Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Subsequently, in a Minute Resolution dated July 15, (1) Civil Case No. V-1564, entitled Oscar Madrigal
2008, we resolved to refer this case to the Office of the Chief Moreno, Jr. et al. versus Leonardo M. Macalam, et al. on February
Attorney (OCAT) for evaluation, report and 19, 2008, March 4, 2008, April 10, 2008 and July 9, 2008 as
recommendation.[3] The OCAT took the view that: counsel for the plaintiffs;
The premise of the query is erroneous. She interprets (2) Civil Case No. V-1620, entitled Melchor M. Manal
Section 7 (b) (2) as a blanket authority for an incumbent clerk of versus Zosimo Malasa, et al., on (sic) February, 2008, as counsel
court to practice law. Clearly, there is a misreading of that for the plaintiff;
provision of law.[4]
and further observed: (3) Civil Case No. V-1396, entitled Solomon Y. Mayor
The confusion apparently lies in the use of the term versus Jose J. Mayor, on February 21, 2008, as counsel for the
such practice after the phrase provided that. It may indeed be plaintiff; and
misinterpreted as modifying the phrase engage in the private
practice of their profession should be prefatory sentence that (4) Civil Case No. V-1639, entitled Philippine National
public officials during their incumbency shall not be disregarded. Bank versus Sps. Mariano and Olivia Silverio, on April 11,
However, read in its entirety, such practice may only refer to 2008 and July 9, 2008, as counsel for the defendants.
practice authorized by the Constitution or law or the exception to
the prohibition against the practice of profession. The term law Atty. Buffe herself was furnished a copy of
was intended by the legislature to include a memorandum or a our November 11, 2008 En Banc Resolution and she filed a
circular or an administrative order issued pursuant to the Manifestation (received by the Court on February 2, 2009)
authority of law. acknowledging receipt of our November 11, 2008 Resolution. She
likewise stated that her appearances are part of Branch 81
xxx records. As well, she informed the Court that she had previously
taken the following judicial remedies in regard to the above
The interpretation that Section 7 (b) query:
(2) generally prohibits incumbent public officials and employees
from engaging in the practice of law, which is declared therein a 1. SCA No. 089119028 (Annex C), filed with
prohibited and unlawful act, accords with the constitutional policy Branch 54 of the RTC Manila, which had been dismissed without
on accountability of public officers stated in Article XI of the prejudice on July 23, 2008 (Annex D) a recourse taken when
Constitution undersigned was still a private practitioner;
Atty. Buffes admitted appearance, before the very The Section 7 prohibitions continue to apply for a
same branch she served and immediately after her resignation, is period of one year after the public official or employees
a violation that we cannot close our eyes to and that she cannot resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except
run away from under the cover of the letter-query she filed and for the private practice of profession under subsection (b)(2),
her petition for declaratory relief, whose dismissal she manifested which can already be undertaken even within the one-year
she would pursue up to our level. We note that at the time she prohibition period. As an exception to this exception, the one-
filed her letter-query (on March 4, 2008), Atty. Buffe had already year prohibited period applies with respect to any matter before
appeared before Branch 81 in at least three (3) cases. The terms the office the public officer or employee used to work with.
of Section 7 (b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 did not deter her in any way
and her misgivings about the fairness of the law cannot excuse The Section 7 prohibitions are predicated on the
any resulting violation she committed. In other words, she took principle that public office is a public trust; and serve to remove
the risk of appearing before her own Branch and should suffer the any impropriety, real or imagined, which may occur in
consequences of the risk she took. government transactions between a former government official
or employee and his or her former colleagues, subordinates or
Nor can she hide behind the two declaratory relief superiors. The prohibitions also promote the observance and the
petitions she filed, both of which were dismissed, and her intent efficient use of every moment of the prescribed office hours to
to elevate the dismissal to this Court for resolution. The first, filed serve the public.[15]
before the RTC, Branch 54, Manila, was dismissed on July 23, 2008
because the court declined to exercise the power to declare rights Parenthetically, in the case of court employees, Section
as prayed for in the petition, as any decision that may be 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 is not the only prohibition to contend
rendered will be inutile and will not generally terminate the with; Section 5, Canon 3 of the Code of Conduct for Court
uncertainty or controversy.[12] The second, filed with the RTC, Personnel also applies. The latter provision provides the definitive
Branch 17, Manila, was dismissed for being an inappropriate rule on the outside employment that an incumbent court official
remedy after the dismissal ordered by the RTC, Branch 54, Manila, or court employee may undertake in addition to his official duties:
on December 4, 2008.[13] Under these circumstances, we see Outside employment may be allowed by the head of
nothing to deter us from ruling on Atty. Buffes actions, as no office provided it complies with all of the following requirements:
actual court case other than the present administrative case, is (a) The outside employment is not with a person or
now actually pending on the issue she raised. On the contrary, we entity that practices law before the courts or conducts business
see from Atty. Buffes recourse to this Court and the filing of the with the Judiciary;
two declaratory petitions the intent to shop for a favorable (b) The outside employment can be performed
answer to her query. We shall duly consider this circumstance in outside of normal working hours and is not incompatible with the
our action on the case. performance of the court personnels duties and responsibilities;
(c) That outside employment does not require the
A last matter to consider before we proceed to the practice of law; Provided, however, that court personnel may
merits of Atty. Buffes actions relates to possible objections on render services as professor, lecturer, or resource person in law
procedural due process grounds, as we have not made any formal schools, review or continuing education centers or similar
directive to Atty. Buffe to explain why she should not be penalized institutions;
for her appearance before Branch 81 soon after her resignation (d) The outside employment does not require or
from that Branch. The essence of due process is the grant of the induce the court personnel to disclose confidential information
opportunity to be heard; what it abhors is the lack of the acquired while performing officials duties;
opportunity to be heard.[14] The records of this case show that (e) The outside employment shall not be with the
Atty. Buffe has been amply heard with respect to her actions.She legislative or executive branch of government, unless specifically
was notified, and she even responded to our November 11, authorized by the Supreme Court.
2008 directive for the Executive Judge of the RTC of Romblon to
report on Atty. Buffes appearances before Branch 81; she Where a conflict of interest exists, may reasonably
expressly manifested that these appearances were part of the appear to exist, or where the outside employment reflects
Branch records. Her legal positions on these appearances have adversely on the integrity of the Judiciary, the court personnel
also been expressed before this Court; first, in her original letter- shall not accept outside employment. [Emphasis supplied]
query, and subsequently, in her Manifestation. Thus, no due
process consideration needs to deter us from considering the In both the above discussed aspect of R.A. No. 6713
legal consequences of her appearances in her previous Branch and the quoted Canon 3, the practice of law is covered; the
within a year from her resignation. practice of law is a practice of profession, while Canon 3
specifically mentions any outside employment requiring the
The Governing Law: Section 7 of R.A. No. 6713 practice of law. In Cayetano v. Monsod,[16] we defined the practice
of law as any activity, in and out of court, that requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience. Moreover, we ruled that to engage in the practice of find it disturbing that she first violated the law before making any
law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the inquiry. She also justifies her position by referring to the practice
profession; to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of of other government lawyers known to her who, after separation
service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of from their judicial employment, immediately engaged in the
legal knowledge or skill.[17] Under both provisions, a common private practice of law and appeared as private counsels before
objective is to avoid any conflict of interest on the part of the the RTC branches where they were previously employed. Again
employee who may wittingly or unwittingly use confidential we find this a cavalier attitude on Atty. Buffes part and, to our
information acquired from his employment, or use his or her mind, only emphasizes her own willful or intentional disregard of
familiarity with court personnel still with the previous office. Section 7 (b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713.
After separation from the service, Section 5, Canon 3
of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel ceases to apply as it By acting in a manner that R.A. No. 6713 brands
applies specifically to incumbents, but Section 7 and its subsection as unlawful, Atty. Buffe contravened Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the
(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713 continue to apply to the extent discussed Code of
above. Atty. Buffes situation falls under Section 7. Professional Responsibility, which provides:
SO ORDERED.
These cases clearly show that the absence of any
formal charge against and/or formal investigation of an errant ARTURO D. BRION
lawyer do not preclude the Court from immediately exercising its Associate Justice
disciplining authority, as long as the errant lawyer or judge has WE CONCUR:
been given the opportunity to be heard. As we stated earlier,
Atty. Buffe has been afforded the opportunity to be heard on the
present matter through her letter-query and Manifestation filed
before this Court. DIGEST:
A member of the bar may be penalized, even disbarred Query of Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, Former
or suspended from his office as an attorney, for violation of the Clerk of Court- Branch 81, Romblon, Romblon-
lawyers oath and/or for breach of the ethics of the legal On The Prohibition From Engaging In the
profession as embodied in the Code of Professional Private Practice of LawFACTS:
Atty. Buffe previously worked as Clerk of Court VI of the provision,the Court pointed out the limitation that only those authorized by the
RTC, Branch 81 of Romblon, sheresigned from her position Constitution orlaw and those that do not conflict or tend to conflict
effective February 1, 2008. Thereafter, she engaged in the with their official functions areallowed.
privatepractice of law by appearing as private counsel in
several cases before RTC Branch 81 of Romblonwithin 1 year Issue: Did Atty. Buffe, as a lawyer, violate the rules governing the practice of law by
after the effectivity of her resignation. means of her actions?
Is she guilty of professional misconduct?
RA6713, Code of Conduct and EthicalStandards for
Public Officials and Employees, Section Held: Yes, the Court found Atty. Buffe guilty of professional
7(b)(2)places a limitation on publicofficials and employees misconduct and wasfined. She was also sternly warned that
during their incumbency and those already separated from repetition of the violation shall be dealt withmore severely. As ruled by
government employment for a period of one (1) year after the Court, by acting in a manner that R.A. No. 6713brands as "unlawful," Atty.
separation, in engaging in the private practice of their Buffe contravened Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code ofProfessional
profession. Responsibility.
SECTION 7.Prohibited Acts and In addition, byfailing to live up to her lawyers oath, shealso violated
Transactions. Canon 7 of the same Code.
In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees The following are the violated rules, to wit:
now prescribed in theConstitution and existing laws, the following CANON 1: A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD
shall constitute prohibited actsand transactions of any public THECONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND
official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful: x x PROMOTERESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSESx x x
x (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. Rule 1.01A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct
Publicofficials and employees during their incumbency shall not: x
x x (2) CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE
Engage in the private practice of their profession unless INTEGRITYAND THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that
THEACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.Although there was the absence
such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict
with their official functions; of any formal charge against and/or formalinvestigation of an
or These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of errant lawyer, it did not preclude the Court from
one (1) yearafter resignation, retirement, or separation from immediatelyexercising its disciplining authority, as long as the
public office, except inthe case of subparagraph (b) (2) errant lawyer or judge has beengiven the opportunity to be heard.
above, but the professional concernedcannot practice his In this case, Atty. Buffe has been afforded theopportunity to be
profession in connection with any matter before theoffice he heard on the present matter through her letter-query
used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall andManifestation filed before this Court.
likewise apply.
540 SCRA 424 Civil Law Private International Law Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal
Nationality Theory Practice of Law is Reserved for profession in the Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino
Filipinos citizenship pursuant to its provisions (he) shall apply with
the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such
In 1998, Atty. Benjamin Dacanay went to Canada to seek
practice.
medical help. In order for him to take advantage of Canadas
free medical aid program he became a Canadian citizen in
2004. In 2006 however, he re-acquired his Philippine
citizenship pursuant to Republic Act 9225 of the Citizenship
Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. In the same year,
he returned to the Philippines and he now intends to resume
his practice of law. RESOLUTION REYES, J.: On June 8, 2009, a petition was filed by
Epifanio B. Muneses (petitioner) with the Office of the Bar
ISSUE: Whether or not Benjamin Dacanay may still resume Confidant (OBC) praying that he be granted the privilege to
his practice of law. practice law in the Philippines. On Leave per Special Order No.
HELD: Yes. As a rule, the practice of law and other 1257 dated July 19, 2012. On leave. I Resolution 2 B.M. No. 2112
professions in the Philippines are reserved and limited only The petitioner alleged that he became a member of the
to Filipino citizens. Philippine citizenship is a requirement for Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on March 21, 1966; that he
admission to the bar. So when Dacanay became a Canadian lost his privilege to practice law when he became a citizen of the
citizen in 2004, he ceased to have the privilege to practice United States of America (USA) on August 28, 1981; that on
law in the Philippines. However, under RA 9225, a Filipino September 15, 2006, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship
lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 or the Citizenship
never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003 by taking his oath of
his Filipino citizenship in accordance with RA 9225. allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate
Hence, when Dacanay reacquires his Filipino citizenship in General in Washington, D.C., USA; that he intends to retire in the
2006, his membership to the Philippine bar was deemed to Philippines and if granted, to resume the practice of law. Attached
have never been terminated.
to the petition were several documents in support of his petition,
albeit mere photocopies thereof, to wit: 1. Oath of Allegiance
dated September 15, 2006 before Consul General Domingo P.
Nolasco; 2. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship of
same date; 3. Order for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship
Issue: also of same date; 4. Letter dated March 13, 2008 evidencing
payment of membership dues with the IBP; 5. Attendance Forms
from the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE). In Bar
Whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his
membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his Matter No. 1678, dated December 17, 2007, the Court was
Philippine citizenship. 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. Dacanay was admitted to
the Philippine Bar in March 1960. In December 1998, he migrated
to Canada to seek medical attention for his ailments and
eventually became a Canadian citizen in May 2004. On July 14,
Ruling: 2006, Dacanay re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant to
R.A. No. 9225 after taking his oath of allegiance before the
Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. He returned to
The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions the Philippines and intended to resume his practice of law.
in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens save in
Resolution 3 B.M. No. 2112 The Court reiterates that Filipino
cases prescribed by law. Since Filipino citizenship is a
citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar and is, in
requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates
membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the fact, a continuing requirement for the practice of law. The loss
privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other words, the thereof means termination of the petitioners membership in the
loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege bar; ipso jure the privilege to engage in the practice of law. Under
to practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a R.A. No. 9225, natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine
privilege denied to foreigners. 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.1
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country
of naturalization as a citizen of another country but and later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under R.A. No.
subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is 9225, remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar. However, as
because all Philippine citizens who become citizens of stated in Dacanay, the right to resume the practice of law is not
another country shall be deemed not to have lost their automatic.2 R.A. No. 9225 provides that a person who intends to
Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA 9225].
practice his profession in the Philippines must apply with the
Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of
another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such
citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. practice.3 It can not be overstressed that: The practice of law is a
privilege burdened with conditions. It is so delicately affected with
public interest that it is both the power and duty of the State appropriate fees. Furthermore, the Office of the Bar Confidant is
(through this Court) to control and regulate it in order to protect directed to draft the necessary guidelines for the re-acquisition of
and promote the public welfare. Adherence to rigid standards of the privilege to resume the practice of law for the guidance of the
mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality, Bench and Bar. SO ORDERED. IENVENIDO L
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. Any breach
by a lawyer 1 Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - Any
provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural born
citizens of the Philippines by reason of their naturalization as
citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-
acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of
allegiance to the Republic: I ______, solemnly swear (or affirm)
that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of
the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated
by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines and I hereby
declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the
Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto;
and that I imposed this obligation upon myself voluntarily without
mental reservation or purpose of evasion. Natural-born citizens
of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become
citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship
upon taking the aforesaid oath. 2 Petition for Leave to Resume
Practice of Law, Benjamin Dacanay, Petitioner, B.M. No. 1678,
December 17, 2007. 3 R.A. No. 9225, Section 5. Resolution 4 B.M.
No. 2112 of any of these conditions makes him unworthy of the
trust and confidence which the courts and clients repose in him
for the continued exercise of his professional privilege.4 Thus, in
pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the Court for the
practice of law, the OBC required the herein petitioner to submit
the original or certified true copies of the following documents in
relation to his petition: 1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine
Citizenship; 2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; 4.
Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration;
5. Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP; 6.Certification
from the IBP indicating updated payments of annual membership
dues; 7.Proof of payment of professional tax; and 8.Certificate of
compliance issued by the MCLE Office. In compliance thereof, the
petitioner submitted the following: 1. Petition for Re-Acquisition
of Philippine Citizenship; 2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine
citizenship); 3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines; 4.Certificate of Re-Acquisition/Retention of Philippine
Citizenship issued by the Bureau of Immigration, in lieu of the IC;
5. Certification dated May 19, 2010 of the IBP-Surigao City
Chapter attesting to his good moral character as well as his
updated payment of annual membership dues; 6. Professional Tax
Receipt (PTR) for the year 2010; 4 Supra note 2. Resolution 5 B.M.
No. 2112 7.Certificate of Compliance with the MCLE for the 2nd
compliance period; and 8. Certification dated December 5, 2008
of Atty. Gloria Estenzo-Ramos, Coordinator, UC-MCLE Program,
University of Cebu, College of Law attesting to his compliance
with the MCLE. The OBC further required the petitioner to update
his compliance, particularly with the MCLE. After all the
requirements were satisfactorily complied with and finding that
the petitioner has met all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications for membership in the bar, the OBC
recommended that the petitioner be allowed to resume his
practice of law. Upon this favorable recommendation of the OBC,
the Court adopts the same and sees no bar to the petitioner's
resumption to the practice of law in the Philippines. WHEREFORE,
the petition of Attorney Epifanio B. Muneses is hereby GRANTED,
subject to the condition that he shall re-take the Lawyer's Oath on
a date to be set by the Court and subject to the payment of
On June 8, 2009, petitioner Epifanio B. Muneses with lawyer who re-acquired Philippine citizenship to practice law. The
the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) praying that he be granted Supreme Court En Banc has recently granted the petition of a
the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. lawyer to practice law in the Philippines once again after losing
Petitioner became a member of the IBP in 1966 but lost his the said privilege to practice law when he became a citizen of the
privilege to practice law when he became a American citizen in United States of America in 1981 and then re-acquiring his
1981. In 2006, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship pursuant Philippine citizenship in 2006 pursuant to RA 9225, the Citizenship
to RA 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003.The Court further
of 2003 by taking his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen directed the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) to draft the
before the Philippine Consulate in Washington, D.C. He intends to necessary guidelines for the re-acquisition of the privilege to
retire in the Philippines and if granted, to resume the practice of resume the practice of law for the guidance of the Bench and the
law. Bar. In a six-page resolution penned by Justice Bienvenido L.
Reyes, the Court unanimously held that upon favorable
The Court reiterates that Filipino citizenship is a requirement for recommendation from the OBC, Atty. Epifanio B. Muneses
admission to the bar and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for satisfactorily complied with all the requirements sought by the
the practice of law. The loss thereof means termination of the OBC and met all the qualifications and none of the
petitioners membership in the bar; ipso jure the privilege to disqualifications for membership in the Bar. In particular, he had
engage in the practice of law. Under R.A. No. 9225, natural-born submitted in compliance the following:1) Petition for Re-
citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;2) Order (for Re-Acquisition
their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are deemed to of Philippine Citizenship);3) Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of
have re-acquired their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath the Philippines;4) Certificate of Re-Acquisition/Retention of
of allegiance to the Republic. Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes Philippine Citizenship issued by the Bureau of Immigration, in lieu
a citizen of another country and later re-acquires his Philippine of the Identification Certicate;5) Certification dated May 19,
citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a member of the 2010 of the IBP-Surigao City Chapter attesting to his good moral
Philippine Bar. However, as stated in Dacanay, the right to character as well as his updated payment of annual membership
resume the practice of law is not automatic. R.A. No. 9225 dues;6) Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) for the year 2010;7)
provides that a person who intends to practice his profession in Certificate of Compliance with the MCLE for the 2nd compliance
the Philippines must apply with the proper authority for a license period; and8) Certification dated December 5, 2008 of Atty. Gloria
or permit to engage in such practice. Estenzo-Ramos, Coordinator, UC-MCLE Program, University of
Cebu, College of Law attesting to his compliance with the
Thus, in pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the Court for MCLE.The Court sees no bar to the petitioners resumption to
the practice of law, the OBC required, and incompliance thereof, the practice of law in the Philippines, the Court declared, subject
petitioner submitted the following: to the condition that Atty. Muneses re-take the Lawyers Oath
and pay the appropriate fee. The Court reiterated that ilipino
1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship; citizenship is a continuing requirement for the practice of law, loss
2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship); of which means the termination of ones membership in the Bar
3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; and the privilege to engage in the practice of law. Thus, a ilipino
4. Certificate of Re-Acquisition/Retention of Philippine Citizenship lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country but later re-
issued by the Bureau of Immigration, in lieu of the IC; acquires his Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 remains to be a
5. Certification dated May 19, 2010 of the IBP-Surigao City member of the Philippine Bar, it added. It also noted that the
Chapter attesting to his good moral character as well as his right to resume the practice of law, however, is not automatic and
updated payment of annual membership dues; Section 5 of RA 9225 states that a person who intends to practice
6. Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) for the year 2010; his profession in the Philippines must apply with the proper
7. Certificate of Compliance with the MCLE for the 2nd authority for the license or permit to engage in such practice.
compliance period; and
8. Certification dated December 5, 2008 of Atty. Gloria Estenzo-
Ramos, Coordinator, UC-MCLE Program, B.M. No. 1678PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME
University of Cebu, College of Law attesting to his compliance PRACTICE OF LAW,BENJAMIN M. DACANAYThis bar matter
with the MCLE. concerns the petition of petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay for leave
to resume the practice of law.
The OBC further required the petitioner to update his compliance,
particularly with the MCLE. After all the requirements were
satisfactorily complied with and finding that the petitioner has EN BANC
met all the qualifications, the OBC recommended that the G.R. Nos. L-10236-48 January 31, 1958
petitioner be allowed to resume his practice of law. THE PFOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
EUSTACIO DE LUNA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney Epifanio B. Muneses is Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and
hereby GRANTED, subject to the condition that he shall re-take Solicitor Felicisimo R. Rosete for appellant.
the Lawyer's Oath on a date to be set by the Court and subject to Luis F. Gabinete for appellee Eustacio de Luna.
the payment of appropriate fees. Pedro B. Ayuda for appellee Estella R. Gordo.
Alejandro P. Capitulo for appellees Angelo T. Lopez and
Alawadin I. Bandon.
DIGEST Fransisco de la Fuente for appellee Oreste Arellano y
Rodriguez.
BM No. 2112,In Re: Petition to Re-Acquire the Privilege Bienvenido Peralta for appellee Abraham C. Calaguas.
to Practice Law in the Philippines, Epifanio B. Muneses. SC allows Santos L. Parina, Generosa H. Hubilla, Maria Velez y
Estrellas, Jaime P. Marco, Roque J. Briones, Balbino P. This conclusion is untenable. The above-quoted
Fajardo and Emilio P. Jardinico, Jr. in their own behalf. provisions of the Rules of court is permissive in nature.
CONCEPCION, J.: It is merely declaratory of the inherent power of courts
This is an appeal, taken by the prosecution, from an to punish those guilty of contempt against the same. It
order, of the Court of First Instance of Manila, granting does not declare that jurisdiction of the court
a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant in each one concerned to so punish the guilty party is exclusive.
of the above entitled cases, for lack of jurisdiction and, Indeed, in promulgating said Rules of Court, this Court
also, upon the ground that the facts alleged in the could not have validly denied to other Courts, to which
amended informations, filed in said cases, do not the jurisdiction may have been vested by statute, the
constitute the crime of contempt of court with which right to exercise said authority, for the rule-making
said defendants (Eustacio de Luna, Jaime P. Marco, power of the Supreme Court, under Article VIII, section
Santos L. Parina, Estela R. Gordo, Angelo T. Lopez, 13, of the Constitution, is limited to the promulgation
Generosa H. Hubilla Oreste Arellano y Rodriguez, of "rules concerning pleadings, practice and procedure
Abraham C. Calaguas, Roque J. Briones, Alawadin T. in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law,"
Bandon, Balbino P. Fajardo, Maria Velez y Estrellas and and does not extend to the determination of the
Emilio P. Jardinico, Jr., are charged. It is alleged in said jurisdiction of the courts of justice in the Philippines. In
amended informations that, on or about the 22nd day fact, section 2 of said Article VIII of the Constitution
of December, 1954, in the City of Manila, Philippines, explicitly ordains that "Congress shall have the power
the person accused in each one Of these cases. to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of
. . . well knowing that he has not passed the bar the various courts," thereby implying, necessarily, that
examination and was not in any way authorized to take such power is withheld from the Supreme Court.
his oath as a lawyer and after haing been duly Needless to say, the aforesaid view, quoted from
informed and notified that certain portions of Republic Corpus Juris Secundum, is good law only "unless
Act No. 972, known as the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953, otherwise provided by stattute" (17 C.J.S., 81), and
are unconstitutional and therefore void and without such statute, providing "otherwise", exists in the
force and effect, and that all the petitions of the Philippines.
candidates including the accused who failed in the Moreover, the amended informantions specifically
examinations of 1946 to 1952, inclusive, for admission allege that the defendants herein did "perform acts
to the bar were refused and denied by the Resolution constituting improper conduct and manifestations that
of the Honorable, the Supreme Court, promulgated on the tend directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or
March 18, 1954, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully degrade the administration of justice in all courts of
and contemptously disobey and resist in an insolent the Philippines and impair the respect to and attack
and defiant manner the said Resolution of the the authority and dignity of the Honorable, the
Supreme Court directed to him and each and everyone Supreme Court and all other inferior courts." To put it
of the petitioners, and perform acts constituting differently the acts charged werecommitted, according
improper conduct and manifestations that tend to said amended informations, in contempt of the
directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade Supreme Court, as well as of "all other courts of the
the administration of justice in all courts of the Philippines," including the Court of First Instance of
Philippines and impair the respect to and attack the Manila. Thus, the very authorities cited in the order
authority and dignity of the Honorable, the Supreme appealed from do not justify the same.
Court and all other inferior courts by then and there, Again , section 236 of Act No. 190 and section 6 of Rule
without being lawfully authorized to do so, taking an 64 of the Rules of Court provide that a person guilty of
oath as a lawyer before a notary public and making any of the acts of contempt defined, respectively, in
manifestations to that effect before the Honorable, the section 232 of said Act and section 3 of said Rule 64,
Supreme Court. "may be fined not exceeding one thousand pesos, or
After quoting from Rule 64, section 4, of the Rules of imprisoned not more than six months." Pursuant to
Court, the pertinent part of which reads: section 44 of the Revised Judiciary Act of 1948
Where the contempt . . . has been committed against a (Republic Act No. 296), courts of first instance have
superior court or judge, or against an officer appointed original jurisdiction over criminal cases "in which the
by it, the charge may be filed with such superior court . penalty provided by law is imprisonment for more than
. . (Emphasis our.). six months, or a fine of more than two thousand
and from the Corpus Juris Secundum, the rule to the pesos." Inasmuch as a fine not exceeding P1,000 may
effect that . be imposed in the cases of contempt under
It is a well-established rule that the power to judge the consideration, it follows that the same are within the
contempt rest exclusively with the court contemned original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of
and that no court is authorized to punish a contempt Manila, although such jurisdiction is concurrent with
against another. Accordingly, disobedience of the that of the Supreme Court, in view of the inherent
order of a state court is not punishable as for contempt power of the latter to punish those guilty of contempt
by a court of another state or by a federal court. against the same.
the lower court concluded that the contemptuous act It may not be amiss to add that, in the event of such
allegedly committed by appellees herein "was concurrent jurisdiction over cases of contempt of
committed not against" said court "but against the court, it would be a good practice to acknowledge the
Supreme Court of the Philippines" and that, preferencial right of the court against which the act of
accordingly, the Court of First Instance of Manila "has contempt was committed to try and punish the guilty
no jurisdiction to try and punish" the appellees herein. party. However, insofar as appellees herein are
concerned, on February 3, 1955, this Court passed and C. The notary public Anatolio A. Alcoba, member of the
promulgated a resolution of the following tenor: Bar, who has illegally administered the oath to the said
The Court received from Pedro B. Ayuda a persons in disregard of this Court's resolution denying
communication of the following tenor: them admission to the Bar (except Capitulo, Gofredo
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and Sugarol), is hereby given ten days to show cause
SUPREME COURT why he should not be disbarred or suspended from the
MANILA pratice of law;
IN-RE ATTORNEYS WHO TOOK THE OATH BEFORE A D. The clerk of Court is directed to furnish copy of this
NOTARY PUBLIC UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC resolution to the Court of Appeals and to all courts of
ACT NO. 972. first instance, the Court of Industrial Relations, the
Public Service Commission, and the Department of
Oreste Arellano y Rodriguez. Justice;
Pedro B. Ayuda. E. As to Capitulo, Gofredo and Sugarol, proper action
Alawadin I. Bandon. will be taken later in their respective cases. (pp. 36-37,
Roque J. Briones. rec., G.R. No.L-10245.)
Abraham C. Calaguas. It is clear, from the foregoing resolution, that this
Balbino P. Fajardo. Court did not intend to exercise its concurrent
Claro C. Gofredo. jurisdiction over the acts of alleged contempt
Estela R. Gordo. committed by appellees herein and that we preferred
Generoso H. Hubilla. that the corresponding action be taken by the City
Emilio P. Jardinico, Jr. Fiscal of Manila in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
Angelo T. Lopez. In fine, the latter had no jurisdiction over the cases at
Eustacio de Luna. the bar.
Jaime P. Marco. The next question for determination is whetehr the
Santos L. Parina. acts charged in the amended informations constitute
Florencio P. Sugarol, and contempt of court. After quoting the allegation of said
Maria Velez y Estrellas. amended informations to the effect that the defendant
Attorneys. in each one of the instant cases.
xxx xxx xxx. . . . did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
MANIFESTATION contemptuously disobey and resist in an insolent snd
COMES NOW the undersigned for and in defiant manner the said Resolution of the Supreme
representation of the above-named attorneys and to Court directed to him, and each and everyone of the
this Honorable Court, hereby respectfully makes petitioners and perform acts constituting improper
manifestation that they have taken the oath of office conduct and manifestations that tend directly and
as Attorneys-at-Law on December 22, 1954 before Mr. indirectly to impede, obstruct or degrade the
Anatolio A. Alcova, a Notary Public in and for the City administration of justice. . .
of Manila, with office at R-201 Regina Building, Escolta, the lower court had the following to say:
Manila, in pursuance of the provisions of Republic Act From this allegation, there is no hint whatsoever that
No. 972; any command, order or notification from the judicial
There are attached to this manifestation seventeen court or any non-judicial person, committee or body
(17) copies of the oath of office as Annexes 'A', 'B', 'C', clothed by law with power to punish for contempt has
'D', 'E', 'F', 'G', 'H', 'I', 'K', 'L', 'M', 'N', 'O', 'P', and 'Q'. been disobeyed or violated by the herein accused.
Messrs, Alejandro P. Capitulo, Claro C. Godofredo, and Moreover, there is nothing shown in the resolution of
Florencio P. Sugarol of the group took the bar the Honorable Supreme Court of March 18, 1954
examination in August, 1954. They also had taken their directing the accused not to take their oath as lawyers.
oath before this Honorable Tribunal, January 20, 1955. The mere fact of taking an oath by any person as a
This manifestation is made for all legal effects as they lawyer does not make him automatically a lawyer
will practice law in all the Courts of the Philippines. without having completed the requirements
Manila, Philippines, January 28, 1955. prescribed by the Supreme Court for the admission to
the practice by law. It is necessary before his admission
(Sgd.) PEDRO B. AYUDA
to the Bar that he passes the required bar
examinations and is admitted by the Supreme Court to
In his own behalf and on behalf of the others in his practice as attorney. Our statutes punish as criminal
capacity as president of the 1946-1952 BAR contempt one 'assuming to be an attorney or an officer
EXAMINEES ASSOCIATION, 2034 Azcarraga, Manila. of a court and acting as such without authority.' (par.
It appearing that the persons mentioned, except F. Rule 64, Rules of Court.) The mere taking of oath of
Capitulo, Gefredo, and Sugarol, have not passed the lawyers by herein accused, in the humble opinion of
examinations, it was resolved: this Court, is not tantamount to practice law. However,
A. To refer the matter to the Fiscal, City of Manila for if this had taken one step further, as for example, after
investigation and appropriate action in connection taking their oaths, they have held out themselves as
with Section 3 (e), Rule 64; lawyers to the public, received cases for litigants,
B. As Pedro Ayuda has assumed to be an attorney appeared before any court of justice personally or by
without authority, he is given 10 days from notice filing pleadings therewith, would be considered that
thereof, within which to explain why he should not be they are really engaged in the practice of law. These
dealt with for contempt of the Court; accused have not committed any of these acts as
enunciated by our Supreme Tribunal in the case of
Bosque and Ney, 8 Phil., 146, nor have they disobeyed Spanish Law. Accused of contempt of court, both were
or defied any command, order or notification of this convicted as charged, although upon different
Court or of the Honorable Supreme Court. What they grounds. As regards the Spaniard, it was held that a
have done only was the taking of their oath as lawyers former order of this Court denying his admission to the
before a notary public who was not authorized by law practice of in the Philippines, on account of alienage,
to take their oath as lawyers, as the latter can only "was directly binding upon him;" that the
swear as such before the Supreme Court or any aforementioned circular "amounted to an assertation
member thereof. of his right and purpose" to engage in such practice of
Pursuant to the above stated reasons, this Court is of law; and that "consequently the conduct of the
the opinion and so holds that no criminal contempt has defendant Bosque amounts to disobedience of an order
been committed by the herein accused before this made in a proceeding to which he was a party." As
Court and neither before the highest Tribunal of this regards Ney, he was found guilty of "misbehaviour"
land. committed by "an officer of the court."
The aforementioned quotation from the amended Likewise, by their aforementioned acts, as set forth in
informations is, however, incomplete. It did not the amended informations, appellees herein expressed
include the allegation to the effect that the defendant clearly their intent to, and did, in fact, challenged and
in each one of the cases ar bar took his "oath as a defy the authority of this Court to pass upon and
lawyer before a notary public" and filed the settle, in a final and conclusive manner, the issue
manifestation transcribed in the resolutionabove whether or not they should be admitted to the bar, as
quoted, well as, embarrass, hinder and obstruct the
well knowing that he has not passed the bar administration of justice and impair the respect due to
examination and was not in any way authorized to take the courts of justice in general, and the Supreme
his oath as a lawyer and after having been duly Court, in particular. Thus, they performed acts
informed and notified that certain portions of Republic constituting an "improper conduct tending, directly or
Act No. 972, known as the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953, indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
are unconstitutional and therefore void and without administration of justice," in violation of section 3,
force and effect, and that all the petition of the subdivision (b) of said Rule 64.
candidates including the accused who failed in the . . . Acts which bring the court into disrepute or
examinations of 1946 to 1952, inclusive for admission disrespect or which offend its dignity, affront its
to the bar were refused and denied by the resolution majesty, or challenge its authority constitute contempt
of the Honorable Supreme Court, on March 18, 1954, . of court. . . . (12 Am. Jur.395.).
.. The lower court is, seemingly, under the impression
In other words, appellees knew that they did not pass that appellees could not be guilty of contempt of court
the bar examination. Although they, likewise, sought unless they actually engaged in the practice of law or
admission to the Bar under the provisions of Republic "held out to the public" as lawyers "by means of
Act No. 972, known as the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953, circulars." Such view is inaccurate, for assuming to be
they were subsequently notified of the resolution of an attorney . . . and acting as such without authority,"
this Court denying said petition. Inasmuch as the oath is, only one of the means by which contempt of court
as lawyer is a prerequisite to the practice of law and may be committed, under said Rule 64, section 3, of
may be taken only, before the Supreme Court, by the Rules of Court. At any rate, by taking "'the oath of
those authorized by the latter to engage in such office as attorney-at-law" and notifying the Supreme
practice, the resolution denying the aforementioned Court that they had done so and would "practice law in
petition of appellees herein, implied, necessarily, a all courts of the Philippines", the appellees had for all
denial of the right to said oath, as well as a prohibition intents and purposes, "held out to the public" as such
of or injunction against the taking thereof. When, this attorneys-at-law (U.S. vs. Ney and Mosque, supra).
notwithstanding, appellees took the oath before a Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby
notary public, and formally advised this Court, not only reversed, and let the records of these cases be
of such fact, but also, that "they will practice in all the remanded to the court of origin for further
courtr of the Philippines," they, accordingly, disobeyed proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. It is so
the order implied, in said resolution, thus violating ordered.
section 232 of Act No. 190, which declares in part: Bengzon, Paras, C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A.,
A person guilty of any of the following acts may be Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and
punished as for contempt: Felix, JJ., concur.
1. Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ,
process, order, judgment, or command of a court, or
injunction granted by a court or judge.
and section 3, subdivision (b), Rule 64, of the Rules of
Court, which is identical.
This case is, in principle, analogous to that of U.S. vs.
Ney and Bosque (8 Phil., 146), which involved two
lawyers, an American, C.W. Ney, and a Spaniard, Juan
Garcia Bosque, who sent out a circular, signed "Ney
and Bosque", stating that they had established an
office for the general practice of law in all courts of the
Islands and that Bosque would devote himself
especially to consultation and office work relating to