1. What is legal ethics?

It is a branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney owes to the court, to his client, to his
colleagues in the profession and to the public as embodied in the Constitution, Rules of Court, the Code of
Professional Responsibilities, Canons of Professional Ethics, jurisprudence, moral laws and special laws.

2. What are the sources of ethical standards in the Philippine judiciary?

1. Primary
a. Bar
i. Canons of Professional Ethics
ii. Code of Professional Responsibility
b. Bench
i. Canons of Judicial Ethics
ii. Code of Judicial Ethics
iii. New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
c. Other personnel – Code of Conduct for Court Personnel
2. Secondary
a. Decisions/resolution of the Supreme Court
b. Supreme Court Circulars
c. Order/resolution of other courts
d. IBP Issuances

3. What constitutes practice of law?

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training, and experience. “To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which
device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.”

G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991

RENATO CAYETANO, petitioner, vs. CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R. SALONGA, COMMISSION
ON APPOINTMENT, and HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as Secretary of Budget and
Management, respondents.
Facts:
Christian Monsod was nominated by then President Corazon C. Aquino as chairman of the COMELEC.
Cayetano questioned the appointment for Monsod allegedly lacked the necessary qualification of having been
engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.
The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: 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.
It was established that after graduating from the College of Law and hurdling the Bar, respondent worked in
his father’s law office for a short while, then worked as an Operations Officer in the World Bank Group for about
2 years, which involved getting acquainted with the laws of member-countries, negotiating loans, and
coordinating legal, economic and project work of the Bank. Upon returning to the Philippines, he worked with
the Meralco Group, served as Chief Executive Officer of an investment bank and has subsequently worked
either as Chief Executive Officer or Consultant of various companies.
Issue:
Whether or not Monsod satisfies the requirement of the position of Chairman of the COMELEC.
Held:
YES. In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava: The practice of law is not limited to the
conduct of cases or litigation in court…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. “To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which
device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill. In general, a practice of law requires
a lawyer and client relationship, it is whether in or out of court.
A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he: “. . . for valuable consideration engages in
the business of advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears
in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before any court,
 commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized to settle
controversies. Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising
clients as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of
court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law.”

Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a
grade of 86.55%. He has been a dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception
in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license fees as lawyer for more than 10 years. Atty.
Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry,
a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy
the constitutional requirement — that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.

4. Differentiate bar from bench.

Bar refers to the whole body of attorneys and counselors, collectively, the members of the legal profession.
Bench refers to the whole body of judges.

5. Who is an amicus curiae?

An amicus curiae is an experienced and impartial attorney invited by the court to appear and help in the
disposition of the issues submitted to it. It implies friendly intervention of counsel to call the attention of the court
to some matters of law or facts which might otherwise escape its notice and in regard to which it might be wrong.
Amicus curiae appears in court not to represent any particular party but only to assist the court.

6. Distinguish attorney-at-law from attorney in Fact.

Attorney-at-law is that class of persons who are licensed officers of the court empowered to appear, prosecute
and defend, and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are developed by law as
consequence, while an attorney in fact is simply an agent whose authority is strictly limited by the instrument
appointing him. His authority is provided in a special power of attorney or general power of attorney or letter of
attorney. He is not necessarily a lawyer.

7. What is pro se?

It is an appearance by a lawyer in his own behalf.

8. Who is a counsel/attorney de officio?

Who is a counsel de parte?
A counsel/attorney de officio is an attorney appointed by the court to defend an indigent defendant in a criminal
action. Private counsel of a party, secured by him, without intervention from the government.

Note: In a criminal action, if the defendant appears without an attorney, he must be informed by the court that
it is his right to have an attorney before being arraigned and must be asked if he desires the aid of an attorney.
If he desires and is unable to employ an attorney, the court must assign a counsel de officio to defend him. He
is also designated as counsel of indigent litigants. The appointment of a counsel de officio in that instance is a
matter of right on the part of the defendant. On appeal in criminal cases, the appellate court must also appoint
a counsel de officio if, as shown by the certificate of the clerk of court of the trial court, a defendant is confined
in prison or without means to employ an attorney or desires to be defended de officio.

9. “Practice of law is a profession not a business”, explain.

The practice of law is a profession and not a business as it is an essential part in the administration of justice,
a profession in pursuit of which pecuniary reward is considered merely incidental; it is a pursuit of learned art
in the interest of public service.

10. What constitutes practice of law?

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training, and experience. “To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which
device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.”

11. Practice under detention

G.R. No. 89591-96 August 13, 1990
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE HON. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA, Presiding Judge of
Branch 12, Regional Trial Court of Antique, and AVELINO T. JAVELLANA, respondents.
Facts:
This case stems from denial by the SC of the People’s motion seeking reconsideration of our August 13, 1990
decision holding that respondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing
the order of August 8, 1989 giving custody over private respondent Avelino T. Javellana to the Clerk of Court of the
Antique RTC, Atty. Deogracias del Rosario, during the pendency of Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355. At that time,
sufficient reason was shown why Javellana should not be detained at the Antique Provincial Jail. The trial court’s
order specifically provided for private respondent’s detention at the residence of Atty. del Rosario. However, private
respondent was not to be allowed liberty to roam around but was to be held as detention prisoner in said residence.
It was howevere found that the order was not strictly complied with because Javellana was not detained in the
residence of Atty. Del Rosario. He went about his normal activities as if he were a free man, including engaging in
the practice of law.
Held:
Private respondent Javellana has been arrested based on the filing of criminal cases against him. By such arrest,
he is deemed to be under the custody of the law. The trial court gave Atty. Deogracias del Rosario the custody of
private respondent Javellana with the obligation “to hold and detain” him in Atty. del Rosario’s residence in his
official capacity as the clerk of court of the regional trial court. Hence, when Atty. del Rosario was appointed judge,
he ceased to be the personal custodian of accused Javellana and the succeeding clerk of court must be deemed
the custodian under the same undertaking.
As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed placed under the custody of
the law. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of
the offense. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case against him, unless he is authorized by
the court to be released on bail or on recognizance. Let it be stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive
detention or serving final sentence can not practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation, or
hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention.

A criminal case was filed against Atty. Javellana which resulted to his arrest and temporary detention at
the house of the clerk of court where his case was pending. Despite his detention, Atty. Javellana continues
with his normal activities including his practice of law, in appearing as counsel for certain cases. Can Atty.
Javellana still engage in the practice of law despite his arrest and detention?
As a detention prisoner, Javellana is not allowed to practice his profession as a necessary consequence of his
status as a detention prisoner. The trial court's order was clear that Javellana "is not to be allowed liberty to roam
around but is to be held as a detention prisoner." The prohibition to practice law referred to all other cases, except
in cases where Javellana would appear in court to defend himself. (Pro Se)
All prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence can not 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.

12. Private practice

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. ATTY. MISAEL M. LADAGA, Branch Clerk of
Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 133, Makati City, respondent.
A.M. No. P-99-1287 Jan. 26, 2001
Facts:
Atty. Misael Ladaga is the Branch Clerk of Court of the Makati Regional Trial Court and he appeared as counsel
for and in behalf of his cousin. Ladaga was on official leave of absence and his Presiding Judge was aware of the
case he was handling. It has been found that Ladaga did not obtain permission from the Court that he can appear
as counsel for his cousin.
Issue:
Is Ladaga guilty of violating Sec. 7(b)(2) of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees), for engaging in private practice?
Held:
No. Ladaga’s appearance as counsel for his cousin, where he does not receive any compensation, does not
constitute as “private practice” as contemplated by law. However, it cannot be denied that his appearance was done
without permission from the Court. With that, the Supreme Court reprimands Atty. Ladaga with a stern warning.

Private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of
the legal profession and that his professional services are available to the public for a compensation, as a source
of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services.

Atty. Ladaga, 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 METC of Quezon City. The appearance of Atty. Ladaga in said
case was without the previous permission of the Court. Did Atty. Ladaga violate the Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees by engaging in private practice?
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. It is true that he filed leave applications corresponding to the dates he appeared in court but he failed to
obtain a prior permission from the head of the Department.
13. Admission to bar
G.R. No. L-27654 February 17, 1970
 IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDING FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ATTY. VICENTE RAUL
ALMACEN in L-27654, ANTONIO H. CALERO
Facts:
Atty. Vicente Almacen served as counsel for a civil case that he lost and he then filed a motion for reconsideration
which was denied by the court for failure to indicate time and place of hearing. His appeals reached the Supreme
Court but the same courtdenied it in a minute resolution. Angered, he filed a petition to surrender his lawyer’s
certificate of title with the Supreme Court and at the same time, criticized the Court in agross manner.
Issue:
Should Almacen be disciplined by the Court?
Held:
Yes. Almacen’s attack on the Supreme Court is considered to be gross misconduct as the criticisms were uncalled
for to the point of disrespecting the Court as a whole. The Court said that it is true that as a lawyer, he has the right
to criticize the acts of courts and judges in respectful terms and through legitimate channels. Almacen did none and
with that, he was suspended indefinitely.

A.M. No. 1162 August 29, 1975

IN RE: VICTORIO D. LANUEVO, former Bar Confidant and Deputy Clerk of Court, respondent.
FACTS:
This is an administrative proceeding against Victorio Lanueva who was the Bar Confidant during the 1971 Bar
Examination emanating from the revelation of one Oscar Landicho, a bar examinee of the same bar exam, in his
confidential letter that the result of the bar exam of one of the bar examinee later identified as Ramon Galang was
raised before the result was released to make him pass the bar. Acting upon said letter, the court called the 5 bar
examiners and the Bar Confident Lanuevo to submit their sworn statements on the matter. It appears that each of
the 5 bar examiners were approached by Lanuevo with the examination booklet asking them to re-evaluate the
grades of the bar examiner explaining that it is a practice policy in bar exams that he will review the grades obtained
in all subjects by an examinee and when he finds a candidate to have extraordinary high grades in other subjects
and low grade in one subject he can bring it to the examiner for reconsideration to help the candidate pass. In good
faith of trust and confidence to the authority of Lanuevo, the examiners re-evaluated the exam of the candidate and
reconsider the grade they give for each subject matter. Further investigation also revealed that Ramon Galang was
charged with crime of slight physical injuries in the Mla. MTC but did not revealed the information in his application
to take the bar examination.
ISSUE:
WON Lanuevo has the authority to ask bar examiners to re-evaluate and re-correct the examination result of a bar
candidate.
RULING:
The court ruled that it is evident that Lanuevo has deceptively staged a plot to convince each examiner individually
to re-evaluate the grades of Galang in order to help him pass the bar without prior authorization of the Court. His
duty as a Bar Confident is limited only as a custodian of the examination notebooks after they are corrected by the
examiners where he is tasked to tally the general average of the bar candidate. All requests for re-evaluation of
grades from the bar exam shall be made by the candidate themselves. With the facts fully established that Lanuevo
initiated the re-evaluation of the exam answers of Galang without the authority of the Court, he has breached the
trust and confidence given to him by the court and was disbarred with his name stricken out from the rolls of
attorneys. Galang was likewise disbarred for fraudulently concealing the criminal charges against him in his
application for the bar exam while under oath constituting perjury. The court believed that the 5 bar examiners acted
in good faith and thereby absolved from the case but reminded to perform their duties with due care.

14. Can the legislature enact laws to regulate the practice of the law?
No. It is noteworthy that unlike the 1935 and 1973 Constitution, the 1987 Constitution no longer provides for the
power of the legislature to repeal, alter and supplement the Rules promulgated by the Supreme Court. However,
the legislature, in the exercise of police power may enact laws regulating the practice of law to protect the public
and promote public welfare.
Note: The legislature may not pass a law that will control the SC in the performance of its functions to decide
who may enjoy the privilege of practicing law and any law of that kind is unconstitutional being an invalid exercise
of legislative power.

15. Enumerate the initial requirements for admission to the bar.

Under Sections 2, 5 and 6 of Rule 138, the applicant must be: (C21GRENAPOS)
a. Citizen of the Philippines;
b. At least 21 years of age;
c. Of Good moral character;
d. Resident of the Philippines;
e. Must produce before the SC satisfactory Evidence of good moral character;
f. No charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the
Philippines (Sec. 2, Rule 138, RRC);
 g. Must have complied with the Academic requirements;
h. Must Pass the bar examinations
i. Take the lawyer’s Oath; and
j. Sign the Roll of Attorneys

RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR

VICENTE D. CHING, applicant.
FACTS:
In 1998, Vicente Ching finished his law degree at the Saint Louis University in Baguio City. He eventually
passed the bar but he was advised that he needs to show proof that he is a Filipino citizen before he be allowed to
take his oath. Apparently, Ching’s father was a Chinese citizen but his mother was a Filipino citizen. His parents
were married before he was born in 1963. Under the 1935 Constitution, a legitimate child, whose one parent is a
foreigner, acquires the foreign citizenship of the foreign parent. Ching maintained that he has always considered
himself as a Filipino; that he is a certified public accountant – a profession reserved for Filipinos; that he even served
as a councilor in a municipality in La Union.
The Solicitor-General commented on the case by saying that as a legitimate child of a Chinese and a Filipino,
Ching should have elected Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; that under prevailing
jurisprudence, “upon reaching the age of majority” is construed as within 7 years after reaching the age of majority
(in his case 21 years old because he was born in 1964 while the 1935 Constitution was in place).
Ching did elect Filipino citizenship but he only did so when he was preparing for the bar in 1998 or 14 years
after reaching the age of majority. Nevertheless, the Solicitor-General recommended that the rule be relaxed due
to the special circumstance of Ching.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ching should be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath.
HELD:
No. Unfortunately, he belatedly elected Filipino citizenship. The Supreme Court cannot agree with the
recommendation of the Solicitor-General. Fourteen years had lapsed and it’s way beyond the allowable 7 year
period. The Supreme Court even noted that the period is originally 3 years but it was extended to 7 years. (It seems
it can’t be extended any further). Ching’s special circumstances can’t be considered. It is not enough that he
considered all his life that he is a Filipino; that he is a professional and a public officer (was) serving this country.
The rules for citizenship are in place. Further, Ching didn’t give any explanation why he belatedly chose to elect
Filipino citizenship (but I guess it’s simply because he never thought he’s Chinese not until he applied to take the
bar). 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. Ching’s unreasonable and unexplained delay in making his election cannot be
simply glossed over.

Ching was born on April 1964 of Filipino mother and Chinese father. He was conditionally admitted to take
the bar examination because of questions arising to his citizenship. Upon passing the bar he was required
to take further proof of citizenship and was not allowed to take the oath. Can he elect Philippine citizenship,
14 years after reaching the age of majority (required under the 1935 Constitution)?
No, Ching is not qualified to be a lawyer for having elected Philippine citizenship 14 years after reaching the age of
majority. Ching offered no reason why he delayed the election of 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.

16. Philippine Shari’a Bar

IN THE MATTER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE HARON S. MELING IN THE 2002 BAR
EXAMINATIONS AND FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AS MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE SHARI’A BAR, ATTY.
FROILAN R. MELENDREZ, petitioner.
FACTS:
1. The Court is here confronted with a Petition that seeks twin reliefs, one of which is ripe while the other has
been rendered moot by a supervening event.
2. On October 14, 2002, Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez (Melendrez) filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC)
a Petition to disqualify Haron S. Meling (Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on
him the appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar.
3. Melendrez alleges that Meling did not disclose in his Petition to take the 2002 Bar Examinations that he has
three (3) pending criminal cases before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Cotabato City, namely:
Criminal Cases No. 15685 and 15686, both for Grave Oral Defamation, and Criminal Case No. 15687 for
Less Serious Physical Injuries.
4. The above-mentioned cases arose from an incident which occurred on May 21, 2001, when Meling allegedly
uttered defamatory words against Melendrez and his wife in front of media practitioners and other people.
Meling also purportedly attacked and hit the face of Melendrez’ wife causing the injuries to the latter.
5. Furthermore, Melendrez alleges that Meling has been using the title "Attorney" in his communications, as
Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the fact that he is not a member of the Bar.
 6. Meling filed his Answer with the OBC.
7. Meling explains that he did not disclose the criminal cases filed against him by Melendrez because retired
Judge Corocoy Moson, their former professor, advised him to settle his misunderstanding with Melendrez.
Believing in good faith Meling considered the three cases that actually arose from a single incident and
involving the same parties as "closed and terminated."
8. Moreover, Meling denies the charges and adds that the acts complained of do not involve moral turpitude.
9. As regards the use of the title "Attorney," Meling admits that some of his communications really contained
the word "Attorney" as they were, according to him, typed by the office clerk.
10. OBC disposed of the charge of non-disclosure against Meling in this wise: The reasons of Meling in not
disclosing the criminal cases filed against him in his petition to take the Bar Examinations are ludicrous. He
should have known that only the court of competent jurisdiction can dismiss cases, not a retired judge nor a
law professor.
11. The merit of the cases against Meling is not material in this case. What matters is his act of concealing them
which constitutes dishonesty.
12. As regards Meling’s use of the title "Attorney", the OBC had this to say: Anent the issue of the use of the
appellation "Attorney" in his letters, the explanation of Meling is not acceptable.
13. Consequently, the OBC recommended that Meling not be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the
Roll of Attorneys in the event that he passes the Bar Examinations. Further, it recommended that Meling’s
membership in the Shari’a Bar be suspended until further orders from the Court.
14. We fully concur with the findings and recommendation of the OBC.
15. Meling, however, did not pass the 2003 Bar Examinations. This renders the Petition, insofar as it seeks to
prevent Meling from taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys, moot and academic.
Issue:
Whether or not Meling be disqualified in the examinations for the bar in relation to the violation of CPR for
non-disclosure of his pending criminal cases
Held: Yes
1. The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to determine whether there is satisfactory evidence of
good moral character of the applicant. Meling’s concealment of the fact that there are three (3) pending
criminal cases against him speaks of his lack of the requisite good moral character.
2. The Petition is granted insofar as it seeks the imposition of appropriate sanctions upon Haron S. Meling as
a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar.
3. Accordingly, the membership of Haron S. Meling in the Philippine Shari’a Bar is hereby SUSPENDED until
further orders from the Court.
4. Insofar as the Petition seeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from taking the Lawyer’s Oath and signing the Roll
of Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar, the same is DISMISSED for having become moot and
academic.

Atty. Melendrez filed a petition to disqualify Meling from taking the bar exams and to impose disciplinary
penalty as a member of the Philippine Shari'a Bar. He alleges that Meling, in his application to take the bar,
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. Should Meling be disqualified from admission
to the bar?
Meling's deliberate silence and non-revelation of his pending criminal cases constitute concealment. The disclosure
requirement 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. Note: The issue of
Meiling’s disqualification from admission to the bar is rendered moot since he did not pass the bar.

May sanctions be imposed on Meling as member of the Philippine Shari'a Bar?

It was highly improper for Meling, as member of the Shari'a Bar, to use the title "Attorney". 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. Meling was suspended from membership in the Philippine Shari'a Bar.

17. Who may be called “Attorney”?

[A.M. SDC-97-2-P. February 24, 1997]
SOPHIA ALAWI, complainant, vs. ASHARY M. ALAUYA, Clerk of Court VI, Shari'a District Court, Marawi City,
respondent.
Facts:
Sophia Alawi was a sales representative of E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. of Davao City, a real estate
and housing company. Alawi and Alauya were classmates and used to be friends. Not long afterwards, Alauya
addressed a letter to the President of Villarosa & Co. advising of the termination of his contract with the
company. He claimed that his consent was vitiated because Alawi had resorted to gross misrepresentation, deceit,
fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence. He also wrote similar letters to the Vice President of Villarosa and the
Vice President of NHMFC. On learning of Alauya's letters, Alawi filed an administrative complaint against him.
One of her grounds was Alauya’s usurpation of the title of "attorney," which only regular members of the Philippine
Bar may properly use. Alauya justified his use of the title, "attorney," by the assertion that it is "lexically
synonymous" with "Counsellors-at-law." a title to which Shari'a lawyers have a rightful claim, adding that he
prefers the title of "attorney" because "counsellor" is often mistaken for "councilor," "konsehal" or the Maranao
term "consial," connoting a local legislator beholden to the mayor. Withal, he does not consider himself a lawyer.
Issue:
Whether or not Alauya, a member of the Shari’a bar, can use the title of Attorneys the incumbent
executive clerk of court of the 4th Judicial Shari'a District in Marawi City,
Ruling:
He can’t. The title is only reserved to those who pass the regular Philippine bar. As regards Alauya's use
of the title of "Attorney," this Court has already had occasion to declare 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

Alauya, a member of Shari’a Bar and a clerk of court in Shari’a District Court, wrote a letter to a corporation
claiming to be a lawyer, affixing “Attorney” before his name. Can a member of the Shari’a Bar affix the
designation lawyer before their name?
The Court reprimanded him for claiming to be a lawyer since persons who pass the Shari'a Bar are not full-fledged
members of the Philippine Bar. The title of "attorney" is reserved to those who are admitted to the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing.

A.C. No. 1163 August 29, 1975

IN RE: RAMON E. GALANG, alias ROMAN E. GALANG, 1971 Bar Examinee, respondent
Topic: Requirements for application to the Bar –no filed or pending case of moral turpitude
FACTS:
The case is one of the consolidated cases in Inre Lanuevo..
Ramon Galang passed the 1971 bar examination but his exam papers were subjected to unauthorized re-correction
and re-evaluation by 5 examiners. An investigation by the NBI revealed
 that Ramon (Roman/Romy) was a student of School of Law of MLQU.
 that in Sept 8, 1959, he was charged with the crime of slight physical injuries of another student of the same
university.
 that in a 1973 hearing, he was confronted with this information but declared he does not remember being
charged with the same.
Victim was summoned and narrated the case and identified Galang as the very same person charged with slight
physical injury in that case. An administrative proceeding was filed for his disbarment along with Bar Confidant
Lanuevo.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Galang must be stricken off in the roll of attorneys for concealing his case of slight physical
injury.
HELD:
YES1. Under Rule 127, Sec 2 every applicant is duty bound to lay before the Court all his involvement in
any criminal case, pending or otherwise terminated, to enable the Court to fully ascertain or determine applicants
moral character.
As to what crime involves moral turpitude, is for the Supreme Court to determine. Hence, the necessity of
laying before or informing the Court of one’s personal record - whether he was criminally indicted, acquitted,
convicted or the case dismissed or is still pending – becomes more compelling.
In 1963 and 1964, when Galang took the Bar for the second and third time, respectively, the application
form provided by the Court for use of applicants already required the applicant to declare under oath that “he has
not been accused of, indicted for or convicted by any court or tribunal of any offense involving moral turpitude; and
that there is no pending case of that nature against him.
By 1966 when Galang took the Bar examinations for the fourth time, the application form prepared by the
Court for use of applicants required the applicant to reveal all his criminal cases whether involving moral turpitude
or not. Yet, Galang continued to intentionally withhold or conceal from the Court his criminal case of slight physical
injuries which was then and until now is pending in the City Court of Manila; and thereafter repeatedly omitted to
make mention of the same in his applications to take the Bar examinations in 1967, 1969 and 1971.
 That the concealment of an attorney in his application to take the Bar examinations of the fact that he had
been charged with, or indicted for, an alleged crime, is a ground for revocation of his license to practice law is well
- settled. Under the circumstances in which respondent Ramon Galang, was allowed to take the Bar examinations
in the highly irregular manner in which he passed the Bar. We have no other alternative but to order the surrender
of his attorney’s certificate and the striking out of his name from the Roll of Attorneys.

EN BANC[ B.M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003 ]

DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, COMPLAINANT, VS. EDWIN L. RANA, RESPONDENT
Facts:
Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. before the scheduled mass oath-taking,
complainant Aguirre filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. The Court allowed
respondent to take his oath. Respondent took the lawyer’s oath on the scheduled date but has not signed the Roll
of Attorneys up to now. Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a
candidate in an election. On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that respondent is a municipal
government employee, being a secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate. As such, respondent
is not allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or administrative body.
On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant accuses respondent of acting as
counsel for vice mayoralty candidate George Bunan without the latter engaging respondent’s services. Complainant
claims that respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty
candidate.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus does not deserve
admission to the Philippine Bar
Ruling:
The Court held that “practice of law” means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of
law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which
are usually performed by members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of service
which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill.
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of
good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege
presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer
is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar
examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar
examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a license.
True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath. However, it is the
signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar
examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent
should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath
to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.

18. What are the obligations of a newly constituted lawyer?

a. Pay the full annual membership dues;
Note: Lawyers who are senior citizens are not exempt from payment of IBP dues, since the Senior Citizens
Act which exempts senior citizens from payment of taxes does not include exemption from payment of
membership and association fees.
b. Undergo Mandatory Continuing Legal Education or MCLE;
c. Undergo Mandatory Legal Aid Service;
d. Pay Professional Tax Receipt; and
e. Prove that he is a person of good moral character.

19. The continuing requirements for the practice of law after admission to the Bar.
He must: MIP-MEJ
a. Remain a Member of the Bar;
b. Regularly pay all IBP membership dues;
c. Regularly pay the Professional Tax Receipt (PTR);
d. Comply with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE);
e. Faithfully observe the rules and Ethics of the legal profession; and
f. Be continually subject to judicial disciplinary control.

20. May a non-lawyer appear in court?

GR: No. Only those who are licensed to practice law can appear and handle cases in court.
XPN: Law Student Practice, Non-lawyers in Court, Non-lawyers in Administrative Tribunal
 1. LAW STUDENT PRACTICE
Law student practice rule – A law student who has successfully completed 3rd 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)

Note: 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, dated December 19, 1986).

2. NON-LAWYERS IN COURT
 Cases before the MTC: A party to the litigation, may conduct his own case or litigation in person,
with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose (Sec. 34, Rule 138, RRC);
 Before any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally. But if he gets someone to aid
him, that someone must be authorized member of the Bar (Sec. 34, Rule 138, RRC)
Note: A non-lawyer conducting his own litigation is bound by the same rules in conducting the trial
case. He cannot after judgment, claim that he was not properly represented.
 Criminal case before the MTC in a locality where a duly licensed member of the Bar is not available,
the judge may appoint a non lawyer who is a: i. Resident of the province; AND ii. Of good repute for
probity and ability to aid the accused in his defense; (Sec. 7, Rule 116 RRC)
 Any official or other person appointed or designated to appear for the Government of the Philippines
in accordance with law. (Sec. 33, Rule 138 RRC)
Note: Such person shall have all the rights of a duly authorized member of the bar to appear in any
case in which said government has an interest direct or indirect. (Sec. 33,Rule 138, RRC)

3. NON-LAWYERS IN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

Under the Labor Code, non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any Labor Arbiter, if:
 They represent themselves; OR
 They represent their organization or members thereof; (Art 222, PD 442, as amended)
 If they are duly accredited members of any legal aid office duly recognized by the Department of
Justice, or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in cases referred to by the latter. (Lapena, 2009)
Note: He is not, however, entitled to attorney’s fees under Article 222 of the Labor Code for not being
a lawyer.

May a party represent himself?

In civil cases, an individual litigant has the right to conduct his litigation personally. In criminal cases, in grave and
less grave offenses, an accused who is a layman must always appear by counsel; he cannot conduct his own
defense without violating his right to due process of law.
Note: Even the most intelligent of the educated men may have no skill in the science of law, particularly in the rules
of procedure and without counsel; he may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know
how to establish his innocence. Where an accused was not duly represented by a member of the bar during trial,
the judgment should be set aside, and the case remanded to the trial court for a new trial. (People v. Santocildes,
Jr., G.R. No. 109149, Dec. 21, 1999)
With regard to a juridical person, it must always appear in court through a duly licensed member of the bar, except
before MTC where it may be represented by its agent or officer who need not be a lawyer.
Note: Partnership with a non-lawyer is VOID. In the formation of partnership for the practice of law, no person
should be admitted or held out as a practitioner or member who is not a member of the legal profession duly
authorized to practice, and amenable to professional discipline.