
Court for lack of merit.
4. 5th plea avers that his enrollment in
Third Year High School in Manila was
through the initiative of his uncle,
Dulcisimo B. Tapel who accompanied
him to school and enrolled him in a
grade level above his qualifications in
spite of his demonstrations
i. Misrepresentation
committed was precipitated by his
uncle; that being merely 16 year old,
he could not be expected to act with
discernment as he was still under the
influence of his uncle, who later on
caused his disbarment
ii. No opposition has been
filed to any of the petitions.
ISSUE:
May a non-lawyer recover attorney's
fees for legal services rendered?
The award of 10% to Quintin Muning
who is not a lawyer according to the
order, is sought to be voided in the
present petition.
 WON a union may appeal an award of
attorney's fees which are deductible
from the backpay of some of its
members. YES.
It was PAFLU that moved for an
extension of time to file the present
petition for review; union members
Entila and Tenazas did not ask for
extension but they were included as
petitioners in the present petition. Their
inclusion in the petition as co-
petitioners was belated.
HELD:
ORDERS UNDER REVIEW ARE SET
ASIDE AS THEY ARE AWARDED
10% OF BACKWAGES AS
ATTORNEY’S FEES FOR MUNING.
COSTS AGAINST MUNING.
1. Lawyer-client relationship is only
possible if one is a lawyer. Since
respondent Muning is not one, he
cannot establish an attorney-client
relationship with Enrique Entila and
Victorino Tenezas or with PAFLU, and
he cannot, therefore, recover
attorney's fees.
2. Public policy demands that legal work
in representation of parties litigant
should be entrusted only to those
possessing tested qualifications, for
the ethics of the profession and for the
protection of courts, clients and the
public.
3. The reasons are that the ethics of the
legal profession should not be violated:
1. Acting as an attorney with authority
constitutes contempt of court, which is
punishable by fine or imprisonment or
both,
2. Law will not assist a person to reap the
fruits or benefit of an act or an act
done in violation of law
3. If were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it
would leave the public in hopeless
confusion as to whom to consult in
case of necessity and also leave the
bar in a chaotic condition, aside from
the fact that non-lawyers are not
amenable to disciplinary measures.
4. In response to UNION may appeal an
award of attorney's fees which are
deductible from the backpay of some
of its members:
1. YES because such union or labor
organization is permitted to institute an
action in the industrial court on behalf
of its members
2. If an award is disadvantageous to its
members, the union may prosecute an
appeal as an aggrieved party, under
Sec 6, RA 875:
i. Sec. 6. Unfair Labor
Practice cases — Appeals. — Any
person aggrieved by any order of the
Court may appeal to the Supreme
Court of the Philippines.
3. Usually, individual unionist is not in a
position to bear the financial burden of
litigations.
7)CATU V. RELLOSA
FACTS: Petitioner initiated
a complaint against Elizabeth Catu
and Antonio Pastor who were
occupying one of the units in a building
in Malate which was owned by the
former. The said complaint was filed in
the Lupong Tagapamayapa
of Barangay 723, Zone 79 of the
5th District of Manila where respondent
was the punong barangay. The
parties, having been summoned for
conciliation proceedings and failing to
arrive at an amicable settlement, were
issued by the respondent a
certification for the filing of the
appropriate action in court. Petitioner,
thus, filed a complaint for ejectment
against Elizabeth and Pastor in the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila
where respondent entered his
appearance as counsel for the
defendants. Because of this, petitioner
filed the
instant administrative complaint agains
t the respondent on the ground that he
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
as punong barangay, he performed his
task without bias and that he acceded
to Elizabeth’s request to handle the
case for free as she was financially
distressed. The complaint was then
referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) where after
evaluation, they found sufficient
ground to discipline respondent.
According to them, respondent
violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and, as an
elective official, the prohibition under
Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713.
Consequently, for the violation of the
latter prohibition, respondent
committed a breach of Canon 1.
Consequently, for the violation of the
latter prohibition, respondent was then
recommended suspension from the
practice of law for one month with a
stern warning that the commission of
the same or similar actwill be dealt
with more severely.
ISSUE: Whether or not the foregoing
findings regarding the transgression of
respondent as well as the
recommendation on the imposable
penalty of the respondent were proper.
HELD: No. First,
respondent cannot be found liable
for violation of Rule 6.03 the Code of
Professional Responsibility as
this applies only to a lawyer who has
left government service and in
connection to former government
lawyers
who are prohibited from accepting
employment in connection with any
matter in which [they] had intervened
while in their service. In the case at
bar, respondent was an incumbent
punong barangay. Apparently, he does
not fall within the purview of the said
provision.
Second, it is not Section 90 of RA
7160 but Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713
which governs the practice of
profession of elective local government
officials. While RA 6713
generally applies to all public officials
and employees, RA 7160, being a
special law, constitutes an exception to
RA 6713 .Moreover, while under
RA 7160,certain local elective officials
(like governors,
mayors, provincial board members a
nd councilors) are expressly subjected
to a total
or partial proscription to practice the
ir profession or engage in any
occupation, 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. Respondent,
therefore, is not forbidden to practice
his profession.
Third, notwithstanding all of these,
respondent still should have procured
a prior permission or authorization
from the head of his Department, as
required by civil service regulations.
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. In acting as counsel for
a party without first securing the
required written permission,
respondent not only engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law but also
violated a civil service rules which is a
breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:

 Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
For not living up to his oath as well as
for not complying with the exacting
ethical standards of the legal
profession, respondent failed to
comply with Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:
 CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT
ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
INTEGRITY AND THE DIGNITY
OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION
AND SUPPORT
THE ACTIVITIESOF THE
INTEGRATED BAR.
A lawyer who disobeys the law
disrespects it. In so doing, he
disregards legal ethics and disgraces
the dignity of the legal profession.
Every lawyer should act and comport
himself in a manner that promotes
public confidence in the integrity of the
legal profession. A member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from
his office as an attorney for violation of
the lawyer's oathand/or for breach of
the ethics of the legal profession as
embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty.
Vicente G. Rellosa is hereby
found GUILTY of professional
misconduct for violating his oath as a
lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. He is
therefore SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of six
months effective from his receipt of
this resolution. 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.
8)Zeta vs. Malinao, 87 SCRA 303 ,
December 20, 1978
Attorneys; Courts; A lower court
employee who has been appearing as
counsel in court cases and falsifying
his time record is dismissed from the
service the acts committed being
grave in nature.—The defense of
respondent that “his participation (sic)
for defendants’ cause was gratuitous
as they could not engage the services
of counsel by reason of poverty and
the absence of one in the locality”
cannot, even if true, carry the day for
him, considering that in appearing as
counsel in court, he did so without
permission from his superiors and,
worse, he falsified his time record of
service to conceal his absence from
his office on the dates in question.
Indeed, the number of times that
respondent acted as counsel under the
above circumstances would indicate
that he was doing it as a regular
practice obviously for considerations
other than pure love of justice.
Same; Same; Same.—In the
premises, it is quite obvious that the
offense committed by respondent is
grave, hence it warrants a more drastic
sanction than that of reprimand
recommended by Judge Zosa. We find
no alternative than to separate him
from the service, with the admonition
that he desist from appearing in any
court or investigative body wherein
only members of the bar are allowed to
practice. Wherefore, respondent
Felicisimo Malinao is hereby ordered
dismissed from his position as
interpreter in the Court of First
Instance, CFI, Zumarraga, Western
Samar, with prejudice to
reemployment in the judicial branch of
the government.
9)IN RE: ARGOSINO
FACTS: This is a matter for admission
to the bar and oath taking of a
successful bar applicant. Petitioner Al
Caparros Argosino was previously
involved with hazing which caused the
death of Raul Camaligan a neophyte
during fraternity initiation rites but he
was convicted for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. He
was sentenced with 2 years and 4
months of imprisonment where he
applied a probation thereafter which
was approved and granted by the
court. He took the bar exam and
passed but was not allowed to take the
oath. He filed for a petition
to allow him to take the lawyer’s oath
of office and to admit him to the
practice of law averring that his
probation was already terminated. The
court note that he spent only 10
months of the probation period before
it was terminated.
ISSUE: Whether or not Al Argosino
may take the lawyer’s oath office and
admit him to the practice of law.
HELD: The practice of law is a
privilege granted only to those who
possess the STRICT, INTELLECTUAL
and MORAL QUALIFICATIONS
required of lawyers who are
instruments in the effective
and efficient administration of justice.
The court upheld the principle of
maintaining the good moral character
of all Bar members, keeping in mind
that such is of greater importance so
far as the general public and the
proper administration of justice are
concerned. Hence he was asked by
the court to produce evidence that
would certify that he has reformed and
has become a responsible member of
the community through sworn
statements of individuals who have a
good reputation for truth and who have
actually known Mr. Argosino for a
significant period of time to certify that
he is morally fit to the admission of the
law profession. The petitioner is then
allowed to take the lawyer’s oath, sign
the Roll of Attorney’s and thereafter to
practice the legal profession.
10)Patrick
A. Caronan Complainant vs.
Richard A. Caronan Respondent
Facts:
Patrick A. Caronan, complainant and
Richard A. Caronan,respondent
are siblings. Richard is older
than Patrick Caronan. Patrick
Caronangraduated from University of
Makati with a degree in Business
Administration.
He worked as a Sales Associate for Ph
ilippine Seven Corporation (PSC) until
he waspromoted as a Store Manager
of the 7-11 Store in Muntinlupa. On the
other hand,Richard Caronan studied at
the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng
Maynila (PLM), wherehe stayed for
one 1 year before transferring to the
Philippine Military Academy(PMA) in
1992. In 1993, he was discharged from
the PMA and focused on helpingtheir
father in the family's car rental
business.In 1997, he moved to Nueva
Vizcaya with his wife and three
children andnever went back to school
to earn a college degree. In 1999, he
told Patrick that heenrolled in a
law school in Nueva Vizcaya. In 2004,
their mother informed Patrickthat
Richard passed the Bar Examinations
and that he used his name and
collegerecords from the University of
Makati to enrolled at St. Mary's
University's Collegeof Law. Patrick
ignored what his brother did.In May
2009, Patrick was informed that the
National Bureau of Investigation(NBI)
was requesting his presence for an
investigation against "Atty. Patrick
A.Caronan for qualified theft
and estafa. He learned also that his
brother was arrestedfor gun-running
activities, illegal possession of
explosives, and violation of
BatasPambansa Bilang (BP) 22. He
developed a fear for his own safety
and securitybecause he became the
subject of talk in his office, which he
was forced to resignfrom his job.
Hence, he filed a complaint against his
brother to stop use of his nameand
identity, and illegal practice of law. In
his Answer, Richard denied all
theallegations against him and invoked
res judicata as a defense. He
maintained that hisidentity can no
longer be raised as an issue as it had
already been resolved in anearlier
administrative case declared closed
and terminated in A.C. No. 10074The
Investigating Commissioner issued his
report and recommendationfinding
respondent guilty of illegally and
falsely assuming complainant's
name,identity, and academic records.
He recommended that the name
"Patrick A.Caronan" be stricken off the
Roll of Attorneys and the name
"Richard A. Caronan"be barred from
being admitted as a member of the Bar
for making a mockery of
the judicial institution. On June 30, 201
5, the IBP Board of Governors issuedR
esolution No. adopting the
Investigating Commissioner's
recommendation.
Issues:
Whether or not the IBP erred
in ordering that: (a) the name "Patrick
A.Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys; and (b) the name "Richard
A.Caronan" be barred from being
admitted to the Bar.
Held:
No. The Court finds no cogent
reason to disturb the
findings andrecommendations of the
IBP. Since complainant -the real
"Patrick A. Caronan" -never took the
Bar Examinations, the IBP correctly
recommended that the name"Patrick
A. Caronan" be stricken off the Roll of
Attorneys. Under Section 6, Rule138
of the Rules of Court, no applicant for
admission to the Bar Examination
shallbe admitted unless he had
pursued and satisfactorily completed a
pre-law course.Clearly, respondent
has not completed the requisite pre-
law degree. Respondentalso exhibited
his dishonesty and utter lack of moral
fitness to be a member of theBar when
he assumed the name, identity, and
school records of his own brotherand
dragged the latter into controversies
which eventually caused him to fear for
hissafety and to resign from PSC to respondent under the name "Atty.
where he had been working for years. Patrick A. Caronan" and theMandatory
Continuing Legal Education
“ Certificates issued in such name
Good moralcharacter is essential in areCANCELLED and/or REVOKED;
those who would be lawyers. This is and the Office of the Court
imperative in the natureof the office of Administrator isordered to
a lawyer, the trust relation which exists CIRCULATE notices and POST his
between him and his client, as well as real name, " Richard A. Caronan," with
between him and the court a warning that he is not a member of
the Philippine Bar and a statement
,” the court said. of hisfalse assumption of the name
and identity of "Patrick A. Caronan.
Finally, Respondent made also a
mockery of the legal profession [ B.M. NO. 2112, JULY 24, 2012 ]
bypretending to have the necessary
qualifications to be a lawyer. He also 11)IN RE: PETITION TO RE-
tarnished theimage of lawyers with his ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO
alleged unscrupulous activities, which PRACTICE LAW IN THE
resulted in the filingof several criminal PHILIPPINES, EPIFANJO B.
cases against him. Certainly, MUNESES, PETITIONER.
respondent and his acts do not havea
place in the legal profession where
one of the primary duties of its RESOLUTION
members is touphold its integrity and
dignity. WHEREFORE, respondent Ric
hard A. Caronan a.k.a. "Atty. Patrick A. The Facts
Caronan" is found GUILTY of falsely
assuming the name, identity, and
academicrecords of complainant
Epifanio B. Muneses, a Filipino and
Patrick A. Caronan to obtain a law
member of the Philippine Bar but lost
degree and take the BarExaminations.
the privilege because he became a
The Court hereby resolves: the name
citizen of the United States of America
"Patrick A. Caronan" with Rollof
on August 28, 1981. On September
Attorneys No. 49069 is ordered
15, 2006 reacquired his Philippine
DROPPED and STRICKEN OFF the
citizenship pursuant to the "Citizenship
Roll
Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of
of Attorneys; PROHIBITED from enga
2003" (R.A. No. 9225). He intends to
ging in the practice of law or making a
retire in the Philippines & return to the
nyrepresentations as a lawyer;
practice of law after compliance with
BARRED from being admitted as a
the requirements of the Office of the
member of thePhilippine Bar in the
Bar Confidant, hence this petition.
future; the Identification Cards issued
by the Integrated Bar ofthe Philippines
Issue 8. Certificate of compliance
issued by the MCLE Office.

If petitioner, after reacquiring

Philippine citizenship, can practice law The practice of law is a privilege
in the Philippines. burdened with conditions. It is so
delicately affected with public interest
that it is both the power and duty of the
Decision State (through this Court) to control
and regulate it in order to protect and
promote the public welfare.

The court - In Bar Matter No. 1678,

dated December 17, 2007, allowed
Benjamin M. Dacanay (a Filipino Wherefore, the petition of Atty.
citizen and a barrister who migrated to Epifanio B. Muneses is hereby
Canada) to return to the practice of law granted.
after complying with R.A. No. 9225
and the requirements of the Office of
the Bar Confidant to wit: BRUNET VS GUAREN
July 22, 2015

1. Petition for Re-

THIRD DIVISION
Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;

2. Order (for Re-Acquisition [ A.C. No. 10164, March 10, 2014 ]

of Philippine Citizenship;
12)STEPHAN BRUNET AND
3. Oath of Allegiance to the
VIRGINIA ROMANILLOS BRUNET,
Republic of the Philippines;
COMPLAINANTS,
4. Identification Certificate
(IC) issued by the Bureau of VS.
Immigration;

5. Certificate of Good ATTY. RONALD L. GUAREN,

Standing issued by the IBP; RESPONDENT.

6. Certification from the IBP on

updated payments of annual
membership dues; Facts: Complainants alleged that they
7. Proof of payment of engaged the services of Atty. Guaren for
professional tax; and the titling of a residential lot they acquired
in Bonbon, Nueva Caseres; that Atty.
Guaren asked for a fee of Ten Thousand Issue: Whether or not resondent
Pesos (P10,000.00) including expenses violated the code of professional
relative to its proceeding; that it was responsibility
agreed that full payment of the fee shall
be made after the delivery of the title; that Ruling: The practice of law is not a

Atty. Guaren asked for an advance fee of business. It is a profession in which

One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) which duty to public service, not money, is

they gave; that Atty. Guaren took all the the primary consideration. Lawyering

pertinent documents relative to the titling is not primarily meant to be a money-

of their lot-certified true copy of the tax making venture, and law advocacy is

declaration, original copy of the deed of not a capital that necessarily yields

exchange, sketch plan, deed of donation, profits. The gaining of a livelihood

survey plan, and original copy of the should be a secondary consideration.

waiver; that on March 10, 1997, Atty. The duty to public service and to the

Guaren asked for additional payment of administration of justice should be the

Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00) which primary consideration of lawyers, who

they dutifully gave; that from 1997 to must subordinate their personal

2001, they always reminded Atty. Guaren interests or what they owe to

about the case and each time he would themselves.

say that the titling was in progress; that

they became bothered by the slow Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of
progress of the case so they demanded Professional Responsibility provides
the return of the money they paid; and that that:
respondent agreed to return the same
provided that the amount of Five CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to
Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) be deducted the cause of his client and he shall be
to answer for his professional fees. mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him.
Complainants further alleged that
despite the existence of an attorney- CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his
client relationship between them, Atty. client with competence and diligence.
Guaren made a special appearance
In the present case, Atty. Guaren
against them in a case pending before
admitted that he accepted the amount
the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court,
of P7,000.00 as partial payment of his
Oslob, Cebu (MCTC).
acceptance fee. He, however, failed to
perform his obligation to file the case
for the titling of complainants’ lot
despite the lapse of 5 years. Atty.
Guaren breached his duty to serve his
client with competence and diligence
when he neglected a legal matter
entrusted to him.
13)LINGAN VS. CALUBAQUIB
June 30, 2014A.C. No. 5377
FACTS: Attys. Calubaquib and Baliga
was suspended from the practice of
law for one year for being found guilty
of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibilty
and of the Lawyer’s Oath because
they allowed their secretaries to
notarize documents in their stead, in
violation of Sections 245 and 246 of
the Notarial Law. Complainant Lingan
alleged that Atty. Baliga, despite the
suspension, continued to practice law
and discharge his functions as a
Regional Director.When the
suspension order lapsed, it was
recommended that both attorneys file
their respective motions to lift the order
of suspension. The court lifted Atty.
Calubaquib’s but not Atty. Baliga’s.
The latter was referred to the Office of
the Bar Confidant (OBC) for
evaluation, report, and
recommendation. The OBC
recommended that Atty. Baliga should
not have been allowed to perform his
functions, duties, and responsibilities
to the CHR which required acts
constituting practice of law.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Baliga’s
motion to lift order of suspension
should be granted.
HELD: Practice of law is any activity,
in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience.
Work in government that requires the
use of legal knowledge is considered
practice of law.It was clarified that the
position of Regional Director
necessarily required the practice of law
in addition to its qualifications being a
member of the bar in good standing
and authorized to practice law. Hence,
when Atty. Baliga was suspended, he
lost the authority to hold the position of
regional director.The court finds that
Atty. Baliga violated this court’s order
of suspension, therefore, suspending
him further from the practice of law for
six months.QUERY OF ATTY. KAREN
M. SIVERIO-BUFFE, FORMER
CLERK OF COURT – BR. 81,
ROMBLON, ROMBLON – ON THE
PROHIBITION FROM ENGAGING IN
THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW.
14)AGUIRRE V. RANA
Facts:
Rana was among those who passed
the 2000 Bar Examinations. before the
scheduled 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 Attorneys up to now.
 Complainant alleges that respondent,
while not yet a lawyer, appeared as
counsel for a candidate in an election.
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
administrative body.
On the charge of grave misconduct
and misrepresentation, complainant
accuses respondent of acting as
counsel for vice mayoralty candidate
George Bunan without the latter
engaging respondent’s 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, training
and experience. To engage in the
practice of law is to perform acts which
are usually performed by members of
the legal profession. Generally, to
practice law is to render any kind of
service which requires the use of legal
knowledge or skill.
The right to practice 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 simply by passing
the bar examinations. The practice of
law is a privilege that can be withheld
even from one who has passed the bar
examinations, if the person seeking
admission had practiced law without a
license.
True, respondent here passed the
2000 Bar Examinations and took the
lawyer’s oath. However, it is the
signing in the Roll of Attorneys that
finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer.
The fact that respondent passed the
bar examinations is immaterial.
Passing the bar is not the only
qualification to become an attorney-at-
law. Respondent should know that two
essential requisites for becoming a
lawyer still had to be performed,
namely: his lawyer’s oath to be
administered by this Court and his
signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
15)IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE
ROLL OF ATTORNEYS MICHAEL A.
MEDADO, PETITIONER.
B.M. No. 2540
September 24, 2013
TOPIC:
Admission to the Bar, Unauthorized
Practice of Law, Canon 9, Signing of
the Roll of Attorneys
FACTS:
Michael A. Medado passed the
Philippine bar exams in 1979. 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 failed to do so allegedly
because he had misplaced the Notice
to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. Several
years later, while rummaging through
his things, he found said Notice. He
then 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.
He thought that since he already took
the oath, the signing of the Roll of
Attorneys was not as important. The
matter of signing in the Roll of
Attorneys was subsequently forgotten.
In 2005, when Medado attended
MCLE seminars, he was required to
provide his roll number 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, in 2012,
Medado filed the instant Petition,
praying that he be allowed to sign in
the Roll of Attorneys. Medado justifies
this lapse by characterizing his acts as
“neither willful nor intentional but
based on a mistaken belief and an
honest error of judgment.
The Office of the Bar Confidant
recommended that the instant petition
be denied for petitioner’s gross
negligence, gross misconduct and
utter lack of merit, saying that
petitioner could offer no valid
justification for his negligence in
signing in the Roll of Attorneys.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner may be
allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
RULING:
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the
petition subject to the payment of a
fine and the imposition of a penalty
equivalent to suspension from the
practice of law.
Not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll
of Attorneys would be akin to imposing
upon him the ultimate penalty of
disbarment, a penalty reserved for the
most serious ethical transgressions. In
this case, said action is not warranted.
The Court considered Medado’s
demonstration of good faith in filing the
petition himself, albeit after the
passage of more than 30 years; that
he has shown that he possesses the
character required to be a member of
the Philippine Bar; and that he appears
to have been a competent and able
legal practitioner, having held various
positions at different firms and
companies.
However, Medado is not free from all
liability for his years of inaction.
A mistake of law cannot be utilized as
a lawful justification, because
everyone is presumed to know the law
and its consequences.
Medado may have at first operated
under an honest mistake of fact when
he thought that what he had signed at
the PICC entrance before the oath-
taking was already the Roll of
Attorneys. However, the moment he
realized that what he had signed was
just an attendance record, he could no
longer claim an honest mistake of fact
as a valid justification. At that point, he
should have known that he was not a
full-fledged member of the Philippine
Bar, as it was the act of signing therein
that would have made him so. When,
in spite of this knowledge, he chose to
continue practicing law, he willfully
engaged in the unauthorized practice
of law.
Knowingly engaging in unauthorized
practice of law likewise transgresses
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. At the heart of Canon 9
is the lawyer’s duty to prevent the
unauthorized practice of law. This duty
likewise applies to law students and
Bar candidates. As aspiring members
of the Bar, they are bound to conduct
themselves in accordance with the
ethical standards of the legal
profession.

Medado cannot be suspended as he is

not yet a full-fledged lawyer. However,
the Court imposed upon him a penalty
akin to suspension by allowing him to
sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1)
year after receipt of the Resolution. He
was also made to pay a fine of
P32,000. Also, during the one-year
period, petitioner was not allowed to
engage in the practice of law.