ALAWI v. ALAUYA February 24 1997 | Narvasa, J.
| Certiorari | counsellors in the sense that they give legal advice in a professional
Passing the Shari‘a Bar
SUMMARY: Ashary Alauya, a shari'a clerk of court, after allegedly
having been defrauded into entering a contract, wrote letters to
authorities having the capacity to return the losses he incurred. The
letters contained vituperative words unbecoming of a judicial officer.
DOCTRINE: Righteous indignation, or vindication of a right cannot
justify resort to vituperative language, or downright name-calling. A
judicial employee and a public officer is expected to respect the rights
of others at all times and that his every act and word should be
characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity.
FACTS: 1. Sophia Alawi, a real estate sales representative and Ashary
Alauya, an executive clerk of court of the 4th Judicial Shari'a District
in Marawi, entered a contract for the purchase on installments by
Alauya of a housing unit belonging to the company Alawi represented.
After some time, Alauya wanted to terminate the contract on the
ground that his consent was vitiated by gross misrepresentation by
Alawi. Alauya then proceeded to write letters—all in abusive language
and against Alawi-- to the president and vice president of the real estate
company to have the contract voided, to the vice president of the
finance company to have the financing loan cancelled and to the head
of the Fiscal Management and Budgeting Office of the court to stop
deductions from his salary in relation to the loan. All the letters
expounded on how fraudulent and deceitful Alawi was. Upon learning
what Alauya did, Alawi instituted charges against Alauya alleging that
Alauya's imputations which have no solid grounds caused her undue
injury and blemished her established reputation. Alawi further alleged
that one of Alauya's letters to the company's VP was franked and that
Alauya usurped the title of ―Attorney‖ which was reserved to
members of the Philippine Bar. 2. The court ordered Alauya to
comment, with the resolution sent to him signed by Atty Alfredo
Marasigan, an assistant division clerk of court. Alauya questioned Atty
Marasigan's authority because according to him, Marasigan was a mere
assistant clerk of court while he was an executive clerk of court. He
also averred that the complaint had no basis. Later on, Alauya, in a
more subdued letter, requested from Atty Marasigan a copy of the
complaint so that he may comment. Alauya justified his actions by
claiming that he was merely acting in defense of his rights.
ISSUE/S: 1. WoN Alauya's conduct was appropriate – NO 2. WoN
Alauya is allowed to use the title ―Attorney‖ – NO
RULING: Alauya is reprimanded for the use of excessively
intemperate language unbecoming of a public officer, and for usurping
the title ―Attorney. He is also warned that similar future misconduct
will be dealt with more severely.
RATIO: 1. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees commands that public officials and
employees must at all times respect the rights of others and refrain
from doing acts contrary to morals and good customs. The officials'
and employees' conduct must be characterized with propriety and
decorum so as to earn and keep the respect of the public for the
judiciary. The court did not find Alauya's actions consistent with good
morals. Furthermore, even if Alauya had a right against Alawi, the law
requires that he exercise that right with propriety, without malice or
vindictiveness, or undue harm to anyone. Righteous indignation, or
vindication of right cannot justify resort to vituperative language, or
downright name-calling. As a member of the Shari‘a Bar and an officer
of a Court, Alawi is subject to a standard of conduct more stringent
than for most other government workers. As a man of the law, he may
not use language which is abusive, offensive, scandalous, menacing,
or otherwise improper. His radical deviation from these norms may be
mitigated but cannot be excused. 2. Members of the Shari'a Bar are not
full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar. While one admitted to the
Shari'a Bar and one admitted to the Philippine Bar are both considered
capacity, the title of ―Attorney‖ is reserved to those who have
successfully taken the Bar Examinations. Alawi's contention that he
does not want to use the title ―counsellor‖ because of its pejorative
meaning at their locality does not and cannot warrant his use of the title
―Attorney
IN RE ALMACEN RUIZ CASTRO;
FACTS
– Atty. Almacen was counsel for the defendant in the civil case entitled
Virginia Y. Yaptinchay vs. Antonio H. Calero. The trial court tendered
judgment against his client. On June 15, 1966 Atty. Almacen received
a copy of the decision, and on July 5, 1966, he moved for its
reconsideration. He served on the adverse counsel a copy of the
motion, but did not notify the latter of the time and place of hearing on
said motion. Meanwhile, on July 18, 1966, the plaintiff moved for
execution of the judgment. For "lack of proof of service," the trial court
denied both motions. To prove that he did serve on the adverse party a
copy of his first motion for reconsideration, Atty. Almacen filed on
August 17, 1966 a second motion for reconsideration to which he
attached the required registry return card. This second motion for
reconsideration, however, was ordered withdrawn by the trial court on
August 30, 1966, upon verbal motion of Atty. Almacen himself, who,
on August 22, 1966, had already perfected the appeal. Because the
plaintiff interposed no objection to the record on appeal and appeal
bond, the trial court elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.
- CA, citing Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Batu Construction
& Co. dismissed the appeal, “for the reason that the motion for
reconsideration dated July 5, 1966 does not contain a notice of time
and place of hearing thereof and is, therefore, a useless piece of paper
(Manila Surety & Fidelity Co. Inc. vs. Bain Construction At Co.),
which did not interrupt the running of the period to appeal, and,
consequently, the appeal was perfected out of time." - Atty. Almacen
moved to reconsider this resolution, urging that Manila Surety &
Fidelity Co. is not decisive. At the same time he filed a pleading
entitled "Latest decision of the Supreme Court in Support of Motion
for Reconsideration," citing Republic of the Philippines vs. Gregorio
A. Venturanza, as the applicable case. Again, the Court of Appeals
denied the motion for reconsideration. - Atty. Almacen then appealed
to the SC by certiorari. SC refused to take the case, and by minute
resolution denied the appeal. Denied shortly thereafter was his motion
for reconsideration as well as his petition for leave to file a second
motion for reconsideration and for extension of time. Entry of
judgment was made on September 8, 1967. Hence, the second motion
for reconsideration filed by him after the said date was ordered
expunged from the records
- Atty. Almacen then filed his "Petition to Surrender Lawyer's
Certificate of Title," a pleading that is interspersed from beginning to
end with insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory
remarks, against the Court as well as its individual members, a
behavior that is as unprecedented as it is unprofessional. The petition
was filed on September 25, 1967, in protest against what he asserts is
"a great injustice committed against his client by this Supreme Court."
He indicts the Court, in his own phrase, as a tribunal "people by men
who are calloused to our pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons
their own applicable decisions and commit culpable violation of the
Constitution with impunity." His client, he continues, who was deeply
aggrieved by this Court's "unjust judgment," has become "one of the
sacrificial victims before the' altar of hypocrisy.'' In the same breath
that he alludes to the classic symbol of justice, he ridicules the
members of the Court, saying "that justice as administered by the
present members, of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf
and dumb." He then vows to argue the cause of his client "in the
people's forum," so that "the people may know of the silent injustices
committed by this Court," and that "whatever mistakes, wrongs and
injustices that were committed must never be repeated." He ends his
petition with a prayer that ". . . . a resolution issue ordering the Clerk
of Court to receive the certificate of the undersigned attorney and
counsellor-at-law IN TRUST with reservation that at any time in the
future and in the event we regain our faith and confidence, we may
retrieve our title to assume the practice of the noblest profession."
- Sept 28, 1967, SC resolved to withhold action on his petition until he
shall have actually surrendered his certificate. When nothing came
from him, Atty. Almacen was reminded to turn over his certificate so
that the Court could act on his petition.
- To said reminder Atty. Almacen manifested "that he has no pending
petition in connection with Calero vs. Yaptinchay, said case is now
final and executory"; that this Court's September 28, 1967 resolution
did not require him to do either a positive or negative act; and that since
his offer was not accepted, he "chose to 'pursue the negative act’." -
Nov 17, 1967 SC resolved to require Atty. Almacen to show cause
"why no disciplinary action should be taken against him." Denying the
charges contained in the Nov 17 resolution, Atty.
Almacen asked for permission to give reasons and cause in an open
and public hearing. The Court required Atty. Almacen to state his
reasons for such request, to which he manifested that since the Court
is "the complainant, prosecutor and Judge," he preferred to be heard
and to answer questions "in person and in an open and public hearing"
so that the Court could observe his sincerity and candor. He also asked
for leave to file a written explanation "in the event this Court has no,
time to hear him in person." He was allowed to file a written
explanation and thereafter was heard in oral argument.
- As citizen and officer of the court, every lawyer is expected not only
to exercise the right, but also to consider it his duty to expose the
shortcomings and indiscretions of courts and judges. It is his right to
criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels
the acts of courts and judges.
- By constitutional mandate, it is the SC’s solemn duty, amongst
others, to determine the rules for admission to the practice of law.
Inherent in this prerogative is the corresponding authority to discipline
and exclude from the practice of law those who have proved
themselves unworthy of continued membership in the Bar.
- A critique of the Court must be intelligent and discriminating, fitting
to its high function as the court of last resort. And more than this, valid
and healthy criticism is by no means synonymous to obloquy, and
requires detachment and disinterestedness, real qualities approached
only through constant striving to attain them. The virulence so
blatantly evident in Atty. Almacen's petition, answer and oral
argumentation far transcend the permissible bounds of legitimate
criticism.

- Atty. Almacen’s written answer offered no apology. Far from being

contrite, Atty. Almacen unremittingly repeated his jeremiad of
lamentations, abundant with sarcasm and innuendo1.

ISSUE

WON the utterances and actuations of Atty. Almacen here in question

are properly the object of disciplinary sanctions

HELD

- Post-litigation utterances or publications, made by lawyers, critical

of the courts and their judicial actuations, whether amounting to a
crime or not, which transcend the permissible bounds of fair comment
and legitimate criticism and thereby tend to bring them into disrepute
or to subvert public confidence in their integrity and in the orderly
administration of justice, constitute grave professional misconduct
which may be visited with disbarment or other lesser appropriate
disciplinary sanctions by the Supreme Court in the exercise of the
prerogatives inherent in it as the duly constituted guardian of the
morals and ethics of the legal fraternity.

- CA had fully and correctly considered the dismissal of Atty.

Almacen’s appeal in light of the law and applicable decisions of the
SC. As a law practitioner who was admitted to the Bar as far back as
1941, Atty. Almacen knew - or ought to have known - that for a motion
for reconsideration to stay the running of the period of appeal, the
movant must not only serve a copy of the motion upon the adverse
party (which he did), but also notify the adverse party of the time and
place of hearing (which admittedly he did not). Atty. Almacen’s own
negligence caused the forfeiture of the remedy of appeal, which,
incidentally, is not a matter of right. There is no justification for his
scurrilous and scandalous outbursts.

- Every citizen has the right to comment upon and criticize the
actuations of public officers. This right is not diminished by the fact
that the criticism is aimed at a judicial authority, or that it is articulated
by a lawyer. Such right is especially recognized where the criticism
concerns a concluded litigation, because then the court's actuations are
thrown open to public consumption.
In re CUNANAN, et.al March 18, 1954 | Diokno, J. | Original Court‘s jurisdiction to regulate admission to the practice of the law.
Action in the SC | Power to Regulate Practice of Law Also, the NY Const. is different from ours.

4. Admission to the practice of law is the exercise of a judicial function,

FACTS:
1. Under the Rules of Court, in order for a candidate to be
admitted to the Bar, he must obtain at least 75 % general
average in all subjects and must not have a grade below 50%
in any subject. However, because of the varying difficulty of
bar examinations, the SC lowered the general requirement
from 1946-1949 to 72%, 69%, 70%, 74% respectively and
75% for 1950-1953. 2. Those who believed that they have
been discriminated against by the SC sought redress in
Congress. Congress approved Senate Bill No. 12 which
would reduce the passing average to 70% starting 1946.
Upon the SC‘s advice, the President vetoed it. However,
Senate Bill 371, embodying the same provisions of the
vetoed bill was passed as RA 972 (also known as the ―Bar
Flunkers‘ Act of 1953 which the President neither signed nor
vetoed. It stipulates: a. Passing averages lowered: 70% for
1946-1951, 71% for 1952, 72% for 1953, 73% for 1954,
74% for 1955.
2. Provided, a minimum average of 50% for any subject is
required to pass the examination and a 0.5 or higher shall be
rounded up to1. b. Any candidate who obtained an average
of 75% or higher in any subject since July 4, 1946 shall be
deemed to have passed in such subjects and such grade shall
be included in the computation of the candidate‘s general
average in the subsequent examinations. 3. An estimated
1094 candidates will benefit from RA 972, 604 of which
filed their petition. According to the author of the said RA
(Senator David), the law seeks to address the inadequacy of
the preparation of students who took up the law after the
liberation and inadequacy of reading materials during the
Japanese occupation.
ISSUE/S:WON RA 972 is not unconstitutional – NO.
RULING:RA 972 UNCONSTITUTIONAL except part of Art. 1
(effect from 1953 to 1955) because of the lack of 8 votes to invalidate
it.Hence, all candidates who have obtained a 71.5% average in the
1953 examinations and had not obtained a grade of below 50% in any
subject are considered to have passed the bar whether they filed a
petition or not.
and is an inherent power of the Court. Such is indispensable to the
administration of justice and to the interpretation of the laws that there
be members of the bar (the officers of the Court to assist in their work)
of sufficient ability, adequate learning, and sound moral character and
that the public be protected from incompetent and vicious
practitioners.
5. In decreeing that bar candidates who obtained 70% general average
in the 1946-1952 exams, RA 972 is not a legislation, but a judgment
revoking those promulgated by this Court during the aforementioned
years. Hence, Congress has exceeded its power under Art VII, Sec 13to
repeal, alter, or supplement rules promulgated by the SC regarding
admission to the practice of law. It‘s limited to fixing minimum
standards for admission to the practice of law. It doesn‘t relieve the SC
the power to determine rules governing the admission to the practice
of law.
SUMMARY: Assailed in this case is RA 972, also known as the Bar
Flunkers Act of 1953, which lowers the passing rates for 1946-1955
and would benefit 1094 candidates. SC holds it unconstitutional as a
usurpation of the Judiciary‘s power governing the admission to the
practice of law, as class legislation, and as against public interest.
DOCTRINE: Admission to the practice of law is a judicial function,
and is an inherent power of the Court. Such is indispensable to the
administration of justice and to the interpretation of the laws.
6. RA 972 suffers the fatal defect of being class legislation, whose
classification arbitrary and unreasonable for setting the various passing
rates in the years covered without justification. The defense that the
law is constitutional as a curative law can‘t prosper– it does not seek
to amend and correct SC-promulgated rules, but judgments made by
the SC in the performance of its duty to promulgate rules regarding the
admission to the practice of law. Also, it is unconstitutional because
the title purports that it will have temporary effect from 1946-1955
only, but Art. 2 establishes a permanent system indefinitely and
violates the Constitution‘s mandate on the title of a law.

RATIO:
1. RA 972 is against public interest since it seeks to qualify 1,094 law
graduates who are inadequately prepared to practice law. An adequate
legal preparation and efficiency is one of the vital requisites for the
practice of law that should be developed constantly and maintained
firmly, precisely because legal problems become more difficult over
time. To the legal profession is entrusted the protection of life, liberty,
property and honor and allowing inadequately prepared individuals to
dedicate themselves to such a delicate mission is to create a serious
social danger.

2. The claim that the reading materials are lacking is exaggerated – SC

decisions were mimeographed & made available to the public, the
Official Gazette is published continuously, and books & magazines
from abroad have entered w/o restrictions since 1946.

3. Jurisprudence favors the invalidation of the law. The Cooper case,

cited in support of RA 972, whereby a statute declaring a diploma from
Columbia College of Law a sufficient basis for admission to bar was
declared constitutional is inapplicable to this case since NY law
doesn‘t require that a Columbia College diploma holder who failed the
bar exam be admitted to the practice of law nor does it take away the
ULEP V LEGAL CLINIC REGALADO; June 17, 1993 (
FACTS
- Petitioner prays that respondent cease and desist from issuing ads
similar to annexes A and B and to prohibit them from making ads
pertaining to the exercise of the law professions other than those
allowed by law
-Annex A SECRET MARRIAGE? P560 for a valid marriage Info on
DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA. THE LEGAL
CLINIC, INC. Pls call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041 8:30am-6pm 7F
Victoria Bldg, UN Ave, Mla
- Annex B GUAM DIVORCE An Atty in Guam, is giving FREE BKS
on Guam Divorce thru the Leg Clinic beg Mon-Fri during office hours
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Probs, Visa ext.
Quota/Non-quota Res and Special Retiree’s Visa. Declaration of
Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in
the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Sp/Shil. Call Marivic THE
LEGAL CLINIC, etc
Petitioner’s Claim:
-Ads are unethical and demeaning of the law profession and
destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the
members of the bar. -As a member of the legal profession, he is
ashamed and offended by the ads
Respondent’s Comment:
-They are not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of leg
support services thru paralegals with the use of modern computers and
electronic machines - Even if they are leg services, the act of
advertising them should be allowed under Bates v. State bar of Arizona
ISSUES
1. WON the services offered by The Legal Clinic constitutes practice
of law?
2. WON their services can be advertised?
HELD
1. Yes. The Practice of law involves any activity, in or out of
the court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedures, knowledge, training and expertise - To engage
in the practice is to perform those acts which are
characteristic of the profession; to give advice or render any
kind of service that involves legal knowledge/skill - Not
limited to the conduct of cases in court; includes legal advice
and counsel and preparation of legal instruments and
contracts by which legal rights are secured regardless of
WON they’re pending in court 3 types of legal profession
activity: 1. legal advice and instructions to clients to inform
them of their rights and obligations 2. preparation for clients
of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not
possessed by ordinary layman 3. appearance for clients
before public tribunals which possess power and authority to
determine rights of life, liberty and property according to
law, in order to assist in proper inter and enforcement of law
Respondent’s description of its services shows it falls within
the practice of law: Giving info by paralegals to laymen and
lawyers thru the use of comps and modern info tech -
computerized legal research, document search, evidence
gathering, locating parties/witnesses to a case, fact finding
investigations, assistance to laymen in need of services from
agencies like birth, marriage, prop, bus registrations, etc.
*even if some of the services offered merely involve
mechanical and technical know how like installing computer
system for law offices, this doesn’t make it an exception to
the general rule - gives out leg info to laymen and
lawyers not non-advisory and non-diagnostic ex. foreign
laws on marriage, divorce and adoption – have to explain to
client the intricacies of the law and advise him on the proper
course of action - what its ads represent and what it will be
paid for - It doesn’t matter that they don’t represent clients
in court since practice of law isn’t limited to ct appearances
but also leg research, leg advice and drafting contracts Phil
Star Art – Rx for Leg Probs, int by proprietor Atty Nogales:
- Takes care of probs as complicated as the Cuneta-
Concepcion domestic sit - lawyers, who like drs, are
specialists in various fields and can take care of it (taxation,
crim law, medico-leg probs, labor, litigation, fam law) -
backed up by paralegals, counselors and attys - caters to
clients who can’t afford big firms - can prepare a simple deed
of sale or affidavit of loss and also those w/ more extensive
treatment -The fact that they employ paralegals to carry out
its services doesn’t matter; what’s important is that it’s
engaged in the practice of law ‘cause of the nature of the
services it renders, which brings it within the statutory
prohibitions against ads only a person duly admitted as a
member of the bar and who’s in good and regular standing
is entitled to the practice of law - public policy requires that
the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly
qualified in education and character to protect the public,
court, client and bar from incompetence/dishonesty of those
unlicensed to the practice and not subject to the discipline of
court
2. No. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer, in making known his legal services, shall use only
true, honest, fair, dignified and objective info/statement of
facts - not supposed to use any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement re
his qualifications/legal services - not supposed to pay
representatives of the mass media in return for publicity to
attract legal business Canons of professional Ethics (before
CPR) provides that lawyers shouldn’t resort to indirect ads
for professional employment like furnishing newspaper
comments, publishing his pictures with causes the lawyer’s
been engaged in, importance of his position and other self-
laudation Stands of legal profession condemn lawyer’s
advertisement of his talents like a merchant does of his goods
because of the fact that law is a profession. The canons of
profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a
lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity
and fidelity to trust which must be earned as the outcome of
character and conduct Good and efficient service to a client
and the community has a way of publicizing itself and
catching public attention; this shouldn’t be done thru
propaganda
EXCEPTIONS:
1. expressly allowed – publication in reputable law lists of
informative data that’s not misleading and may include only:
name, professional assoc, adds, nos, branches of law practiced,
date and place of birth and admission to the bar, schools attended
w/ dates of grad, degrees , public offices, posts of honor, legal
authorships, legal teaching positions, membership and offices in
bar association, legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities,
listings in other reputable law lists, names and adds of references
with written consent and clients regularly represented - can’t be
mere supplemental feature of paper, magazine, trade journal or
periodical that’s published for other purposes - never in a law list
that are calculated or likely to deceive/injure the public/the bar or
lower the dignity/standing of the profession - ordinary simple
professional card allowed – name, law firm, add, no and special
branch of law practiced - publication of simple announcement of
the opening of a law firm or change in partnership, assoc, firm
name or office add, for the convenience of the profession - have
name listed in phone directory but not under designation of
special branch of law
2. necessarily implied from the restrictions

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona: allowed lawyer to publish a
statement of leg fees for an initial consultation or give, upon
request, a written schedule of fees or estimate for spec servicess
as an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by
lawyers none expressly/impliedly provided for in the Canons of
Professional Ethics or Code of Professional Responsibility
*survey conducted by the American Bar Assoc on the attitude of
the public about lawyers after viewing TC commercials – pub
opinion dropped significantly: Trustworthy – 71-14%
Professional – 71-14% Honest – 65-14% Dignified – 45-14%
With the present situation of our legal and judicial system, to
allow the publication of like advertisements would aggravate
what’s already a deteriorating pub of the legal profession whose
integrity’s been under attack by media and the community in
general - all efforts should be made to regain the high esteem
formerly accorded to the leg profession
Atty Nograles (prime incorporator, major stockholder and
proprietor of the Leg Clinic) is REPRIMANDED w/ a warning
that a repetition will be dealt w/ more severely for misbehavior in
advertising his servIces and aid a layman in the unauthorized
practice of law
CAYETANO V MONSOD PARAS; September 3, 1991 NATURE
Petition to review decision of Commission on Appointments
FACTS - April 25, 1991
– Atty. Christian Monsod was appointed by Pres. Aquino as Chairman
of COMELEC - Rene Cayetano opposed such appointment as citizen
and taxpayer because Monsod allegedly does not possess the required
qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least
10 years - June 18, 1991
– Monsod took his oath of office - Monsod’s credentials > member of
Philippine Bar since 1960 > after bar, worked in law office of his father
> 1963-1970 – in World Bank Group as operations officer in Costa
Rica and Panama involves getting acquainted with laws of member-
countries, negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic and
project work > 1970
– in Meralco Group as CEO of investment bank > since 1986
– rendered service to various companiesas legal and economic
consultant or CEO > 1986-1987
– secretary-general and national chairman of NAMFREL (election
law) > co-chairman of Bishop’s Businessmen’s Conference for Human
Development > 1990
- Davide Commission – quasi-judicial body > 1986-1987 – member
of Constitutional Commission as Chairman on Accountability of
Public Officers
- AIX-C Sec1(1) - … Commission on Elections chairman shall be
members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice
of law for at least 10 years - no jurisprudence on what constitutes the
practice of law
ISSUE WON Monsod is qualified as Chairman of COMELEC in
fulfilling the requirement engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years
HELD YES.
Practice of Law means any activity, in or out of court which requires
the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience. Monsod as lawyer economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer-
entrepreneur, lawyer negotiator, and lawyer-negotiator is proof he is
engaged in practice of law for more than 1- years
- Black’s Law Dictionary >
Rendition of service requiring the knowledge and application of legal
principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his
consent not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in
the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings,
and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,
conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and
giving all legal advice to clients - Land Title
Abstract and Trust Co v Dworken > one who in representative capacity
engages in business of advising clients as to their rights under law, or
while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of
court
- UP Law Center > advocacy, counseling, public service
- Alexander SyCip > appearance of lawyer in litigation is most
publicly familiar role of lawyers as well as an uncommon role for the
average lawyer > more legal work is transacted in law offices that in
the courtrooms > business counseling than trying cases; as planner,
diagnostician, trial lawyer, surgeon - article on
Business Star > emerging trends in corporate law SEPARATE
OPINION
NARVASA [concur] - concur only in the result
PADILLA [dissent] - Practice refers to actual performance of
application of knowledge as distinguished from mere possession of
knowledge; it connotes active, habitual, repeated or customary action
TF lawyer employed as business executive or corporate manager, other
than head of Legal Department cannot be said to be in the practice of
law - People v Villanueva > Practice is more than an isolated
appearance for it consists in frequent or customary actions, a
succession of acts of the same kind - Commission on Appointments
memorandum > practice of law requires habituality, compensation,
application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure, and attorney-
client relationship
CRUZ [dissent] - sweeping definition of practice of law as to render
the qualification practically toothless - there is hardly any activity that
is not affected by some law or government regulation the businessman
must know about and observe
- “performance of any acts… in or out of court, commonly understood
to be the practice of law” which tells us absolutely nothing
GUTIERREZ [dissent]
- practice is envisioned as active and regular, not isolated, occasional,
accidental, intermittent, incidental, seasonal or extemporaneous -
nothing in the bio-data even remotely indicates Monsod has given the
law enough attention or a certain degree of commitment and
participation - difficult if not impossible to lay down a formula or
definition of what constitutes the practice of law
- Monsod was asked if he ever prepared contracts for parties in real-
estate transaction; he answered very seldom
- Monsod may have profited from his legal knowledge, the use of such
is incidental and consists of isolated activities which do not fall under
the denominations of practice of law
IN RE INTEGRATION January 9, 1973 | Per Curiam | Resolution

SUMMARY: The SC decided three things based on the report of the
Commission on Bar Integration Report and the proceedings of Adm.
Case 526 regarding the Integration of the Philippine Bar. First, the
Court has the constitutional power to ordain the integration of the Bar.
Second, the integration and the dues and responsibilities it asks from
lawyers are constitutional. Third, the Court should ordain the
integration of the Bar as there was overwhelming national demand to
do so. DOCTRINE: The Court has the power to integrate the Bar of
the Philippines by virtue of Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution.
The integration and the dues resulting from such integration do not
violate the constitutional rights of the lawyers.
FACTS:
1. Adm. Case 526 formally prayed to the court to order the integration
ofthe Philippine Bar. On August 16, 1962, oral arguments in favor of
as well as in opposition to the petition were orally expounded before
the Court, written oppositions were admitted, and all parties were
thereafter granted leave to file written memoranda.
2. In 1970, the Court created the Commission on Bar Integration for
the purpose of ascertaining the advisability of unifying the Philippine
Bar.
3. In September, 1971, Congress passed House Bill No. 3277 entitled
―An Act Providing for the Integration of the Philippine Bar, and
Appropriating Funds Therefor.‖ The measure was signed by President
Ferdinand E. Marcos on September 17, 1971 and took effect on the
same day as Rep. Act 6397 providing for the Supreme Court to adopt
rules of court to affect the integration of the Bar within two years.
4. On December 1, 1972, the Commission on Bar Integration
submitted its Report dated November 30, 1972, with the ―earnest
recommendation‖ that the ―Court ordain the integration of the
Philippine Bar as soon as possible through the adoption and
promulgation of an appropriate Court Rule. ‖
ISSUES
1. WoN the Court has the power to integrate the Philippine Bar – YES
2. Won the integration is constitutional – YES
3. Won the Court should ordain the integration of the Bar at this time
– YES
RULING: The integration of the Bar of the Philippines is ordained by
the Court by virtue of the power vested to it by Sec. 13, Art VII of the
Constitution
RATIO
1. The Court may integrate the Philippine Bar in the exercise of its
power, under Article VIII, Sec. 13 of the Constitution, ―to promulgate
rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, and
the admission to the practice of law.‖ Indeed, the power to integrate is
an inherent part of the Court‘s constitutional authority over the Bar. In
providing that ―the Supreme Court may adopt rules of court to effect
the integration of the Philippine Bar,‖ Republic Act 6397 neither
confers a new power nor restricts the Court‘s inherent power, but is a
mere legislative declaration that the integration of the Bar will promote
public interest or, more specifically, will ―raise the standards of the
legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the
Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.‖
2. Re: Freedom of Association - Integration does not make a lawyer a
member of any group of which he is not already a member as became
a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar examinations. It does not
compel a lawyer to associate with anyone. It merely provides for an
official national organization of lawyers. Assuming that Bar
integration does compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar,
such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the
State .
Re: Regulatory Fees - A membership fee is an exaction for regulation
and not a tax. The Court has inherent power to regulate the Bar, thus,
as an incident to regulation, it may impose a membership fee for that
purpose. The only limitation upon the State‘s power to regulate the Bar
is that the regulation does not impose an unconstitutional burden but
public interest promoted by the integration of the Bar far outweighs the
inconsequential inconvenience to a member that might result from his
required payment of annual dues. Re: Freedom of Speech – A lawyer
is free to voice his opinions even if they are contrary to those of the
Integrated Bar. The usage of the Integrated Bar of the dues paid by a
specific lawyer for purposes contrary to his views does not nullify or
adversely affect his freedom of speech. Such an argument, if accepted,
can be extended to allow a person to refuse to contribute taxes in
furtherance of war or of any other end condemned by his conscience
as irreligious or immoral. Re: Fairness to All Lawyers - Because the
requirement to pay dues is a valid exercise of regulatory power by the
Court, because it will apply equally to all lawyers, young and old, at
the time Bar integration takes effect, and because it is a new regulation
in exchange for new benefits, it is not retroactive, it is not unequal, it
is not unfair.
3. Re: Practicability and Necessity The following statistics show the
overwhelming national demand for Bar integration at the time: a) In
the matter of Integration of the Bar as per the national poll conducted
by
the Commission on Bar Integration: 14,555 (96.45%) in favorVS 378
(2.51%)against VS157 (1.04%) non-commital b) In terms of support
from the local Bar associations and local groups: Eighty (80)
submitting or expressing their support VS Zero (0) expressing their
opposition c) In the plebiscite ballots of individual lawyers on the
proposed integration Court Rule drafted by the Commission:12,855
(93.14 %) in favorVS662 (4.80%) against VS 285 (2.06%) non-
committal Re: Beneficiality Bar Integration in jurisdictions such as in
England, Canada, or the US, have yielded the following benefits: (1)
improved discipline among the members of the Bar; (2) greater
influence and ascendancy of the Bar; (3) better and more meaningful
participation of the individual lawyer in the activities of the Integrated
Bar; (4) greater Bar facilities and services; (5) elimination of
unauthorized practice; (6) avoidance of costly membership campaigns;
(7) establishment of an official status for the Bar; (8) more cohesive
profession; and (9) better and more effective discharge by the Bar of
its obligations and responsibilities to its members, to the courts, and to
the public. The same is expected in the Philippines. Meanwhile, the
common arguments against Bar integration such as Government
domination of the Bar, politicizing of the Bar and clique-ism have
failed to materialize in over 50 years of Bar integration in the said
jurisdictions.