Topic: Intro/practice of law

Case title: Philippine Lawyers Association v Agrava

Facts: Petitioners in this case file for prohibition and injunction against respondent Agrava, director of the
Philippines Patent Office for the imposition of a mandatory additional examination requirement to practice law in
the Philippines Patent Office.
1. In 1957, Respondent Agrava issued a circular scheduling an examination for the purposes of qualifying as
patent attorneys under the Philippines Patent Office.
2. Petitioner PLA questions this circular—argues that (1) anyone who has passed the Bar is licensed by the
Supreme Court is already qualified to practice in the Philippines Patent Office; (2) therefore the
examinations are contrary to law for being in excess of jurisdiction
3. Respondent Agrava maintains that (1) the work of patent attorneys do not only involve the application of
the law, but also of technical and scientific knowledge so much so that prosecution of patent cases may be
handled by engineers, (2) the Rules of Court do not prohibit him to impose an exam; (3) the exam is in
accordance with the Patent Law of the Philippines1
Issue: Whether the examination imposed by Agrava is invalid
Ruling: Petition granted.
Ratio: Members of the Philippine Bar authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law, in good standing, may
practice their profession before the Patent Office because the work therein involves the interpretation, determination
and application of the Patent Law and other laws related.
SCOPE OF PRACTICE OF LAW. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court. In
general, it involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions.
THE WORK IN THE PATENTS OFFICE INVOLVES THE PRACTICE OF LAW. Most of the work, even if
requiring application of scientific and technical knowledge and skill, must be rendered in accordance with Patent
Law and other laws applicable.
PHILIPPINE PATENT LAW IS SILENT ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE DIRECTOR TO IMPOSE EXAMS.
Unlike the US Patent Law which expressly authorizes their Director showing of qualifications through tests and
exams, Ph Patent Law is silent on the point. To allow Agrava would mean to also allow other heads of other Bureaus
to impose additional qualifications for lawyers to practice in their offices.
Doctrine: (1) Scope of practice of law; (2) who may practice law; (3) exclusivity of requirements to practice of law

Topic: Introductory concepts, practice of law

Case: In re: Medado
Facts: Medado in this case petitioned to sign in the Roll of Attorneys almost 30 years after passing the
bar exams and commencing his private practice.
1. In 1979, Medado graduated UP College of Law and passed the bar exams of the same year with
GWA of 82.7
2. In 1980, he took the Attorney’s Oath at the Ceremony and he signed in what he thought was the
Roll of Attorneys but what was actually only an attendance record
3. Years later, Medado found his Notice to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys—believing that it wasn’t as
urgent since he was already practicing, he set it aside
4. In 2005 during his mandatory continuing legal education (MCLE), he was asked for his Roll
Number which he was not able to provide

1 Patterned from US Patent Law which prescribes a similar examination

 5. In 2012, Medado filed the petition
6. The Office of the Bar Confidant states that the petition should be dismissed because of Medado’s
gross negligence, gross misconduct and of the petition’s utter lack of merit.
Issue: Should Medado be allowed to sign in the Roll?
Ruling: Petition granted, on condition.
Ratio: Medado can be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys, but with a penalty akin to suspension,
allowing him only to sign 1 year after the receipt of this resolution, with a fine of P32,000.
TO PROHIBIT MEDADO FROM SIGNING WOULD ULTIMATELY BE DISBARMENT.
MEDADO HAS SHOWN MENTAL FITNESS AND MORAL FIBER WHICH THE PROFESSION
REQUIRES. (1) Medado showed good faith and good moral character in filing the petition to sign in the
Roll. (2) Medado has not been subject to any complaint for disqualification, (3) Medado is a competent
and able legal practitioner, as shown by his different positions and offices held.
MEDADO COMMITTED MISTAKE OF LAW, NOT MISTAKE OF FACT. Mistake of fact negates
wilful intent, malice or evil motive therefore it is a valid defense. Mistake of law, on the other hand,
excuses no one. Since Medado found his Notice to Sign in the Roll, it can be said that he knew of his
lacking requirement.
MEDADO COMMITTED INDIRECT CONTEMPT OF COURT. Although it cannot be pursued because
no formal charge was filed against him.
CANON 9 OF THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. “A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.” Transgression entails suspension. Medado cannot be
suspended because he is not a fully-fledged lawyer yet.
Doctrine: (1) Importance of signing in the Roll; (2) Canon 9
 Topic: Introductory concepts, practice of law
Case: Javellana v DILG
Facts: An administrative case was filed against Attorney/City Councilor Javellana for engaging in the
practice of law without securing authority from the Regional Director of DILG.
1. In 1989, City Engineer of Bago City, Negros Occidental Eresto Divinagracia filed an
administrative case against Javellana for being in violation of DILG Circular, particularly No. 80-
38
2. DILG Memorandum Circular No. 80-38 which requires authority from DILG Regional Director
before practice of law
3. Javellana served as counsel for private plaintiffs in an Illegal Dismissal and Damages case
directed against Divinagracia, a public official—a representative of the City Government of Bago
4. Memorandum Circular 90-81 and RA 7160 was enacted during the pendency of the case, which
imposed restrictions on public officials’ practice of law
5. Javellana’s arguments are: (1) they violate the rule-making power of the SC as seen in Art. VIII,
Section 5(5) of the 1987 Constitution; (2) they are class legislation, discriminatory against the
legal and medical profession
Issue: Whether the circulars, laws and relevant provisions are unconstitutional
Ruling: Petition dismissed
Ratio: The assailed circulars and laws are not in violation of the rule-making power of the SC because
they only prescribe rules of conduct for public officials. Neither are they class legislation, because it
applies to all provincial and municipal officials and employees.
ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES DECISIONS ARE GRANTED RESPECT. This is out of doctrine
of separation of powers, and because of presumed knowledgability and expertise in enforcement of laws
and regulations in their jurisdiction.
A PUBLIC OFFICE IS A PUBLIC TRUST. All complaints against administrative officials are vested with
public interest. By representing private complainants against Divinagracia, his practice represented
interests adverse to the government.
MERE RULES OF CONDUCT FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS. The assailed circulars and laws are not in
violation of the rule-making power of the Supreme Court because they merely prescribe rules of conduct
for public officials to avoid conflict of interest, not rules over actual practice of law.
Doctrine: (1) Public office is a public trust; (2) Restrictions imposed by administrative authorities are
accorded respect