AGUIRRE vs.

RANA

B. M. No. 1036 June 10, 2003

FACTS: Respondent Edwin L. Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations.
Respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in the May 2001
elections before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers of Mandaon, Masbate and filed
with the MBEC a pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the
Canvassing of Votes in some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor. In this pleading, respondent
represented himself as "counsel for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan,"
and signed the pleading as counsel for George Bunan. Furthermore, respondent also signed as
counsel for Emily Estipona-Hao on 19 May 2001 in the petition filed before the MBEC praying
for the proclamation of Estipona-Hao as the winning candidate for mayor of Mandaon,
Masbate. On 21 May 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar
examinees as members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre filed against
respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. On 22 May 2001, respondent was
allowed to take the lawyer’s oath but was disallowed from signing the Roll of Attorneys until he
is cleared of the charges against him.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent shall be denied Admission to the Bar.

RULING: Respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the proceedings
before the MBEC and filed various pleadings, without license to do so. Evidence clearly supports
the charge of unauthorized practice of law. Respondent called himself "counsel" knowing fully
well that he was not a member of the Bar. Having held himself out as "counsel" knowing that he
had no authority to practice law, respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the
Philippine Bar.

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. 
 In re: Elmo S. Abad

B.M. No. 139. March 28, 1983.

Abad-Santos, J.

FACTS:

Charged by Atty. Procopio S> Beltran, Jr., president of the Philippine Trial Lawyers Association,
Inc., of practicing law without having been previously admitted to the Philippine Bar, Mr. Elmo
S. Abad could not deny and had to admit the practice.

ISSUE:

WON respondent constituted contempt of court.

RULING:

Yes. 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 the Supreme Court and his signature
in the Roll of Attorneys (Rule 138, Secs. 17 and 19, Rules of Court).