DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE VS EDWIN L.

RANA
B. M. No. 1036. June 10, 2003
CARPIO, J.

Facts:

Donna Marie Aguirre filed against Edwin Rana for Denial of Admission to the Bar on May 21, 2001
one day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of 2000 Bar Examination passers. The respondent
was charged of unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave
misrepresentation. During the scheduled oath-taking the Court allowed the respondent to take his
oath as member of the bar. However, Rana is not allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys because of the
pending resolution charge against him. On the same day also, the Court required respondent to
comment on the complaint against him.

In the complaint for unauthorized practice of law and grave misconduct, Aguirre claims that in May
2001 elections respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate before the
Municipal Board of Election Canvassers (MBEC) of Mandaon, Masbate. Also, on the charge of
violation of law, complainant claims that Rana is the secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Mandaon, Masbate is not allowed to act as a counsel. Lastly, on the charge of grave misconduct and
misrepresentation respondent was accused for acting as counsel of George Bunan (vice mayoralty
candidate).

Respondent admits that Bunan ask for his specific assistance to represent him but not as a lawyer
but a person who knows the law. He also admits signing the pleading that objected the inclusion of
certain votes in the canvassing. Furthermore, he claims that he submitted his resignation on May 11,
2011 on his employment as the secretary.

The Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant for evaluation, report and
recommendation on July 17, 2001. The OBC found that the respondent performed before MBEC as
counsel for Bunan. Moreover, respondent resigned as secretary and his resignation was accepted.
Also, respondent was authorized by Bunan to represent him before the MBEC. The OBC
recommends that the respondent should not be admitted to the Philippine Bar for his unauthorized
practice of law.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent is fit for admission to the Philippine Bar.

Ruling:

No. The Court agreed with the decisions of the OBC. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to
become a lawyer. Still, there are 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.

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. Evidence showed
that the respondent engaged in unauthorized practice of law. Since the court finds respondent not
morally fit to be admitted in the Bar, nonetheless the fact that he already took his oath, he was denied
admission to the bar.