AGUIRRE VS RANA

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.

LOURDES R. BUSIÑOS, complainant, vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT, respondent.

Complainant charged respondent with having committed the crime of estafa by misappropriating the
sum of P32,000.00. Of this amount, P30,000.00 was entrusted to respondent for deposit in the bank
account of complainant’s husband, while P2,000.00 represented the amount respondent demanded
from complainant supposedly for a bond in a Civil Case when no such bond was required. Respondent
did not appear in the administrative proceedings to clear his name. Respondent was able to pay the
amount, complainant withdrew the estafa case but proceeded with the administrative case.

Held: DISBARRED. There is no doubt that respondent is guilty of having used the money of his clients
without their consent. Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is
held in trust and must be immediately turned over to them

Respondent, by converting the money of his clients to his own personal use without their consent , and
by deceiving the complainant into giving him the amount of P2,000.00 purportedly to be used as a bond
which was not required, is, undoubtedly, guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct. By so doing,
he betrays the confidence reposed in him by his clients. Not only has he degraded himself but as an
unfaithful lawyer he has besmirched the fair name of an honorable profession.

“When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded he may
be punished for contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions; but
proceedings under this section shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.”

eyes v. Gaa

A.M. No. 1048. July 14, 1995.

Per Curiam

FACTS:

Wellington Reyes, complainant, reported to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) that he had been
the victim of extortion by respondent Atty. Salvador Gaa, an Assistant City Fiscal of Manila, who was
investigating a complaint for estafa filed by complainant’s business rival. The NBI agents then
apprehended respondent in an entrapment operation set up by them.

ISSUE:

WON respondent should be disbarred on the grounds of malpractice and willful violation of lawyer’s
oath.

RULING:
Yes. The extortion committed by respondent constitutes misconduct as a public official, which also
constitutes as a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The lawyer’s oath is a source of his obligations and its
violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment, or other disciplinary action (Agpalo, Legal Ethics 66-
67 [1983]).

Beltran Jr. vs. Abad, 132 SCRA 453 (BM 139)

31
JUL
FACTS:

Mr. Elmo S. Abad was a successful examinee of the 1978 bar examinations. His subsequent practice of
law was questioned and complained by the President of Philippine Trial Lawyers’ Association, Inc.
Respondent explained that:

– He had already paid for the Bar Admission Fee;

– He was notified of the oath-taking by the Supreme Court and signed the Lawyer’s Oath by one clerk
in the Office of the Bar Confidante;

– He participated Annual General Meeting of IBP Quezon City, and paid his statement dues and was
included as a voting member for officers and directors – also conferred to him a certificate of
Membership in Good Standing from IBP QC Chapter;

– The Supreme Court never issued any order in the striking of his name in the roll of attorneys, and
paid his dues and PTR;

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent is guilty of contempt of court.

HELD:

YES. Respondent was sentenced fine and imprisonment for twenty five (25) days.

RATIO:

Respondent should know that the circumstances which he narrated do not constitute his admission to
the Philippine Bar and the right (or privilege) to practice law thereafter. He 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.

He was found in violation of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court:

SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing – x x x:

xxx

(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority;
xxx

From which respondent cannot further deny.

Cojuangco vs PalmaA.C. No. 2474 June 30, 2005

Facts: On June 22, 1982, respondent Atty. Leo J. Palma, despite his subsisting marriage, wed Maria Luisa
Cojuangco, the daughter of complainant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. Thus, the latter filed on November
1982, a complaint disbarment against respondent. Palma moved to dismiss the complaint.On March 2,
1983, the court referred the case to OSG for investigation and recommendation. The Assistant Solicitor
General heard the testimonies of the complainant and his witness in the presence of respondent’s
counsel.On March 19, 1984 respondent filed with the OSG an urgent motion to suspend proceedings on
the ground that the final actions of his civil case for the declaration of nullity of marriage between him
and his wife Lisa, poses a prejudicial question to the disbarment proceeding, but it was denied.The OSG
transferred the disbarment case to the IBP, the latter found respondent guilty of gross immoral conduct
and violation of his oath as a lawyer, hence, was suspended from the practice of law for a period of
three years.In his motion for reconsideration, respondent alleged that he acted under a “firm factual
and legal conviction in declaring before the Hong Kong Marriage Registry that he is a bachelor because
his first marriage is void even if there is judicial declaration of nullity.

Issue: Whether or not a subsequent void marriage still needs a judicial declaration of nullity for the
purpose of remarriage.

Held: Respondents arguments that he was of the “firm factual and legal conviction when he declared
before the HIC authorities that he was a bachelor since his first marriage is void and does not need
judicial declaration of nullity” cannot exonerate him. In Terre vs Terre, the same defense was raised by
respondent lawyer whose disbarment was also sought. We held:“xxx respondent Jordan Terre, being a
lawyer, knew or should have known that such an argument ran counter to the prevailing case law of this
court which holds that purposes of determining whether a person is legally free to contract a second
marriage, a judicial declaration that the first marriage was null and void an initio is essential. Even if we
were to assume, arguendo merely, that Jordan Terre held that mistaken belief in good faith, the same
result will follow. For if we are to hold Jordan Terre to his own argument, his frist marriage to
complainant Dorothy Terre must be deemed valid, with the result that his second marriage must be
regarded as bigamous and criminal.

Toledo vs. Abalos [A.C. No. 5141. September 29, 1999]

16
AUG
Ponente: MELO, J.

FACTS:

Atty. Erlinda Abalos obtained a loan of P20,000.00 from Priscila Toledo, payable within six months from
date, plus interest of 5% per month. To guarantee the payment of said obligation, respondent executed
a Promissory Note. After the lapse of six months, and despite repeated demands, respondent failed to
pay her obligation. Afraid that she will not recover her money, Ms. Toledo sought the help of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which referred the matter to the Commission on Bar Discipline.
[T]he Commission issued an order directing Atty. Abalos to file her Answer to the letter-complaint of Ms.
Toledo. Despite receipt of said order, respondent did not answer the complaint. Investigating
Commissioner issued an order setting the case for hearing Despite due notices, respondent failed to
appear. Accordingly, complainant was allowed to present her evidence ex-parte after which, the case
was considered submitted for resolution. Respondent received this order as shown by the registry
return. However, she again did not do anything about it.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Abalos may be disciplined by the IB

HELD:

YES. Respondent suspended for one (1) month.

RATIO:

According to the Supreme Court, the general rule is that a lawyer may not be suspended or disbarred,
and the court may not ordinarily assume jurisdiction to discipline him, for misconduct in his non-
professional or private capacity. It was, however, still necessary for respondent to acknowledge the
orders of the Commission in deference to its authority over her as a member of the IBP. Her wanton
disregard of its lawful orders subjects her to disciplinary sanction. Thus, her suspension from the
practice of law is warranted.

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 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.

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. Monsod’s 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.