Admission to the Bar

Requirements
Taking of Oath
Signing of the Roll of Attorneys
 Requirements
Rule 138 (Attorneys and Admission to Bar)

Section 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to

the bar. Every applicant for admission as a member of
the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-
one years of age, of good moral character, and resident of
the Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme
Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character, and
that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have
been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.
 Requirements
Section 5. Additional requirements for other applicants. All applicants for
admission other than those referred to in the two preceding section shall,
before being admitted to the examination, satisfactorily show that they have
regularly studied law for four years, and successfully completed all prescribed
courses, in a law school or university, officially approved and recognized by the
Secretary of Education. The affidavit of the candidate, accompanied by a
certificate from the university or school of law, shall be filed as evidence of
such facts, and further evidence may be required by the court.

No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has

satisfactorily completed the following courses in a law school or university duly
recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial law,
criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor and social
legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics.
 Requirements
Section 6. Pre-Law. No applicant for admission to the bar
examination shall be admitted unless he presents a
certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education
that, before he began the study of law, he had pursued and
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
sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field
of concentration: political science, logic, english, spanish,
history and economics.
 CASES
Jose Pepe W. Diokno
a former Secretary of Justice, Senator, and Justice of the Supreme Court
In 1937, Diokno graduated as valedictorian of his high school class at De
La Salle College, Manila, and went on to study commerce, also at De La
Salle University. He graduated from college summa cum laude at age 17.
Diokno took the CPA board examinationsfor which he had to secure
special dispensation, since he was too young.
After Diokno enrolled in law at the University of Santo Tomas, his studies
were interrupted by the outbreak of World War II. During the war,
Diokno continued his education by reading his father's law books. When
the war was over, he was granted a special dispensation by the Supreme
Court of the Philippines and allowed to take the Philippine Bar
Examination despite having never completed a law degree.
 CASES
Jovito R. Salonga
14th Senate President of the Philippines serving from
1987 to 1992
During his senior year at the College of Law at the
University of the Philippines (U.P.), he quit his job to
prepare for the bar exam. Due to the advent of World
War II, he postponed taking the Philippine Bar
Examination until 1944, when he and Jose Diokno both
topped with a grade point average of 95.3%.
Salonga earned his from the University of the Philippines
College of Law in 1946.
 CASES
Re: Vicente D. Ching, B.M. No. 914, October 1, 1999

RULING:
Ching failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship. The span of fourteen (14) years
that lapsed from the time he reached the age of majority until he finally
expressed his intention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the
contemplation of the requirement of electing "upon reaching the age of
majority." Moreover, Ching has offered no reason why he delayed his election of
Philippine citizenship. The prescribed procedure in electing Philippine citizenship
is certainly not a tedious and painstaking process. All that is required of the
elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and,
thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry.

The phrase "reasonable time" has been interpreted to mean that the election
should be made generally within three (3) years from reaching the age of
majority.
 CASES
In re: Ramon Quisumbing, B.M. No. 419, November 1988
RULING:
Discretion to admit one to the bar may be exercised only
after it is shown that the applicant has complied with all
the requirements.

There is no Philippine rule authorizing the admission to the

Philippine bar on the basis of reciprocity or comity. The
limited application of comity as a ground for admission to
the bar is embodied in Rule 138, section 4.
 CASES
Re: Application of Adriano M. Hernandez, July 27, 1993

Court allowed the applicant, a Filipino citizen who obtained a Juris Doctor from
Columbia University, New York and who has taken fourth year review courses and
other bar subjects at the Ateneo Law School, to take the 1993 Bar Examinations,
considering the fact that in the past, it had allowed Filipinos who have studied law
in foreign law schools from the strict requirements of Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138
and allowed them to take the bar examinations, but with the caveat that:

beginning next year, the Court WILL NOT ALLOW GRADUATES OF FOREIGN LAW
SCHOOLS TO TAKE THE BAR EXAMINATIONS. An applicant who desires to take the
bar examinations must not only have studied law in a local law school but has to
present the certifications required under Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138 in order to
take the bar examination. Since graduates of foreign law schools cannot submit
said certifications, they shall henceforth not be allowed to take the bar
examinations.
 CASES
Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing Reforms in the Bar
Examinations through Amendments to Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, B.M.
No. 1153, March 9, 2010

The Supreme Court once again allowed Filipino graduates of foreign law
schools to take the Philippine Bar, subject to certain conditions, and amended
Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Section 5 now also provides that a Filipino citizen who graduated from a
foreign law school shall be admitted to the bar examination only upon
submission to the Supreme Court of certifications showing: (a) completion of
all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree;
(b) recognition or accreditation of the law school by the proper authority; and
(c) completion of all fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic
program in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine Government.
 CASES
In Re: Petition to Take the Lawyer's Oath, Jose M. Villanueva, B.M. No. 1131,
October 15, 2002
RULING:
To be admitted as a member of the Bar, the Petitioner must be a person of
good moral character. He has to show that no charges involving moral
turpitude are pending against him.
In this case, the Petitioner, although not yet a member of the Philippine Bar,
accepted the position of Substitute Chairman Of the Board of Canvassers,
although under Section 21 of Republic Act 6646, a substitute Chairman of the
Board of Canvasser must be a ranking lawyer of the Commission on Elections.
The outcome of the election cases against the Petitioner has a bearing on his
qualifications as a member of the Philippine Bar.
Unless and until the Petitioner is cleansed of liability for violation of the
Omnibus Election Code, it cannot be gainsaid that the Petitioner possessed a
good moral character and that there are no pending charges against him,
involving moral turpitude.
 Taking of Oath
People v. De Luna, et al., G.R. Nos. L-10236-48,
January 31, 1958
RULING:
By taking "'the oath of office as attorney-at-law"
and notifying the Supreme Court that they had
done so and would "practice law in all courts of
the Philippines", the appellees had for all intents
and purposes, "held out to the public" as such
attorneys-at-law.
 CASES
Tan v. Sabandal, B.M. No. 44, February 24, 1992

RULING:
There are testimonials attesting to his good moral character, but these were
confined to lack of knowledge of the pendency of any criminal case against him
and were obviously made without awareness of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the case instituted by the Government against him. Those
testimonials can not, therefore, outweigh nor smother his acts of dishonesty and
lack of good moral character.

That complainant Tan has withdrawn her objection to his taking the oath can
neither tilt the balance in his favor, the basis of her complaint treating as it does
of another subject matter.
 CASES
Sebastian v. Calis, A.C. No. 5118, September 9, 1999

RULING:
The lawyer's oath is not mere facile words, drift and
hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep
inviolable. The nature of the office of an attorney requires
that he should be a person of good moral character. This
requisite is not only a condition precedent to admission
to the practice of law, its continued possession is also
essential for remaining in the practice of law.
 CASES
Endaya v. Oca, A.C. No. 3967, September 3, 2003
RULING:
The lawyers oath embodies the fundamental principles that
guide every member of the legal fraternity. From it springs the
lawyers duties and responsibilities that any infringement
thereof can cause his disbarment, suspension or other
disciplinary action.
Found in the oath is the duty of a lawyer to protect and
safeguard the interest of his client. Specifically, it requires a
lawyer to conduct himself to the best of his knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his
clients.
 CASES
In re: Benjamin M. Dacanay, B.M. No. 1678, December 17, 2007

ISSUE: May a lawyer who has lost his Filipino citizenship still practice law in the
Philippines?

RULING: No. The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of

naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to
RA 9225. This is because all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another
country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the
conditions of [RA 9225]. Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another
country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in
accordance with RA 9225. Although he is also deemed never to have terminated his
membership in the Philippine bar, no automatic right to resume law practice accrues.

The retaking of the lawyers oath will not only remind him of his duties and
responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
 Signing of the Roll of Attorneys
Pangan v. Ramos, Adm. Case No. 1053,
September 7, 1979
RULING:
The attorney's roll or register is the official record
containing the names and signatures of those
who are authorized to practice law. A lawyer is
not authorized to use a name other than the one
inscribed in the Roll of Attorneys in his practice of
law.
 CASES
Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003
RULING:
Respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took
the lawyers 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 lawyers oath to be administered by
this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
 CASES
In re: Michael A. Medado, B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013
RULING:
Medado may have at first operated under an honest mistake of fact when he thought
that what he had signed at the PICC entrance before the oath-taking was already the
Roll of Attorneys. However, the moment he realized that what he had signed was
merely an attendance record, he could no longer claim an honest mistake of fact as a
valid justification. At that point, Medado should have known that he was not a full-
fledged member of the Philippine Bar because of his failure to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys, as it was the act of signing therein that would have made him so. When, in
spite of this knowledge, he chose to continue practicing law without taking the
necessary steps to complete all the requirements for admission to the Bar, he willfully
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

As Medado is not yet a full-fledged lawyer, SC could not suspend him from the practice
of law. However, it saw fit to impose upon him a penalty akin to suspension by allowing
him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of its Resolution.
 CASES
Alawi v. Alauya, 268 SCRA 628

RULING:

As regards Alauya's use of the title of "Attorney," the SC declared that

persons who pass the Shari'a Bar are not full-fledged members of the
Philippine Bar, hence may only practice law before Shari'a courts. While one
who has been admitted to the Shari'a Bar, and one who has been admitted to
the Philippine Bar, may both be considered "counsellors," in the sense that
they give counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only the latter is an
"attorney." The title of "attorney" is reserved to those who, having obtained
the necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar
Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and remain members thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are
authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines
 IBP
Official unification of the entire lawyer population
Condition sine qua non to the practice of law and
retention of name in the Roll of Attorneys
Organized by and under the direction of the State
64,973 Members (as of today)
Investigating arm of the SC can entertain cases of
disbarment or investigate cases referred by the SC,
but has no power to suspend or disbar
 Brief History
October 5, 1970 SC created the Commission on Bar
Integration, tasked to not only ascertain the advisability of
integration of the Bar, but even more, to serve as a common
vehicle of the Court and the Bar in fashioning a blueprint for
integration and putting the same into actual operation.
September 17, 1971 R.A. No. 6397 An Act Providing for
the Integration of the Philippine Bar, and Appropriating
Funds Therefor
January 9, 1973 SC, in a per curiam decision, ordained the
integration of the bar in accordance with Rule 139-A,
effective January 16, 1973. Within the next succeeding
months, the IBP was organized.
 Brief History
February 17, 1973 local chapters all over the
country were formed and elections of officers
were held.
March 17, 1973 first batch of representatives
to the IBP House of Delegates composed of
104 delegates representing the IBP Chapters
nationwide convened in Manila and elected its
first set of IBP Governors.
 Organizational Setup
National
President
Executive Vice President
9 Governors in the Board of Governors (each will
be the ex officio VP for their Regions)
Secretary
Treasurer
House of Delegates (deliberative body)
 Organizational Setup
Local
President
Vice President
Secretary
Treasurer
5 Directors
 Organizational Setup
The Philippines is divided into nine regions of
the Integrated Bar.
In the event of the creation of any new
province, the Board of Governors shall, with
the approval of the SC, determine the region
to which the said province shall belong.
 CASE
In re: Integration of the Philippine Bar, 49 SCRA 25

ISSUES:
1. Does the Court have the power to integrate the
Philippine Bar?
2. Would the integration be constitutional?
Freedom of Association
Freedom of Speech
Tax v. Regulatory Fee
Fairness to all lawyers
 Freedom of Association
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he
is not already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed
the Bar examinations. All that integration actually does is to provide an
official national organization for the well-defined but unorganized and
incohesive group of which every lawyer is a ready a member.

Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone.
He is free to attend or not to attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar
Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only
compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of his annual dues. The
Supreme Court, in order to foster the State's legitimate interest in elevating
the quality of professional legal services, may require that the cost of
improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects and
beneficiaries of the regulatory program the lawyers.
 Freedom of Speech
A lawyer is free, as he has always been, to voice his views on any
subject in any manner he wishes, even though such views be opposed to
positions taken by the Unified Bar.

For the Integrated Bar to use a member's due to promote measures

to which said member is opposed, would not nullify or adversely affect
his freedom of speech.

Since a State may constitutionally condition the right to practice law

upon membership in the Integrated Bar, it is difficult to understand why
it should become unconstitutional for the Bar to use the member's dues
to fulfill the very purposes for which it was established.
 Tax v. Regulatory Fee
For the court to prescribe dues to be paid by the members does not mean
that the Court is attempting to levy a tax.

A membership fee in the Bar association is an exaction for regulation, while

tax purpose of a tax is a revenue. If the judiciary has inherent power to
regulate the Bar, it follows that as an incident to regulation, it may impose a
membership fee for that purpose. It would not be possible to put on an
integrated Bar program without means to defray the expenses. The doctrine of
implied powers necessarily carries with it the power to impose such exaction.

The only limitation upon the State's power to regulate the privilege of law is
that the regulation does not impose an unconstitutional burden. The public
interest promoted by the integration of the Bar far outweighs the slight
inconvenience to a member resulting from his required payment of the annual
dues.
 Fairness to all lawyers
Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practising
because although the requirement to pay annual dues is a new
regulation, it will give the members of the Bar a new system
which they hitherto have not had and through which, by proper
work, they will receive benefits they have not heretofore enjoyed,
and discharge their public responsibilities in a more effective
manner than they have been able to do in the past. Because the
requirement to pay dues is a valid exercise of regulatory power by
the Court, because it will apply equally to all lawyers, young and
old, at the time Bar integration takes effect, and because it is a
new regulation in exchange for new benefits, it is not retroactive,
it is not unequal, it is not unfair.
 General Objectives
Elevate the standards of the legal profession;
Improve the administration of justice;
Enable the bar to discharge its public responsibility more
effectively;
Assist in the administration of justice;
Foster and maintain members high ideals of integrity,
learning, professional competence, public service and conduct;
Safeguard the professional interests of its members;
Cultivate the members spirit of cordiality and brotherhood;
Provide a forum for discussion;
Encourage and foster legal education; and
Promote continuing program of legal research.
 Membership and Retirement
Chapter membership is discretionary.
Payment of dues is mandatory.
Default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant
suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such
payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the
delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys. (Rule 139-A, Section 10 )
Termination of membership by filing a verified notice of
termination with the Secretary of the IBP
Reinstatement may be made in accordance with rules and
regulations prescribed by the Board of Governors and approved
by the SC, provided any written application for reinstatement
must be filed with the Board, which shall, within fifteen days
from receipt, forward the same to the SC with its
recommendation.
 Membership and Retirement
Any member of good standing who shall have attained
the age of 75 years, or shall have been 40 years as
lawyer shall, by reason of physical disability or
judicially adjudged mental incapacity, be unable to
engage in the practice of law, may be retired from the
IBP upon verified petition to the Board of Governors.
Retired members shall not practice law or be required
to pay dues.
A retired member may be reinstated to active
membership upon written application to and approval
by the Board.
 Non-Political Bar
Prohibition to lawyers holding judicial, quasi-
judicial or prosecutory offices in the
government or any political subdivision or
instrumentality thereof.
Officers who files a certificate of candidacy is
considered ipso facto resigned from position.
 CASES
Soliman M. Santos, Jr. v. Atty. Francisco R. Llamas, Adm. Case
No. 4749, January 20, 2000
A complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues
filed against respondent Atty. Llamas
For several years, he has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP O.R. Nos. and data
(date & place of issuance) in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicates "IBP Rizal
259060" but he has been using this for at least three years already.
Respondents Defense:
He had only a limited practice of law. In fact, in his Income Tax Return, his principal
occupation is a farmer.
He is a Senior Citizen since 1992, is legally exempt under Section 4 of Rep. Act 7432 which
took effect in 1992, in the payment of taxes. Payment by him of dues with the Integrated Bar
is covered by such exemption.
He never exercised his rights as an IBP member to vote and be voted upon.
If despite such honest belief of being covered by the exemption and if only to show that he
never in any manner wilfully and deliberately failed and refused compliance with such dues,
he is willing at any time to fulfill and pay all past dues even with interests, charges and
surcharges and penalties.
 CASES
Soliman M. Santos, Jr. v. Atty. Francisco R. Llamas, Adm.
Case No. 4749, January 20, 2000
IBP Board found respondent guilty, and recommended his suspension
from the practice of law for three months and until he pays his IBP dues.
Respondents motion for reconsideration was denied.
RULING:
Respondent can engage in the practice of law only by paying his dues,
and it does not matter that his practice is "limited." While it is true that
R.A. No. 7432, 4 grants senior citizens "exemption from the payment of
individual income taxes: provided, that their annual taxable income does
not exceed the poverty level as determined by the National Economic
and Development Authority (NEDA) for that year," the exemption does
not include payment of membership or association dues.
Atty. Francisco R. Llamas was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one year, or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.
 CASES
Letter of Atty. Cecillo Y. Arevalo, Jr., Requesting Exemption from
Payment of IBP Dues

FACTS:
Petitioner sought exemption from payment of IBP dues in the
amount of P12,035.00 as alleged unpaid accountability for the years
1977-2005. He alleged that after being admitted to the Philippine Bar
in 1961, he became part of the Philippine Civil Service from July 1962
until 1986, then migrated to, and worked in, the USA in December
1986 until his retirement in the year 2003. He maintained that he
cannot be assessed IBP dues for the years that he was working in the
Philippine Civil Service since the Civil Service law prohibits the practice
of one's profession while in government service, and neither can he
be assessed for the years when he was working in the USA.
 CASES
Letter of Atty. Cecillo Y. Arevalo, Jr., Requesting Exemption from
Payment of IBP Dues

ISSUE: whether petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of

his dues during the time that he was inactive in the practice of law
that is, when he was in the Civil Service from 1962-1986 and he was
working abroad from 1986-2003?

RULING: No.
Payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the
IBP, of which no one is exempt. This means that the compulsory
nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as one's membership
in the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of
practice, the member is engaged in.
 CASES
Letter of Atty. Cecillo Y. Arevalo, Jr., Requesting
Exemption from Payment of IBP Dues

RULING:
There is nothing in the law or rules which allows
exemption from payment of membership dues. At most,
as correctly observed by the IBP, he could have informed
the Secretary of the Integrated Bar of his intention to
stay abroad before he left. In such case, his membership
in the IBP could have been terminated and his obligation
to pay dues could have been discontinued.
 CASES
In re: Marcial Edilion, A.M. No. 1928, August 3, 1978

ISSUE: Would a penalty of removal (due to non-payment of dues) amount to a

deprivation of property without due process and hence infringes on one of his
constitutional rights?

RULING: No. Under the police power of the State, and under the necessary powers
granted to the Court to perpetuate its existence, the respondent's right to practice
law before the courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to regulation
and inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is
recognize[d], then a penalty designed to enforce its payment, which penalty may be
avoided altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary.

Practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege, and as such must bow to
the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyer's
public responsibilities.
 CASES
Re: Voluntary Termination of Atty. Jose
Principe, B.M. No. 543, September 20, 1990

RULING: There is no such thing as retirement in

the IBP as understood in labor law. A lawyer,
however, may terminate his bar membership
after filing the required verified notice of
termination with the Secretary of the IBP.