II.

THE LEGAL PROFESSION

A. CONCEPT OF PRACTICE OF LAW

In *Cayetano vs. Monsod the Court had the occasion to extensively

discuss what is considered as the “practice of law.”

Case 1: Cayetano vs. Monsod (G.R. No. 100113, 03 September 1991)

Facts: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President

Corazon C. Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a
letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments
on April 25, 1991. Petitioner 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.

On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed

the nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC. On June 18,
1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he assumed office
as Chairman of the COMELEC.

Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission

on Appointments of Monsod's nomination, petitioner as a citizen and
taxpayer, filed the instant 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.

Issue: Whether the appointment of Chairman Monsod of Comelec

violates Section 1 (1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution?

Ruling: The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1), Article IX-C,

that there shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman
and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the
Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five
years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been
candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding
elections. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall
be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years.

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 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.

At this point, it might be helpful to define private practice. The

term, as commonly understood, means "an individual or organization
engaged in the business of delivering legal services." (Ibid.). Lawyers
who practice alone are often called "sole practitioners." Groups of
lawyers are called "firms." The firm is usually a partnership and
members of the firm are the partners. Some firms may be organized
as professional corporations and the members called shareholders. In
either case, the members of the firm are the experienced attorneys. In
most firms, there are younger or more inexperienced salaried
attorneys called "associates."

In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated:

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in
court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers
incident to actions and special proceeding, the management of such
actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts,
and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all
action taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation
services, assessment and condemnation services, contemplating an
appearance before judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage,
enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency
proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in
matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law
practice. Practice of law means any activity, in or out court,
which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience.

The contention that Atty. Monsod does not possess the required
qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years is incorrect since Atty. Monsod’s past work experience as a
lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of
industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of
both rich and the poor – verily more than satisfy the constitutional
requirement for the position of COMELEC chairman, The respondent
has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years does In
the view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.

In summary, the following acts constitute practice of law:

a. Giving of advise or rendering any kind of service that involves

legal knowledge;
b. Appearance in court and conduct of cases in court;
c. Preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions as
well as drawing of deeds and instruments of conveyance;
d. Notarial acts

QUESTION 1: Can a lawyer who is a detention prisoner be allowed

to practice law?

ANSWER: No. All prisoners whether under preventive detention or

serving final sentence cannot practice their profession nor engage
in any business or occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive,
while in detention. This is a necessary consequence of arrest and
detention. *Read People vs. Maceda, G.R. Nos. 89591-96, 24
January 2000).
ESSENTIAL CRITERIA TO DETERMINE PRACTICE OF LAW

How can you determine if a lawyer is engaged in the practice of

law? There are 4 essential criteria to determine if a lawyer is
engaged in the practice of law:

a. Compensation – implies that one must have presented

himself to be in active practice and that his professional
services are available to the public for compensation, as a
source of livelihood or in consideration of his services;

b. Application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure which

calls for legal knowledge, training and experience;

c. Habituality – implies customary or habitually holding oneself

out to the public as a lawyer. Practice of law is more than an
isolated appearance for it consists in frequent or customary
action;

d. Attorney-Client relationship – engaging in the practice of law

presupposes the existence of a lawyer-client relationship.
Practice of law includes work as a litigator, in-house counsel,
giving of legal advise, teaching of law, and even foreign
assignment which requires the knowledge and application of
the laws.

QUESTION 2: Sio Pao, a paralegal in a law firm, help Sio Mai in a

property dispute in which she was involved by giving her legal advise
and preparing a complaint that she eventually filed in court under her
own signature. When the lawyer for the defendant learned of it, he
told Sio Pao to desist from practicing law. But Sio Pao disputed this,
claiming that he has not practiced law since he did not receive
compensation from Sio Mai for his help. Is Sio Pao correct?

Answer: No. The receipt of compensation is not the sole determinant

of legal practice. Giving of advise or rendering any kind of service that
involves knowledge is also considered as practice of law. As such, Sio
Pao should desist from giving legal advise since the same is considered
a practice of law which he is not qualified.

QUESTION 3: Minnie Mouse works as a court stenographer at the

Regional Trial Court of Disneyland City. One day, Minnie Mouse offered
to extrajudicially settle the estate of the mother of her friend, Daisy
Duck. Minnie Mouse was paid for her services. Daisy Duck later on
learned that Minnie Mouse had no authority to settle her deceased
mother’s estate as she was not even a lawyer but an ordinary court
employee. Consequently, Daisy Duck filed an administrative case
against Minnie Mouse. Does the preparation of an extrajudicial
settlement of estate constitute practice of law?
Answer: Yes. The preparation of an extrajudicial settlement of the
estate constitutes “practice of law” as defined in Cayetano vs. Monsod.
Not being a lawyer, Minnie Mouse had no authority to prepare and
finalize an extrajudicial settlement of estate. Worse, she received
money from Daisy Duck for her services. In preparing and finalizing
the extrajudicial settlement of estate and receiving compensation for
the same even when she is not a lawyer, Minnie Mouse is guilty of
simple misconduct.
*Read Arienda vs. Montilla, Court Stenographer, RTC, A.M. No. P-11-
2980, 10 June 2013

QUESTION 4: Atty. Pocoyo, a clerk of court, appeared as counsel for

and in behalf of his cousin in a criminal case for falsification of public
documents before the Municipal Trial Court of Usa-ka City. The
appearance of Atty. Pocoyo in said case is without the previous
permission of the Court. Did Atty. Pocoyo violate the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees by engaging
in private practice?

Answer: Yes. Private practice of a profession, which is prohibited, does

not pertain to an isolated court appearance; rather, it contemplates a
succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding
one’s self to the public as a lawyer. Even if he filed leave applications
corresponding to the date of his appearance in court, he failed to
obtain a prior permission from the head of the Department.
*Read OCA vs. Atty. Ladaga, A.M. No. P-99-1287, 26 January 2001

NATURE OF PRACTICE OF LAW

The practice of law is not a natural, property or constitutional

right but a mere privilege. It is not a right granted to anyone who
demands it but a privilege to extended or withheld in the exercise of
sound judicial discretion. It is a privilege accorded only to those who
measure up to certain rigid standards of moral and mental fitness.

QUALIFICATIONS TO PRACTICE LAW

The Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules

concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, admission to the
practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. (Sec. 5(5), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
 Can Congress regulate the practice of law? The 1987
Constitution no longer provides for the power of the legislature to
repeal, alter and supplement the Rules promulgated by the Supreme
Court regulating the practice of law.

Who may practice law?

Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or

hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of the
rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice
law. (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court)

Requirements for admission to the Bar:

Under Sections 2,5 and 6 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of

Court, the applicant must be (C21-GRENAPOS);

1. Citizen of the Philippines;

2. At least 21 years of age;
3. Of Good moral character;
4. A Resident of the Philippines;
5. Must produce before the SC satisfactory Evidence of good
moral character;
6. No charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been
filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines
7. Must have complied with the Academic requirements
8. Must Pass the bar examinations;
9. Take the Lawyer’s Oath; and
10. Sign the Roll of Attorney’s.

You’re probably thinking now, Sus, sisiw man ma’am ang

requirements. 10 steps lang. Kaya! Oo naman, kayang-kaya!

Now, let’s discuss the requirements individually. We will only

discuss the important ones and read pertinent cases.

1. Citizenship is a continuing requirement. But first, who are

considered as Filipino citizens? Under the 1987 Constitution,

Article IV, Section 1. The following are citizens of the

Philippines:

[a] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time

of the adoption of this Constitution;

[b] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the

Philippines;
 [c] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching
the age of majority; and

[d] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

QUESTION 5: Do you have to be a natural-born citizen to be admitted

to the BAR?

ANSWER: No. It only requires that one must be a citizen of the

Philippines.

QUESTION 6: Can a Filipino citizen who graduated from a foreign law

school be admitted to the Philippine BAR?

ANSWER: Yes. A Filipino who graduated from a foreign law school may
be admitted to the Philippine BAR upon submission to the Supreme
Court the following:

a. Certificate of Completion of all courses leading to the degree

of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent there;

b. Certificate of Recognition or accreditation of the law school by

the proper authority;

c. Certificate of completion of all fourth year law subjects in the

Bachelor of Laws academic program in a law school duly
recognized by the Philippine Government; and

d. Present proof of completing a separate bachelor’s degree

*Read Bar Matter No. 1153, Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza
Proposing Reforms in the Bar Examinations through Amendments to
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, 09 March 2010

QUESTION 7: Ching was born in April 1964 to a Filipina mother and a

Chinese father. Because of questions concerning his Filipino
citizenship, he was only conditionally allowed to take the bar
examinations. Upon passing the bar, he was required to present
further proof of citizenship and was not allowed to take the Oath. Is
Ching qualified to be a lawyer in the Philippines?

ANSWER: No. Ching is not qualified to be a lawyer in the Philippines

for having elected Philippine citizenship 14 years after reaching the
age of majority. Ching offered no reason why he delayed the election
of is Philippine citizenship. The procedure is not a tedious process. All
that is required is to execute an affidavit and file the same in the
nearest registry. *Read In Re: Application for Admission to the
Philippine Bar of Vicente Ching, B.M. No. 914, 01 October 1999

QUESTION 8: What if you are a lawyer and has been practicing for a
year already when you migrated to the US and eventually was
naturalized as an American citizen. As a lawyer, you know of RA 9225
or the Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act. So, after you were
naturalized in the US, nagpa dual citizen ka. But you feel that your
heart belongs in the Philippines and would like to help the less
privileged. As a dual citizen, can you practice law in the Philippines?

ANSWER: Section 1, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides the

necessary criterion for the practice of law in our jurisdiction. It is
explicitly stated therein: “Any person heretofore duly admitted as a
member of the Bar, or thereafter admitted as such in accordance with
the provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is
entitled to practice law.”

Notice that there are 2 aspects for the practice law in the
Philippines: first, lawful admission to the Bar and second, being able to
maintain and regular member standing. From the limited facts we
have, it appears that the first aspect has already been complied with.
Insofar as the second aspect is concerned, you must be able to
satisfactorily show that you have reacquired your Philippine
citizenship. Why? Because a Filipino who lost his Philippine citizenship
by the acquisition of a foreign citizenship also loses the privilege to
practice law as Philippine citizenship is a continuing requirement
thereto except if you reacquired your citizenship by virtue of RA 9225.
Simply put, if you are naturalized as a citizen in another country you
are considered to never have lost your Philippine citizenship if you
reacquire it by virtue of RA 9225. As to your membership in the Bar,
you are also not deemed to have terminated your membership BUT
no automatic right to resume law practice accrues.

Additional requirements to resume practice of law after reacquiring

Philippine citizenship

As additional requirements, you have to secure an authority to

resume practice of law from the Supreme Court, through the Office of
the Bar Confidant. To update your membership in good standing, you
also have to update your IBP dues. You must also attend the
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE). For the MCLE
requirement, medyo mahirap ini. To complete this, you need 36 units
of MCLE lectures. On the average, 4 days lecture ini. We are now in
Compliance 6. Supposing, before you left the US, you were only able
to complete 36 units of Compliance 1 so, before you can resume
practice here, you have to enroll in 5 classes to update. That’s 5 x 36
units. Unless you complete that, hindi ka makakapag practice pa.
 2. At least 21 years of age. That’s why you have to submit
a copy of your Birth Certificate in your application to take the bar
exams to determine your age.

QUESTION 9: At the time AAA submitted his application to take the

November 2018 Bar Exams, he was only 20 years old. He would be 21
years old in a August 2018. Can AAA be allowed to take the bar
exams?

ANSWER: Yes but on a conditional status. If he passes the bar exams,

before he can take his oath, he will have to make representations to
the Office of the Bar Confidant to show that he now possesses all the
qualifications to be admitted to the Bar.

3. Of good moral character. This is a continuing

requirement. Meaning you must possess this requirement before you
take the bar exams and even after you are admitted to the Philippine
Bar because the nature of the office of an attorney requires that a
lawyer shall be a person of good moral character. Since this
qualification is a condition precedent to a license to enter upon the
practice of law, the maintenance thereof is equally essential during the
continuance of the practice and the exercise of the privilege. *Read
Grande vs. Atty. De Silva, A.C. No. 4838, 29 July 2003.

The requirement of good moral character has four general

purposes as pronounced by the Supreme Court in *Garrido vs. Attys.
Garrido and Valencia, A.C. No. 6593, 04 February 2010. Each purpose
is as important as the other:

a. To protect the public;

b. To protect the public image of lawyers;

c. To protect prospective clients; and

d. To protect errant lawyers from themselves

There are so many cases here. I suggest you read them, learn
from their mistakes and avoid them. I have here a couple of cases
involving the continuing requirement of good moral character of a
lawyer.

CASE 1: Leslie Ui vs. Atty. Iris Bonifacio (A.C. No. 3319, 08 June
2000)

Facts: Leslie Ui filed an administrative case for disbarment against

Atty. Iris Bonifacio on grounds of immoral conduct.
 Atty. Bonifacio allegedly is having an illicit relationship with
Carlos Ui, husband of Leslie Ui, whom they begot two children.
According to petitioner, Carlos Ui admitted to him about the
relationship between them and Atty. Bonifacio. This led Leslie Ui to
confront said respondent to stop their illicit affair but of to no avail.

According however to respondent, she is a victim in the

situation. When respondent met Carlos Ui, she had known him
to be a bachelor but with children to an estranged Chinese
woman who is already in Amoy, China. Moreover, the two got
married in Hawaii, USA therefore legalizing their relationship. When
respondent knew of the real status of Carlos Ui, she stopped their
relationship. Respondent further claims that she and Carlos Ui never
lived together as the latter lived with his children to allow them to
gradually accept the situation. Respondent however presented a
misrepresented copy of her marriage contract.

Issue:    Did the respondent conduct herself in an immoral manner for

which she deserves to be barred from the practice of law?

Ruling: NO. The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does

not have the right to enjoy the practice of the legal profession simply
by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that can be revoked,
subject to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath
and the dictates of legal ethics.  If good moral character is a condition
sine qua non for admission to the bar, then the continued possession
of good moral character is also requisite for retaining membership in
the legal profession.
Membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases
to have good moral character. A lawyer may be disbarred for “grossly
immoral conduct or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude”. A member of the bar should have moral integrity in
addition to professional probity.
Circumstances existed which should have aroused respondent’s
suspicion that something was amiss in her relationship with Ui, and
moved her to ask probing questions. Respondent was imprudent in
managing her personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her
relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent
believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered as an immoral.
For immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral
norms of society and to opinion of good and respectable member of
the community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary
action, the same must be grossly immoral, that is it must be so
corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to
be reprehensible to a high degree.
A member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required
to refrain from adulterous relationships . . . but must also so behave
himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that
he is flouting those moral standards. Respondents act of immediately
distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status
belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no
intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal
profession.  
It is the bounden duty of lawyers to adhere unwaveringly to the
highest standards of morality. The legal profession exacts from its
members nothing less. Lawyers are called upon to safeguard the
integrity of the Bar, free from misdeeds and acts constitutive of
malpractice. Their exalted positions as officers of the court demand no
less than the highest degree of morality.

Simply put, girls, huwag kayong tatanga-tanga. Hindi lahat ng

cute and charming ay single. Take off the rose-colored glasses
sometimes and try to see what is in front of you. Be rational. If there
are red flags, check on it. If may asawa na, forget him unless Muslim
siya at pwedeng mag-asawa ng hanggang 4x or more 

Professional competency alone does not make a lawyer a worthy

member of the Bar. Good moral character is always an indispensable
requirement. Let’s read the case of Cojuangco vs. Palma. In this case,
the court defined what is immoral conduct.

CASE 2: Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Atty. Leo Palma (Adm. Case No.
2474, 15 September 2004)

Facts: Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. filed a disbarment complaint against

Atty. Leo Palma on the grounds of “deceit, malpractice, gross
misconduct in office, violation of his oath as a lawyer, and grossly
immoral conduct.”

He and Palma met sometime in the 1970s. Complainant is a client

of Angara Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRA) and
respondent was the lawyer assigned to handle his cases. Owing to his
growing business concerns, complainant decided to hire respondent as
his personal counsel.

There he met complainant’s 22-year old daughter, Maria Luisa, then

a student of Assumption. He married Maria Luisa in Hong Kong dated
June 22, 1982. Next day after the marriage, it was when respondent
informed complainant and assured him that everything is legal.
Complainant was shocked, knowing fully well that respondent is a
married man and has three children.

Accordingly, the complainant filed with the CFI of Pasay City a

petition for declaration of nullity of marriage between respondent and
Maria Luisa. This was granted by the court.

The Commission on Bar Discipline by the IBP recommended that he

be suspended from practice of law for a period of 3 years. This was
adopted and approved by the IBP Board of Governors but reduced
penalty to a year.

Ruling: The law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of

standards among its members. There is no distinction as to whether
the transgression is committed in the lawyer’s professional capacity or
in his private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his
personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
another. Thus, not only his professional activities but even his private
life, insofar as the latter may reflect unfavourably upon the good name
and prestige of the profession and the courts may at any time be the
subject of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities.

Undoubtedly, respondent’s act constitutes grossly immoral conduct,

a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court. He exhibited a deplorable lack of that degree of
morality required of him as a member of the Bar. In particular, he
made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding
respect and dignity. His act of contracting a second marriage is
contrary to honesty, justice, decency and morality. Immoral
conduct is that conduct which is wilful, flagrant or shameless
and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion and of the
good and respectable members of the community. Measured
against this definition, respondent’s act is manifestly immoral. First,
he abandoned his lawful wife and three children. Second, he lured an
innocent young woman into marrying him. Third, he misrepresented
himself as a bachelor so he could contract marriage in a foreign land.

The interdict upon lawyers, as inscribed in Rule 1.01 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility, is that they “shall not engage in lawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Palma is guilty of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath

as a lawyer, and disbarred from the practice of law.

The next case is about a law student who is a member of the

Shari’a Bar and who has been using the title “Attorney” even if he is
not a member of the Philippine Bar. Here the court defined those can
be called “attorney.”

CASE 3: In Re: Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling, B.M.

No. 1154, 08 June 2004

Atty. Melendrez filed a petition to disqualify Meling from taking

the bar exams and to impose disciplinary penalty as a member of
Shari’a Bar. He alleged that in Meling’s application to take the bar, he
failed to disclose the fact that he has 3 pending criminal cases. Also,
Meling has been using the title “Attorney” in his communications as
secretary to the Mayor.

Issue: Should Meling be disqualified from being admitted to the Bar?

Ruling: Yes. Meling’s deliberate silence and non-revelation of his

pending criminal cases constitute concealment. The disclosure
requirements is imposed to determine whether there is satisfactory
evidence of good moral character of the applicant. By concealing the
existence of such cases, the applicant flunks the test of fitness even if
the cases are ultimately proven unwarranted or insufficient to impugn
or affect the good moral character of the applicant. Further, it was
highly improper for Meling, as member of the Shari’a Bar, to use the
title “Attorney” because only members of the Philippine Bar, who have
obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully
passed the bar exams, been admitted to the IBP and remain members
in good standing are authorized to practice law and thus use the title.

4. Compliance with the academic requirements

For Pre-Law, you must have satisfactorily completed in an

authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for
admission thereto the completion of a four year high school course,
the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor’s degree in arts
or science. (Sec. 6, Rule 138, RCC)

Pursuant to the power of the Legal Education Board (LEB) to

prescribe the minimum standards for law admission, under Section
7(e) of RA 7662 or the Legal Education Reform Act of 1993. The LEB
under LEB Memorandum Order No. 7, Series of 2016, required the
PHILSAT as a prerequisite for admission to the basic law courses
leading either to a Bachelor of Laws or Juris Doctor degree beginning
school year 2017-2018.

QUESTION 10: Supposing the school registrar is your tita and a very
close friend of your mom. Despite the lack of a college diploma, kasi
diri pa na-release an imu college, you were admitted to the college of
law in the year 2016. After 4 years of law school, or in 2020,
graduation mo na. Si tita school registrar, nag retire na din. Her
successor, in preparing your graduation requirements discovered that
you have yet to submit your college diploma. Your attention was called
about this matter. So, you went to your former college to request for a
copy of your diploma. The college informed you that they cannot issue
you a diploma kasi hindi ka pa graduate. Apparently, INC ka sa Stat
101 na subject. Member pa din ng faculty si Stat 101 prof and you
managed to convince him to give you a passing mark after an
afternoon of drinking session. So, finally the college issued you a
diploma and you are now considered a college graduate in 2020.
 When you submitted this to the college of law, they refused to
accept it saying na hindi pwede sabay ang year of graduation mo sa
undergrad and college of law kasi pre-requirement ang 4-year college
degree sa law school. Is the contention of the college of law, correct?

ANSWER: Yes. Must comply with pre-law requirements before

enrolling in law school.

5. Pass the bar examinations. Syempre naman, diba?

The Bar exams is conducted for 4 Sundays.

1st Sunday : Political Law (15%) & Labor Law (10%)

2nd Sunday : Civil Law (15%) & Taxation Law (10%)

3rd Sunday : Commercial Law (15%) & Criminal Law (10%)

4th Sunday : Remedial Law (20%) & Legal Ethics (5%)

As a strategy, I focused more on the morning subjects kasi 15%

and 20% in Remedial Law. Ung afternoon subjects, not so much kaya
bagsak ako sa Labor Law (hahaha). Pero bumawi ako sa 2 nd Sunday, I
got 93% in Taxation Law. In criminal law, one of my favorite subjects,
I barely passed it. Pero in Ethics, I got 95%, I think or 93%. Hindi ko
na maalala grades ko sa morning subjects, sure lang ako pasado ako
sa bar.

Someone once asked me if I would be willing to take the bar

exams again, hell no! Never again!

6. Take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll of

Attorney’s. You should memorize the Lawyer’s Oath. It is often asked
in the bar exams. If this is asked in your bar exams, do not write your
name or that will be considered as ‘marking’ which may disqualify you.
I remember when I took my bar exam, I think No. 1 question in ethics
was the Lawyer’s Oath. A representative from the Supreme Court was
going around telling everyone not to write our names otherwise it will
be considered as marking and will disqualify us from the bar exams.

This guy in our room suddenly stood up with his mouth open and
shocked expression on his face. I guess he must have written his
name in his answer. Anyway, he was advised to just cross out his
name with a line. He was worried because if he does that his name will
still be seen. Hindi na sya mapakali for the remaining 3 hours of the
exam. So, guys, never write your name on your booklet. You will be
assigned a number, un lang ang gagamitin nyo. Memorize the
Lawyer’s Oath.
 Lawyer’s Oath
I, _______, do solemnly swear that I will maintain
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will
support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as
the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote
or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give
aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for
money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge and discretion,
with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my
clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary
obligations without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion. So help me God

Taking the Lawyer’s Oath is important for you to be able to

practice law. If you can’t take it as scheduled, you have to petition the
Supreme Court for it and must satisfactorily prove why you deserve it.
If you think the Lawyer’s Oath is not important, read the case below
and find out the things he had to do just to be allowed to take the
Lawyer’s Oath.

CASE 4: In Re: Petition of Al Argosino to take the Lawyer’s Oath, B.M.

No. 712, 19 March 1997

Facts: Argosino passed the bar examinations held in 1993. The Court,
however, deferred his oath-taking due to his previous conviction for
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. The criminal case, which
resulted in Argosino’s conviction, arose from the death of a neophyte
during fraternity initiation rites. Various certifications (from 2 senators,
5 trial court judges and 6 members of religious orders) showed that he
is a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and public
service. Also, it has been proven that Argosino has exerted all efforts
to atone for the death of Raul. In fact, they submitted evidence that a
scholarship foundation has been established in honor of Raul
Camalingan, the hazing victim, through joint efforts of Argosino’s
family and the 8 other accused in the hazing.

On 26 September 1995, the Court required Atty. Gilbert Camaligan,

father of Raul, to comment on petitioner's prayer to be allowed to take
the lawyer's oath. In his comment dated 4 December 1995, Atty.
Camaligan states that:

a. He still believes that the infliction of severe physical

injuries which led to the death of his son was deliberate
 rather than accidental. The offense therefore was not
only homicide but murder since the accused took
advantage of the neophyte's helplessness implying
abuse of confidence, taking advantage of superior
strength and treachery.

b. He consented to the accused's plea of guilt to the lesser

offense of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
only out of pity for the mothers of the accused and a
pregnant wife of one of the accused who went to their
house on Christmas day 1991 and Maundy Thursday
1992, literally on their knees, crying and begging for
forgiveness and compassion. They also told him that
the father of one of the accused had died of a heart
attack upon learning of his son's involvement in the
incident.

c. As a Christian, he has forgiven petitioner and his co-

accused for the death of his son. However, as a loving
father who had lost a son whom he had hoped would
succeed him in his law practice, he still feels the pain of
an untimely demise and the stigma of the gruesome
manner of his death.

d. He is not in a position to say whether petitioner is now

morally fit for admission to the bar. He therefore
submits the matter to the sound discretion of the Court.

Ruling: After a very careful evaluation of this case, we resolve to

allow petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign
the Roll of Attorneys and practice the legal profession with the
following admonition:

In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, the Court

recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. On
the contrary, the various certifications show that he is a devout
Catholic with a genuine concern for civic duties and public service.

The Court is persuaded that Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts
to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. We are prepared to give him
the benefit of the doubt, taking judicial notice of the general tendency
of youth to be rash, temerarious and uncalculating.

We stress to Mr. Argosino that the lawyer's oath is NOT a mere

ceremony or formality for practicing law. Every lawyer should at ALL
TIMES weigh his actions according to the sworn promises he makes
when taking the lawyer's oath. If all lawyers conducted themselves
strictly according to the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the administration of justice will undoubtedly be faster,
fairer and easier for everyone concerned.
 The Court sincerely hopes that Mr. Argosino will continue with the
assistance he has been giving to his community. As a lawyer he will
now be in a better position to render legal and other services to the
more unfortunate members of society. There. Hazing is a crime with
severe penalties. It can change and ruin lives. Better if you will read
the Hazing Law. Do you know that even if you do not physically hurt
your neophytes and only make fun of them, it is already considered as
hazing?

Class, remember that 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. It is the sworn duty of the Court not only to
“weed out” lawyers who have become a disgrace to the noble
profession of the law but, also of equal importance, to prevent
“misfits” from taking the lawyer’s oath, thereby further tarnishing the
public image of lawyers.

After you take your oath, you still have to sign the roll of
attorneys. If you can’t sign your roll, wala kang roll number. Here is
one case of someone who passed the Bar, took his oath but failed to
sign the roll. He thought that what he signed at the entrance when he
took his oath was already the roll of attorney’s when in fact it was just
the attendance.

CASE 5: In Re: Petition to Sign the Roll of Attorney’s by Michael

Medado, B.M. No. 2540, 24 September 2013

Facts: Petitioner Michael Medado, who obtained his law degree in the
year 1979, took and passed the same year’s bar examinations and
took the Attorney’s Oath, failed to sign the Attorney’s Roll. After more
than 30 years of practicing the profession of law, he filed the instant
Petition on February 2012, praying that he be allowed to sign in the
Roll of Attorneys. Medado said that he was not able to sign the Roll of
Attorneys because he misplaced the notice given to him and he
believed that since he had already taken the oath, the signing of the
Roll of Attorneys is not urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer.

The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) after conducting

clarificatory conference on the matter recommended to the Supreme
Court that the instant petition be denied for petitioner’s gross
negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit.

Issue: Can the petitioner be allowed to sign the roll?

Ruling: Yes, the Court allowed the petitioner to sign the Roll of
Attorneys subject to the payment of a fine and the imposition of a
penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of law. The Court
cannot forbid the petitioner from signing the Roll of Attorneys because
such action constitutes disbarment. Such penalty is reserved to the
most serious ethical transgressions of members of the Bar.

The Court cited three main points which demonstrate Medado’s

worth to become a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar. First,
Medado demonstrated good faith and good moral character when he
finally filed the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys. It was
Medado himself who admitted his own error and not any third person.
Second, petitioner has not been subject to any action for
disqualification from the practice of law. He strove to adhere to the
strict requirements of the ethics of the profession and that he has
prima facie shown that he possesses the character required to be a
member of the Philippine Bar. Third, Medado appears to have been a
competent and able legal practitioner, having held various positions at
the Laurel Law Office, Petron, Petrophil Corporation, the Philippine
National Oil Company, and the Energy Development Corporation.

However, the Court cannot fully free Medado from all liability for
his years of inaction. His justification of his action, that it was “neither
willful nor intentional but based on a mistaken belief and an honest
error of judgment” was opposed by the Court.

“A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification,

because everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences.”
Although an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person
from the legal consequences of his acts he could no longer claim it as a
valid justification by the moment he realized that what he had signed
was merely an attendance record. His action of continuing the practice
of law in spite of his knowledge of the need to take the necessary
steps to complete all requirements for the admission to the bar
constitutes unauthorized practice of law. Such action transgresses
Canon 9 of 'the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:

CANON 9 – A lawyer shall not, directly, or indirectly,

assist in the unauthorized practice of law.

With respect to the penalty, previous violations of Canon 9 have

warranted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law.
However, in the instant case the Court could not warrant the penalty
of suspension from the practice of law to Medado because he is not yet
a full-fledged lawyer. Instead, the Court see it fit to impose upon him a
penalty similar to suspension by allowing him to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys one ( 1) year after receipt of the Resolution and to fine him
in the amount of P32,000.

The instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys is Affirmed.

Petitioner Michael A. Medado is ALLOWED to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys ONE (1) YEAR after receipt of the Resolution. Petitioner is
likewise ORDERED to pay a FINE of P32,000 for his unauthorized
practice of law. During the one year period, petitioner is NOT
ALLOWED to practice law, and is STERNLY WARNED that doing any act
that constitutes practice of law before he has signed in the Roll of
Attorneys will be dealt with severely by the Court.

So, when you pass the bar, do not forget to take the oath and
sign the roll.

QUESTION 11: Can a non-lawyer appear in court and handle cases?

ANSWER: Only those who are licensed to practice law can appear and
handle cases in court. Except:

a. Law Student practice;

b. Non-lawyers in court can appear for a party in
Municipal Trial Court; (Section 34, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court expressly allows pro se practice or the
right of a non-member of the bar to engage in
limited practice of law.)
c. Non-lawyers can represent parties in administrative
tribunals such as NLRC, DARAB and cadastral courts.

QUESTION 12: What is the Law student practice rule?

ANSWER: A law student who has successfully completed his third year
of the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a
recognized law school’s clinical legal education program approved by
the Supreme Court, may appear without compensation in any civil,
criminal or administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board
or officer, to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of
the law school. (Sec. 1, Rule 138-A)

The appearance of the law student authorized by this rule, shall

be under the direct supervision and control of a member of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school.
Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to
be filed, must be signed by the supervising attorney for and in behalf
of the legal clinic. (Sec. 2, Rule 138-A)

The law student shall comply with the standards of professional

conduct governing members of the Bar. Failure of an attorney to
provide adequate supervision of student practice may be a ground for
disciplinary action. (Circular No. 19, 19 December 1986)

ASSIGNMENT:

1. FACTS: Pickles filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) a

formal Entry of Appearance as private prosecutor in a criminal
case for Grave Threats where his father was the complainant.
Describing himself as a third year law student, he justified his
 appearance as private prosecutor on the basis of Section 34,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. However, the MeTC denied his
request on the ground that Circular No. 19 governing limited law
student practice in conjunction with Rule 138-A should take
precedence over the ruling of the Court that a non-lawyer may
appear before the inferior courts as an agent or friend of a party-
litigant. Rule on the denial of the court? Explain briefly your
answer with legal basis.
*Read Cruz vs. Mina, et.al., G.R. No. 154207, 27 April 2007)

The MeTC erred in using Rule 138-A in denying the petitioner from
appearing in Court; such rule is only applicable to law students who may appear
before the courts not as an agent or friend of a party-litigant. In the case at hand
the petitioner, who is a law student, is requesting to appear in court as an agent
or friend of a party-litigant, thus it is Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
that should be applied wherein it states that:

By whom litigation is conducted. — In the Court of a municipality a party

may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed
by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party
may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney and his appearance
must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.

The rule clearly expresses that anyone, not necessarily a law student, can
appear as an agent or friend of a party-litigant; he does not need to have a
lawyer who should supervise him before the inferior courts.

2. Blaze sought permission to enter his appearance for and on his

behalf before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) as the plaintiff in a
Civil Case for Abatement of Nuisance. Blaze, a fourth year law
student, anchors his claim on Section 34, Rule138 of the Rules of
Court that a non-lawyer may appear before any court and
conduct his litigation personally.

Judge Monster Machine denied the motion with finality. In the

same Order, the trial court held that for the failure of Blaze to
submit the promised document and for his failure to satisfy the
requirements or conditions under Rule 138-A of the Rules of
Court, his appearance was denied. Did the court act accordingly
when it denied the appearance of Blaze as party litigant? Answer
briefly with legal basis.
*Read Cruz vs. Mijares, et.a., G.R. No. 154454, 11 September
2008

Sec. 34 or Rule 138 recognizes the right of an individual to represent

himself in any case to which he is a party. The Rules state that a party may
conduct his litigation personally or with the aid of an attorney, and that his
appearance must either be personal or by a duly authorized member of the Bar.
The individual litigant may personally do everything in the course of proceedings
from commencement to the termination of the litigation. Considering that a party
personally conducting his litigation is restricted to the same rules of evidence and
procedure as those qualified to practice law, petitioner, not being a lawyer
himself, runs the risk of falling into the snares and hazards of his own ignorance.
Therefore, Cruz as plaintiff, at his own instance, can personally conduct the
litigation. He would then be acting not as a counsel or lawyer, but as a party
exercising his right to represent himself.

The trial court must have been misled by the fact that the petitioner is a
law student and must, therefore, be subject to the conditions of the Law Student
Practice Rule. It erred in applying Rule 138A, when the basis of the petitioner’s
claim is Section 34 of Rule 138. The former rule provides for conditions when a
law student may appear in courts, while the latter rule allows the appearance of a
nonlawyer as a party representing himself

The trial court did not act accordingly; it must have been misled by the fact
that the petitioner is a law student and the rule that should be applied is Rule
138-A, when in fact regardless if he is a law student or not, what should be
applied is Section 34 of Rule 138 which recognizes the right of an individual to
represent himself in any case to which he is a party. The Rules state that a party
may conduct his litigation personally or with the aid of an attorney, and that his
appearance must either be personal or by a duly authorized member of the Bar.
The individual litigant may personally do everything in the course of proceedings
from commencement to the termination of the litigation. Thus, the petitioner need
not to satisfy the requirements or conditions under Rule 138-A, as demanded by
the trial court; he has the right to appear in court as an agent or friend of a party-
litigant.

You will learn more about non-lawyers in court, administrative

tribunals in Legal Ethics.

For next meeting, we will discuss Public Officials and the Practice
of Law.