Legal Profession

Supervision and Control

a.) Constitution Art. VIII, sec. 5(5)

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to
the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts
of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive
rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

b.) Constitution Art. XVIII Sec. 10

SECTION 10. All courts existing at the time of the ratification of this
Constitution shall continue to exercise their jurisdiction, until otherwise
provided by law. The provisions of the existing Rules of Court, judiciary acts,
and procedural laws not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain
operative unless amended or repealed by the Supreme Court or the
Congress.

Practice of Law

Cayetano vs. Monsod 201 SCRA 210 September 1991

Cayetano vs. Monsod

201 SCRA 210

September 1991
Facts: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C.
Aquino to the position of chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the
nomination because allegedly Monsod does not posses required qualification
of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten 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.

Issue: Whether the respondent does not posses the required qualification of
having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

Held: 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 creditors 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 posses the required qualification
of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years is incorrect
since Atty. Monsods 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.

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO THE

PRACTICE OF LAW
Legal Education
Rule 136 Sec. 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.
Rule 136 Sec. 5
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.

Citizenship

Bar Examination

Section 7. Time for filing proof of qualifications. All applicants for

admission shall file with the clerk of the Supreme Court the evidence
required by section 2 of this rule at least fifteen (15) days before the
beginning of the examination. If not embraced within section 3 and 4 of this
rule they shall also file within the same period the affidavit and certificate
required by section 5, and if embraced within sections 3 and 4 they shall
exhibit a license evidencing the fact of their admission to practice,
satisfactory evidence that the same has not been revoked, and certificates
as to their professional standing. Applicants shall also file at the same time
their own affidavits as to their age, residence, and citizenship.

Section 8. Notice of Applications. Notice of applications for admission

shall be published by the clerk of the Supreme Court in newspapers
published in Pilipino, English and Spanish, for at least ten (10) days before
the beginning of the examination.

Section 9. Examination; subjects. Applicants, not otherwise provided for

in sections 3 and 4 of this rule, shall be subjected to examinations in the
following subjects: Civil Law; Labor and Social Legislation; Mercantile Law;
Criminal Law; Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public Corporations, and
Public Officers); International Law (Private and Public); Taxation; Remedial
Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, and Evidence); Legal Ethics and
Practical Exercises (in Pleadings and Conveyancing).

Section 10. Bar examination, by questions and answers, and in writing.

Persons taking the examination shall not bring papers, books or notes into
the examination rooms. The questions shall be the same for all examinees
and a copy thereof, in English or Spanish, shall be given to each examinee.
Examinees shall answer the questions personally without help from anyone.

Upon verified application made by an examinee stating that his penmanship

is so poor that it will be difficult to read his answers without much loss of
time., the Supreme Court may allow such examinee to use a typewriter in
answering the questions. Only noiseless typewriters shall be allowed to be
used.

The committee of bar examiner shall take such precautions as are necessary
to prevent the substitution of papers or commission of other frauds.
Examinees shall not place their names on the examination papers. No oral
examination shall be given.

Section 11. Annual examination. Examinations for admission to the bar

of the Philippines shall take place annually in the City of Manila. They shall
be held in four days to be disignated by the chairman of the committee on
bar examiners. The subjects shall be distributed as follows: First day:
Political and International Law (morning) and Labor and Social Legislation
(afternoon); Second day: Civil Law (morning) and Taxation (afternoon);
Third day: Mercantile Law (morning) and Criminal Law (afternoon); Fourth
day: Remedial Law (morning) and legal Ethics and Practical Exercises
(afternoon).

Section 12. Committee of examiners. Examinations shall be conducted

by a committee of bar examiners to be appointed by the Supreme Court.
This committee shall be composed of a Justice of the Supreme Court, who
shall act as chairman, and who shall be designated by the court to serve for
one year, and eight members of the bar of the Philippines, who shall hold
office for a period of one year. The names of the members of this committee
shall be published in each volume of the official reports.

Section 13. Disciplinary measures. No candidate shall endeavor to

influence any member of the committee, and during examination the
candidates shall not communicate with each other nor shall they give or
receive any assistance. The candidate who violates this provisions, or any
other provision of this rule, shall be barred from the examination, and the
same to count as a failure against him, and further disciplinary action,
including permanent disqualification, may be taken in the discretion of the
court.

Section 14. Passing average. In order that a candidate may be deemed

to have passed his examinations successfully, he must have obtained a
general average of 75 per cent in all subjects, without falling below 50 per
cent in any subjects. In determining the average, the subjects in the
examination shall be given the following relative weights: Civil Law, 15 per
cent; Labor and Social Legislation, 10 per cent; Mercantile Law, 15 per cent;
Criminal Law; 10 per cent: Political and International Law, 15 per cent;
Taxation, 10 per cent; Remedial Law, 20 per cent; Legal Ethics and Practical
Exercises, 5 per cent.

Section 15. Report of the committee; filing of examination papers. Not

later than February 15th after the examination, or as soon thereafter as may
be practicable, the committee shall file its report on the result of such
examination. The examination papers and notes of the committee shall be
filed with the clerk and may there be examined by the parties in interest,
after the court has approved the report.

Section 16. Failing candidates to take review course. Candidates who

have failed the bar examinations for three times shall be disqualified from
taking another examination unless they show the satisfaction of the court
that they have enrolled in and passed regular fourth year review classes as
well as attended a pre-bar review course in a recognized law school.

The professors of the individual review subjects attended by the candidates

under this rule shall certify under oath that the candidates have regularly
attended classes and passed the subjects under the same conditions as
ordinary students and the ratings obtained by them in the particular subject.

Law Student Practice Rule

Rule 138 A

Section 1. Conditions for student practice. A law student who has

successfully completed his 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.

Section 2. Appearance. 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.

Section 3. Privileged communications. The Rules safeguarding privileged

communications between attorney and client shall apply to similar
communications made to or received by the law student, acting for the legal
clinic.

Section 4. Standards of conduct and supervision. 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).
Lawyers Oath

I___________ of ___________ do solemnly swear that I will maintain

allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution
and obey 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 court; I will
not wittingly nor 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 this voluntary obligations without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

CODE

OF

PROFESSIONAL

RESPONSIBILITY

THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

Canon 1. Promote and respect Law and Legal Process

EN BANC

A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC

RESOLUTION
Acting on the compliance dated 05 July 2004 and on the proposed Rules on
Notarial
Practice of 2004 submitted by the Sub-Committee for the Study, Drafting
and
Formulation of the Rules Governing the Appointment of Notaries Public and
the
Performance and Exercise of Their Official Functions, of the Committees on
Revision of
the Rules of Court and on Legal Education and Bar Matters, the Court
Resolved to
APPROVE the proposed Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, with
modifications, thus:
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice

COMMISSIONING OF NOTARY PUBLIC

RULE III
COMMISSIONING OF NOTARY PUBLIC

SECTION 1. Qualifications. - A notarial commission may be issued by an

Executive
Judge to any qualified person who submits a petition in accordance with
these Rules.
To be eligible for commissioning as notary public, the petitioner:
(1) must be a citizen of the Philippines;
(2) must be over twenty-one (21) years of age;
(3) must be a resident in the Philippines for at least one (1) year and
maintains a regular
place of work or business in the city or province where the commission is to
be issued;
(4) must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing with clearances
from the
Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of
the
Philippines; and
(5) must not have been convicted in the first instance of any crime involving
moral
turpitude.
Zaldivar Vs Gonzalez
 LAQUINDANUM V. QUINTANA

Facts:
Judge Laquindanum charged Atty. Quintana with the offense of
notarizing documents beyond the jurisdiction of his notarial license and with
notarizing documents not known to him to be based on actual facts. It was
also found that his wife sometimes notarized the documents herself.

Issue:
Is Atty. Quintana guilty of violating Canon 9?

Held:
Yes. He was found to have assisted in the unauthorized practice of law
by negligently letting his wife notarize documents herself in his absence. His
contention that he rectified this error by slapping his wife is of no moment
because he did not in the first place take the necessary steps to prevent this.
He was also charged with violations of the notarial law.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engaged in unlawful dishonest ,
immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rules of Court

Rule 138 Sec. 21.

Section 21. Authority of attorney to appear. an attorney is presumed to

be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and no
written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for
his client, but the presiding judge may, on motion of either party and on
reasonable grounds therefor being shown, require any attorney who
assumes the right to appear in a case to produce or prove the authority
under which he appears, and to disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue,
the name of the person who employed him, and may thereupon make such
order as justice requires. An attorneys wilfully appear in court for a person
without being employed, unless by leave of the court, may be punished for
contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official
transactions.

UI vs. BONIFACIO
Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000

Facts: A complaint for disbarment was filed by the complainant, Leslie Ui

against respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio before the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the IBP on the grounds of immorality, for carrying on an illicit
relationship with the complainants husband, Carlos Ui. It is respondents
contention that her relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit because they were
married abroad and that after June 1998 when respondent discovered Carlos
Uis true civil status, she cut off all her ties with him.

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

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

Held: 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 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 respondents
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.

Figueroa vs. Barranco

SBC Case No. 519. July 31, 1997

FACTS: Patricia Figueroa petitioned that respondent Simeon Barranco, Jr. be
denied for taking his oath and admission to the legal profession for gross
immorality. Complainant and respondent were both childhood sweethearts
and bore a child out of wedlock. The respondent promised the complainant
of marriage several times which he did not fulfill and the respondent married
another woman.

The court referred the case to the IBP and the IBP recommended the
dismissal of the case and allowed the respondent to take his oath.

ISSUE: Whether the acts of the respondent is a conduct of gross immorality

that deserves non-inclusion into the legal profession

HELD: No. To justify suspension and disbarment, that act complained of

must not only immoral, but grossly immoral.

Respondents engagement in pre marital sex with the complainant is

consensual and promise to marry her but did not fulfill, suggest a doubtful
moral character on his part, but cannot be considered as grossly immoral
conduct.

Respondent was allowed to take his oath.

Joselano Guevarra vs. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala

A.C. No. 7136

August 1, 2007
Facts: On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the
Integrated Bar
of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel
M. Eala
a.k.a. Noli Eala for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the
lawyers
oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first met the respondent in January 2000
when his then
fiance Irene Moje introduced respondent to him as her friend who was
married to
Marianne Tantoco with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed that
from January to
March 2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent Cellphone calls, as
well as
messages some which read I love you, I miss you, or Meet you at
Megamall. He
also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in
the morning of
the following day, and sometimes did not go home from work. When he
asked her
whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parents house in Binangonan,
Rizal or she
was busy with her work.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Respondent together
on two
occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them following which
Irene abandoned
the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001 complainant went uninvited to Irenes
birthday
celebration at which he saw her and the respondent celebrating with her
family and
friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue
immediately.
Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all
her personal
belongings. Complainant later found a handwritten letter dated October 7,
2007, the day
of his wedding to Irene, Complainant soon saw respondents car and that of
Irene
constantly parked at No. 71-B11 Street, New Manila where as he was later
learn
sometime in April 2001, Irene was already residing. He also learned still
later that when
his friends saw Irene on about January 18, 2002 together with respondent
during a
concert, she was pregnant.
Issue: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for
the disbarment
of Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala.
Held: Lawyers oath stated that a lawyer should support the Constitution and
obey the
laws, Meaning he shall not make use of deceit, malpractice, or other gross
misconduct,
grossly immoral conduct, or be convicted in any crime involving moral
turpitude. In the
case at bar Atty. Eala was accused of Concubinage, under ART. 334 of the
Revised Penal
Code, Any husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or,
shall have
sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is
not his wife, or
shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision
correccional in its
minimum and medium period. Section 2 of ART. XV states that Marriage, as
an
inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be
protected by the
state. Respondents grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the constitution
and the laws,
that he as a lawyer has sworn to uphold. Hence the court declared Atty. Jose
Emmanul
M. Eala DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of
office, and
violation of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional
Responsibility.

Vitug vs. Rongcal AC. 6313 9/7/06

Facts: Catherine, complainant for disbarment against Atty. Diosdado, her

counsel in a case amicable settled, freely and wittingly entered into an illicit
and immoral relationship with respondent sans any misrepresentation or
deceit on his part. The complainant alleged that respondent promise her a
job and make her believed that his marriage has been declared by court as
null in order.

Issue: Whether or not consensual sexual relationship other than spouse is

enough ground for disbarment.

Held: The mere fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not
sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior. But still
constitute immoral conduct a violation of the code of conduct for lawyers.
The fact, that respondent ended the brief illicit relationship years ago and
considering that this is his first offense, mitigates his sentence to a fine of
P15, 000.00 only with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts in the future will be dealt with more sever.

Rule 1.02 No Counselling to defy Law