Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Requirements
Taking of Oath
Signing of the Roll of Attorneys
Requirements
Rule 138 (Attorneys and Admission to Bar)
RULING:
Ching failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship. The span of fourteen (14) years
that lapsed from the time he reached the age of majority until he finally
expressed his intention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the
contemplation of the requirement of electing "upon reaching the age of
majority." Moreover, Ching has offered no reason why he delayed his election of
Philippine citizenship. The prescribed procedure in electing Philippine citizenship
is certainly not a tedious and painstaking process. All that is required of the
elector is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship and,
thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry.
The phrase "reasonable time" has been interpreted to mean that the election
should be made generally within three (3) years from reaching the age of
majority.
CASES
In re: Ramon Quisumbing, B.M. No. 419, November 1988
RULING:
Discretion to admit one to the bar may be exercised only
after it is shown that the applicant has complied with all
the requirements.
Court allowed the applicant, a Filipino citizen who obtained a Juris Doctor from
Columbia University, New York and who has taken fourth year review courses and
other bar subjects at the Ateneo Law School, to take the 1993 Bar Examinations,
considering the fact that in the past, it had allowed Filipinos who have studied law
in foreign law schools from the strict requirements of Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138
and allowed them to take the bar examinations, but with the caveat that:
beginning next year, the Court WILL NOT ALLOW GRADUATES OF FOREIGN LAW
SCHOOLS TO TAKE THE BAR EXAMINATIONS. An applicant who desires to take the
bar examinations must not only have studied law in a local law school but has to
present the certifications required under Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138 in order to
take the bar examination. Since graduates of foreign law schools cannot submit
said certifications, they shall henceforth not be allowed to take the bar
examinations.
CASES
Re: Letter of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza Proposing Reforms in the Bar
Examinations through Amendments to Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, B.M.
No. 1153, March 9, 2010
The Supreme Court once again allowed Filipino graduates of foreign law
schools to take the Philippine Bar, subject to certain conditions, and amended
Sections 5 and 6 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Section 5 now also provides that a Filipino citizen who graduated from a
foreign law school shall be admitted to the bar examination only upon
submission to the Supreme Court of certifications showing: (a) completion of
all courses leading to the degree of Bachelor of Laws or its equivalent degree;
(b) recognition or accreditation of the law school by the proper authority; and
(c) completion of all fourth year subjects in the Bachelor of Laws academic
program in a law school duly recognized by the Philippine Government.
CASES
In Re: Petition to Take the Lawyer's Oath, Jose M. Villanueva, B.M. No. 1131,
October 15, 2002
RULING:
To be admitted as a member of the Bar, the Petitioner must be a person of
good moral character. He has to show that no charges involving moral
turpitude are pending against him.
In this case, the Petitioner, although not yet a member of the Philippine Bar,
accepted the position of Substitute Chairman Of the Board of Canvassers,
although under Section 21 of Republic Act 6646, a substitute Chairman of the
Board of Canvasser must be a ranking lawyer of the Commission on Elections.
The outcome of the election cases against the Petitioner has a bearing on his
qualifications as a member of the Philippine Bar.
Unless and until the Petitioner is cleansed of liability for violation of the
Omnibus Election Code, it cannot be gainsaid that the Petitioner possessed a
good moral character and that there are no pending charges against him,
involving moral turpitude.
Taking of Oath
People v. De Luna, et al., G.R. Nos. L-10236-48,
January 31, 1958
RULING:
By taking "'the oath of office as attorney-at-law"
and notifying the Supreme Court that they had
done so and would "practice law in all courts of
the Philippines", the appellees had for all intents
and purposes, "held out to the public" as such
attorneys-at-law.
CASES
Tan v. Sabandal, B.M. No. 44, February 24, 1992
RULING:
There are testimonials attesting to his good moral character, but these were
confined to lack of knowledge of the pendency of any criminal case against him
and were obviously made without awareness of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the case instituted by the Government against him. Those
testimonials can not, therefore, outweigh nor smother his acts of dishonesty and
lack of good moral character.
That complainant Tan has withdrawn her objection to his taking the oath can
neither tilt the balance in his favor, the basis of her complaint treating as it does
of another subject matter.
CASES
Sebastian v. Calis, A.C. No. 5118, September 9, 1999
RULING:
The lawyer's oath is not mere facile words, drift and
hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep
inviolable. The nature of the office of an attorney requires
that he should be a person of good moral character. This
requisite is not only a condition precedent to admission
to the practice of law, its continued possession is also
essential for remaining in the practice of law.
CASES
Endaya v. Oca, A.C. No. 3967, September 3, 2003
RULING:
The lawyers oath embodies the fundamental principles that
guide every member of the legal fraternity. From it springs the
lawyers duties and responsibilities that any infringement
thereof can cause his disbarment, suspension or other
disciplinary action.
Found in the oath is the duty of a lawyer to protect and
safeguard the interest of his client. Specifically, it requires a
lawyer to conduct himself to the best of his knowledge and
discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his
clients.
CASES
In re: Benjamin M. Dacanay, B.M. No. 1678, December 17, 2007
ISSUE: May a lawyer who has lost his Filipino citizenship still practice law in the
Philippines?
The retaking of the lawyers oath will not only remind him of his duties and
responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
Signing of the Roll of Attorneys
Pangan v. Ramos, Adm. Case No. 1053,
September 7, 1979
RULING:
The attorney's roll or register is the official record
containing the names and signatures of those
who are authorized to practice law. A lawyer is
not authorized to use a name other than the one
inscribed in the Roll of Attorneys in his practice of
law.
CASES
Aguirre v. Rana, B.M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003
RULING:
Respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took
the lawyers 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 lawyers oath to be administered by
this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
CASES
In re: Michael A. Medado, B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013
RULING:
Medado may have at first operated under an honest mistake of fact when he thought
that what he had signed at the PICC entrance before the oath-taking was already the
Roll of Attorneys. However, the moment he realized that what he had signed was
merely an attendance record, he could no longer claim an honest mistake of fact as a
valid justification. At that point, Medado should have known that he was not a full-
fledged member of the Philippine Bar because of his failure to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys, as it was the act of signing therein that would have made him so. When, in
spite of this knowledge, he chose to continue practicing law without taking the
necessary steps to complete all the requirements for admission to the Bar, he willfully
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
As Medado is not yet a full-fledged lawyer, SC could not suspend him from the practice
of law. However, it saw fit to impose upon him a penalty akin to suspension by allowing
him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of its Resolution.
CASES
Alawi v. Alauya, 268 SCRA 628
RULING:
ISSUES:
1. Does the Court have the power to integrate the
Philippine Bar?
2. Would the integration be constitutional?
Freedom of Association
Freedom of Speech
Tax v. Regulatory Fee
Fairness to all lawyers
Freedom of Association
Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he
is not already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed
the Bar examinations. All that integration actually does is to provide an
official national organization for the well-defined but unorganized and
incohesive group of which every lawyer is a ready a member.
Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone.
He is free to attend or not to attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar
Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only
compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of his annual dues. The
Supreme Court, in order to foster the State's legitimate interest in elevating
the quality of professional legal services, may require that the cost of
improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects and
beneficiaries of the regulatory program the lawyers.
Freedom of Speech
A lawyer is free, as he has always been, to voice his views on any
subject in any manner he wishes, even though such views be opposed to
positions taken by the Unified Bar.
The only limitation upon the State's power to regulate the privilege of law is
that the regulation does not impose an unconstitutional burden. The public
interest promoted by the integration of the Bar far outweighs the slight
inconvenience to a member resulting from his required payment of the annual
dues.
Fairness to all lawyers
Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practising
because although the requirement to pay annual dues is a new
regulation, it will give the members of the Bar a new system
which they hitherto have not had and through which, by proper
work, they will receive benefits they have not heretofore enjoyed,
and discharge their public responsibilities in a more effective
manner than they have been able to do in the past. 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.
General Objectives
Elevate the standards of the legal profession;
Improve the administration of justice;
Enable the bar to discharge its public responsibility more
effectively;
Assist in the administration of justice;
Foster and maintain members high ideals of integrity,
learning, professional competence, public service and conduct;
Safeguard the professional interests of its members;
Cultivate the members spirit of cordiality and brotherhood;
Provide a forum for discussion;
Encourage and foster legal education; and
Promote continuing program of legal research.
Membership and Retirement
Chapter membership is discretionary.
Payment of dues is mandatory.
Default in the payment of annual dues for six months shall warrant
suspension of membership in the Integrated Bar, and default in such
payment for one year shall be a ground for the removal of the name of the
delinquent member from the Roll of Attorneys. (Rule 139-A, Section 10 )
Termination of membership by filing a verified notice of
termination with the Secretary of the IBP
Reinstatement may be made in accordance with rules and
regulations prescribed by the Board of Governors and approved
by the SC, provided any written application for reinstatement
must be filed with the Board, which shall, within fifteen days
from receipt, forward the same to the SC with its
recommendation.
Membership and Retirement
Any member of good standing who shall have attained
the age of 75 years, or shall have been 40 years as
lawyer shall, by reason of physical disability or
judicially adjudged mental incapacity, be unable to
engage in the practice of law, may be retired from the
IBP upon verified petition to the Board of Governors.
Retired members shall not practice law or be required
to pay dues.
A retired member may be reinstated to active
membership upon written application to and approval
by the Board.
Non-Political Bar
Prohibition to lawyers holding judicial, quasi-
judicial or prosecutory offices in the
government or any political subdivision or
instrumentality thereof.
Officers who files a certificate of candidacy is
considered ipso facto resigned from position.
CASES
Soliman M. Santos, Jr. v. Atty. Francisco R. Llamas, Adm. Case
No. 4749, January 20, 2000
A complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues
filed against respondent Atty. Llamas
For several years, he has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP O.R. Nos. and data
(date & place of issuance) in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicates "IBP Rizal
259060" but he has been using this for at least three years already.
Respondents Defense:
He had only a limited practice of law. In fact, in his Income Tax Return, his principal
occupation is a farmer.
He is a Senior Citizen since 1992, is legally exempt under Section 4 of Rep. Act 7432 which
took effect in 1992, in the payment of taxes. Payment by him of dues with the Integrated Bar
is covered by such exemption.
He never exercised his rights as an IBP member to vote and be voted upon.
If despite such honest belief of being covered by the exemption and if only to show that he
never in any manner wilfully and deliberately failed and refused compliance with such dues,
he is willing at any time to fulfill and pay all past dues even with interests, charges and
surcharges and penalties.
CASES
Soliman M. Santos, Jr. v. Atty. Francisco R. Llamas, Adm.
Case No. 4749, January 20, 2000
IBP Board found respondent guilty, and recommended his suspension
from the practice of law for three months and until he pays his IBP dues.
Respondents motion for reconsideration was denied.
RULING:
Respondent can engage in the practice of law only by paying his dues,
and it does not matter that his practice is "limited." While it is true that
R.A. No. 7432, 4 grants senior citizens "exemption from the payment of
individual income taxes: provided, that their annual taxable income does
not exceed the poverty level as determined by the National Economic
and Development Authority (NEDA) for that year," the exemption does
not include payment of membership or association dues.
Atty. Francisco R. Llamas was SUSPENDED from the practice of law for
one year, or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.
CASES
Letter of Atty. Cecillo Y. Arevalo, Jr., Requesting Exemption from
Payment of IBP Dues
FACTS:
Petitioner sought exemption from payment of IBP dues in the
amount of P12,035.00 as alleged unpaid accountability for the years
1977-2005. He alleged that after being admitted to the Philippine Bar
in 1961, he became part of the Philippine Civil Service from July 1962
until 1986, then migrated to, and worked in, the USA in December
1986 until his retirement in the year 2003. He maintained that he
cannot be assessed IBP dues for the years that he was working in the
Philippine Civil Service since the Civil Service law prohibits the practice
of one's profession while in government service, and neither can he
be assessed for the years when he was working in the USA.
CASES
Letter of Atty. Cecillo Y. Arevalo, Jr., Requesting Exemption from
Payment of IBP Dues
RULING: No.
Payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the
IBP, of which no one is exempt. This means that the compulsory
nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as one's membership
in the IBP remains regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of
practice, the member is engaged in.
CASES
Letter of Atty. Cecillo Y. Arevalo, Jr., Requesting
Exemption from Payment of IBP Dues
RULING:
There is nothing in the law or rules which allows
exemption from payment of membership dues. At most,
as correctly observed by the IBP, he could have informed
the Secretary of the Integrated Bar of his intention to
stay abroad before he left. In such case, his membership
in the IBP could have been terminated and his obligation
to pay dues could have been discontinued.
CASES
In re: Marcial Edilion, A.M. No. 1928, August 3, 1978
RULING: No. Under the police power of the State, and under the necessary powers
granted to the Court to perpetuate its existence, the respondent's right to practice
law before the courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to regulation
and inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is
recognize[d], then a penalty designed to enforce its payment, which penalty may be
avoided altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary.
Practice of law is not a property right but a mere privilege, and as such must bow to
the inherent regulatory power of the Court to exact compliance with the lawyer's
public responsibilities.
CASES
Re: Voluntary Termination of Atty. Jose
Principe, B.M. No. 543, September 20, 1990