You are on page 1of 4

Dave Anthony E.

Urot

Requirements to practice Law in the Philippines

According to Rule 138

Section 1. Who may practice law. Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member
of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this rule, and
who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.

Requirements to enter the 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.

Section 3. Requirements for lawyers who are citizens of the United States of America.
Citizens of the United States of America who, before July 4, 1946, were duly licensed
members of the Philippine Bar, in active practice in the courts of the Philippines and in good
and regular standing as such may, upon satisfactory proof of those facts before the Supreme
Court, be allowed to continue such practice after taking the following oath of office:

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in


the Philippines, do solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of
the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the 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 in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful
suit, nor 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 may knowledge and discretion with all
good fidelity as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this
voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

Section 3. Requirements for lawyers who are citizens of the United States of America.
Citizens of the United States of America who, before July 4, 1946, were duly licensed
members of the Philippine Bar, in active practice in the courts of the Philippines and in good
and regular standing as such may, upon satisfactory proof of those facts before the Supreme
Court, be allowed to continue such practice after taking the following oath of office:
I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in
the Philippines, do solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of
the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the 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 in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful
suit, nor 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 may knowledge and discretion with all
good fidelity as well as to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this
voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

Section 4. Requirements for applicants from other jurisdictions. Applicants for


admission who, being Filipino citizens, are enrolled attorneys in good standing in the
Supreme Court of the United States or in any circuit court of appeals or district court therein,
or in the highest court of any State or Territory of the United States, and who can show by
satisfactory certificates that they have practiced at least five years in any of said courts, that
such practice began before July 4, 1946, and that they have never been suspended or
disbarred, may, in the discretion of the Court, be admitted without examination.

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.
CASE DIGEST

PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION vs. CELEDONIO AGRAVA


G.R. No. L-12426. February 16, 1959.

FACTS:
On may 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had scheduled
an examination for the purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as patent
attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office. According to the circular, members of the
Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical training
are qualified to take the said examination. The petitioner contends that one who has passed
the bar examination sand is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines
and who is in good standing is duly qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office
and that the respondent Directors holding an examination for the purpose is in excess of his
jurisdiction and is in violation of the law.The respondent, in reply, maintains the prosecution
of patent cases does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the
application of scientific and technical knowledge and training as a matter of actual practice
so as to include engineers and other individuals who passed the examination can practice
before the Patent office. Furthermore, he stressed that for the long time he is holding tests,
this is the first time that his right has been questioned formally.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the
prosecution of patent application, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law.

HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes such appearance before the
Patent Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the
prosecution of their applications for patent, their opposition thereto, or the enforcement of
their rights in patent cases. Moreover, the practice before the patent Office involves the
interpretation and application of other laws and legal principles, as well as the existence of
facts to be established in accordance with the law of evidence and procedure. The practice
of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court but also embraces all other
matters connected with the law and any work involving the determination by the legal mind
of the legal effects of facts and conditions. Furthermore, the law provides that any party
may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final order or decision of the director. Thus, if
the transactions of business in the Patent Office involved exclusively or mostly technical and
scientific knowledge and training, then logically, the appeal should be taken not to a court
or judicial body, but rather to a board of scientists, engineers or technical men, which is not
the case.
Ui vs. Bonifacio
Adm. Case No. 3319, June 8, 2000

FACTS:
Complainant Lesli Ui found out that her husband Carlos Ui was carrying out an illicit
relationship with respondent Atty. Iris Bonifacio with whom he begot two children. Hence, a
complaint for disbarment was filed by complainant against respondent before the
Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on the ground of
immorality, more particularly, for carrying on an illicit relationship with the complainants
husband. It is respondents contention that her relationship with Carlos Ui is not illicit
because they were married abroad and that after June 1988, when respondent discovered
Carlos Uis true civil status, she cut off all her ties with him. Respondent averred that Carlos
Ui never lived with her.

ISSUE:
Whether or not she has conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to
be barred from the practice of law.

HELD:
The complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris L. Bonifacio, for alleged
immorality, was dismissed.

All the facts taken together leads to the inescapable conclusion that 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 immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to
the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members 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

You might also like