RENATO

CAYETANO vs. CHRISTIAN

MONSOD
G.R. No. 100113. September 3, 1991.
FACTS:
Monsod was nominated by President Aquino
as Chairman of the Comelec. The Commission
on Appointments confirmed the appointment
despite Cayetano's objection, based on
Monsod's alleged lack of the required
qualification of 10 year law practice. Cayetano
filed this certiorari and prohibition. The 1987
constitution provides in Section 1, Article IXC: 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:
1. Whether or not Monsod has been engaged in
the practice of law for 10 years.
2. Whether or not the Commission on
Appointments committed grave abuse of
discretion
in
confirming
Monsods
appointment.
HELD:

1. YES. 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
proceedings, the management of such
actions and proceedings on behalf of
clients, and other works where the
work done involves the determination
of the trained legal mind of the legal
effect of facts and conditions (PLA vs.
Agrava.) The records of the 1986
constitutional commission show that
the interpretation of the term practice of
law was liberal as to consider lawyers
employed in the Commission of Audit
as engaged in the practice of law
provided that they use their legal
knowledge or talent in their respective
work. The court also cited an article in
the January 11, 1989 issue of the
Business Star, that lawyers nowadays
have their own specialized fields such
as tax lawyers, prosecutors, etc., that
because of the demands of their
specialization, lawyers engage in other
works or functions to meet them. These
days, for example, most corporation
lawyers are involved in management
policy formulation. Therefore, Monsod,
who passed the bar in 1960, worked
with the World Bank Group from 19631970, then worked for an investment
bank till 1986, became member of the
CONCOM in 1986, and also became a
member of the Davide Commission in
1990, can be considered to have been
engaged in the practice of law as

lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyerentrepreneur, etc.

2. NO. The power of the COA to give consent
to the nomination of the Comelec Chairman by
the president is mandated by the constitution.
The power of appointment is essentially within
the discretion of whom it is so vested subject to
the only condition that the appointee should
possess the qualification required by law. From
the evidence, there is no occasion for the SC to
exercise its corrective power since there is no
such grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the CA.
Philippine Lawyers Association vs Agrava,
105 Phil 173 (1959)
FACTS:
This is a petition filed by the Philippine
Lawyers Association for prohibition and
injunction against Celedonio Agrava, in his
capacity s Director of the Philippines Patent
Office. On May 23, 1957, respondent Director
issued a circular announcing that he had
scheduled for June 27, 1957 an examination
for the purpose of determining who are
qualified to practice as patent attorneys before
the said office. Petitioner contends that one
who has passed the bar examinations, and is in
good standing, is duly qualified to practice
before the Philippines Patent Office and that
the respondent Director's holding an
examination for the purpose is in excess of his
jurisdiction and is in violation of the law. The
respondent, in reply, maintains that the
prosecution of patent cases "does not involve
entirely or purely the practice of law but

include the application of scientific and

technical knowledge and training as a matter of
actual purpose so as to include engineers and
other individuals who passed the examination
can practice before the Patent Office.
Furthermore, respondent contends that he has
previously conducted such examinations and
that this is the first time that he is questioned
formally.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not members of the bar should
first take and pass an examination conducted
by the Patent Office before he would be
allowed to practice law in said office;
2. Whether or not appearance before the Patent
Office and the preparation of applications or
patents, etc. constitutes practice of law or is
included in the practice of law; and
3. Whether or not the Director of the Patent
Office is authorized to conduct examinations
for patent attorneys.
RULING:
The Supreme Court has the exclusive and
constitutional power with respect to admission
to the practice of law in the Philippines and
any member of the Philippine Bar in good
standing may practice law anywhere and
before any entity, whether judicial or quasijudicial or administrative, in the Philippines.
Moreover, "The practice of law is not
limited to the conduct of cases or litigation m

court; it
embraces
the
preparation of pleadings
and
other papers incident to actions and
special proceedings, 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
sendees, assessment and condemnation
services contemplating an appearance
before a judicial body, the foreclosure
of a 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, as do the
preparation and drafting of legal
instruments, where the work done
involves the determination by the
trained legal mind of the legal effect of
facts and conditions. As such, , 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 oppositions thereto, or the
enforcement of their rights in patent
cases. Thus, under the present law,
members of the Philippine Bar
authorized by this Tribunal to practice
law, and in good standing, may practice
their profession before the Patent
Office, for the reason that much of the
business in said office involves the

interpretation and determination of the scope

and application of the Patent Law and other
laws applicable, as well as the presentation of
evidence to establish facts involved; that part
of the functions of the Patent Director are
judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that
appeals from his orders and decisions are,
under the law, taken to the Supreme Court. In
sum, the practice of law covers any activity in
or out of court, which requires the application
of law, legal procedures, principles or practice
and calls for legal knowledge, training and
experience. And, only the Supreme Court has
the exclusive and constitutional power with
respect to admission to the practice of law.

In Re: Al C. Argosino 246 SCRA 14 (1995)

IN MATTER OF THE ADMISSION TO THE
BAR
AND
OATH-TAKING
OF
SUCCESSFUL BAR APPLICANT AL C.
ARGOSINO
DOCTRINES:
The practice of law is a high personal
privilege limited to citizens of good moral
character, with special education qualifications,
duly ascertained and certified.
Requirement of good moral character is of
greater importance so far as the general public
and proper administration of justice is
concerned.
All aspects of moral character and behavior
may be inquired into in respect of those
seeking admission to the Bar.

Requirement of good moral character to be

satisfied by those who would seek admission
to the bar must be a necessity more stringent
than the norm of conduct expected from
members of the general public.
Participation in the prolonged mindless
physical beatings inflicted upon Raul
Camaligan constituted evident rejection of that
moral duty and was totally irresponsible
behavior, which makes impossible a finding
that the participant was possessed of good
moral character.
Good moral character is a requirement
possession of which must be demonstrated at
the time of the application for permission to
take the bar examinations and more
importantly at the time of application for
admission to the bar and to take the attorney's
oath of office.

FACTS:
On February 4, 1992 ,Argosino, together with
13 others, was charged with the crime of
homicide in connection with the death of one
Raul Camaligan. The death of Camaligan
stemmed from the affliction of severe physical
injuries upon him in course of "hazing"
conducted as part of the university fraternity
initiation rites. On February 11, 1993, the
accused were consequently sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for a period ranging from two
(2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to
four (4) years.
Eleven (11) days later, Mr. Argosino and his
colleagues filed an application for probation
with the lower court. The application was
granted on June 18 1993. The period of
probation was set at two (2) years, counted

from the probationer's initial report to

the probation officer assigned to
supervise him.
Less than a month later, Argosino filed
a petition to take the bar exam. He was
allowed and he passed the exam, but
was not allowed to take the lawyer's
oath of office.
On April 15, 1994, Argosino filed a
petition to allow him to take the
attorney's oath and be admitted to the
practice of law. He averred that his
probation period had been terminated.
It is noted that his probation period did
not last for more than 10 months.
ISSUE: Whether Argosino should be
allowed to take the oath of attorney and
be admitted to the practice of law
HELD:
Mr. Argosino must submit to this Court
evidence that he may now be regarded
as complying with the requirement of
good moral character imposed upon
those who are seeking admission to the
bar. He should show to the Court how
he has tried to make up for the
senseless killing of a helpless student to
the family of the deceased student and
to the community at large. In short, he
must show evidence that he is a
different person now, that he has
become morally fit for admission to the
profession of law.

He is already directed to inform the Court, by

appropriate written manifestation, of the names
of the parents or brothers and sisters of
Camaligan from notice.

[Bar Matter No. 712 . March 19, 1997.]

RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO
TAKE THE LAWYER'S OATH
R ES OLUTIO N
PADILLA, J p:
Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the bar
examinations held in 1993. The Court however
deferred his oath-taking due to his previous
conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting
In Homicide.
The criminal case which resulted in petitioner's
conviction, arose from the death of a neophyte
during fraternity initiation rites sometime in
September 1991. Petitioner and seven (7) other
accused initially entered pleas of not guilty to
homicide charges. The eight (8) accused later
withdrew their initial pleas and upon rearraignment all pleaded guilty to reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide.
On the basis of such pleas, the trial court
rendered judgment dated 11 February 1993
imposing on each of the accused a sentence of
imprisonment of from two (2) years four (4)
months and one (1) day to four (4) years.
On 18 June 1993, the trial court granted herein
petitioner's application for probation.

On 11 April 1994, the trial court issued an

order approving a report dated 6 April 1994
submitted
by
the
Probation
Officer
recommending petitioner's discharge from
probation.
On 14 April 1994, petitioner filed before this
Court a petition to be allowed to take the
lawyer's oath based on the order of his
discharge from probation.
On 13 July 1995, the Court through then
Senior Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano
issued a resolution requiring petitioner Al
C. Argosino to submit to the Court evidence
that he may now be regarded as complying
with the requirement of good moral character
imposed upon those seeking admission to the
bar.
In compliance with the above resolution,
petitioner submitted no less than fifteen (15)
certifications/letters executed by among others
two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges, and
six (6) members of religious orders. Petitioner
likewise submitted evidence that a scholarship
foundation had been established in honor of
Raul Camaligan, the hazing victim, through
joint efforts of the latter's family and the eight
(8) accused in the criminal case.
On 26 September 1995, the Court required
Atty. Gilbert Camaligan, father of Raul, to
comment on petitioner's prayer to be allowed
to take the lawyer's oath.
In his comment dated 4 December 1995, Atty.
Camaligan states that:

a. He still believes that the

infliction of severe physical
injuries which led to the death of
his son was deliberate rather than
accidental. The offense therefore
was not only homicide but murder
since the accused took advantage
of the neophyte's helplessness
implying abuse of confidence,
taking advantage of superior
strength and treachery.
B. He consented to the accused's
plea of guilt to the lesser offense
of reckless imprudence resulting
in homicide only out of pity for
the mothers of the accused and a
pregnant wife of one of the
accused who went to their house
on Christmas day 1991 and
Maundy Thursday 1992, literally
on their knees, crying and begging
for forgiveness and compassion.
They also told him that the father
of one of the accused had died of a
heart attack upon learning of his
son's involvement in the incident.
C. As a Christian, he has forgiven
petitioner and his co-accused for
the death of his son. However, as a
loving father who had lost a son
whom he had hoped would
succeed him in his law practice, he
still feels the pain of an untimely
demise and the stigma of the
gruesome manner of his death.

d. He is not in a position to say whether

petitioner is now morally fit for admission
to the bar. He therefore submits the matter
to the sound discretion of the Court.
The practice of law is a privilege granted only
to those who possess the strict intellectual and
moral qualifications required of lawyers who
are instruments in the effective and efficient
administration of justice. It is the sworn duty of
this Court not only to "weed out" lawyers who
have become a disgrace to the noble profession
of the law but, also of equal importance, to
prevent "misfits" from taking the lawyer' s
oath, thereby further tarnishing the public
image of lawyers which in recent years has
undoubtedly become less than irreproachable.
The resolution of the issue before us required a
weighing and re-weighing of the reasons for
allowing or disallowing petitioner's admission
to the practice of law. The senseless beatings
inflicted upon Raul Camaligan constituted
evident absence of that moral fitness required
for admission to the bar since they were totally
irresponsible, irrelevant and uncalled for.
In the 13 July 1995 resolution in this case we
stated:
". . . participation in the prolonged and
mindless physical behavior, [which]
makes impossible a finding that the
participant [herein petitioner] was then
possessed of good moral character." 1
In the same resolution, however, we stated that
the Court is prepared to consider de novo the
question of whether petitioner has purged

himself of the obvious deficiency in moral

character referred to above.
Before anything else, the Court understands
and shares the sentiment of Atty. Gilbert
Camaligan. The death of one's child is, for a
parent, a most traumatic experience. The
suffering becomes even more pronounced and
profound in cases where the death is due to
causes other than natural or accidental but due
to the reckless imprudence of third parties. The
feeling then becomes a struggle between grief
and anger directed at the cause of death.
Atty. Camaligan's statement before the Court
manifesting his having forgiven the accused is
no less than praiseworthy and commendable. It
is exceptional for a parent, given the
circumstances in this cases, to find room for
forgiveness.
However, Atty. Camaligan admits that he is
still not in a position to state if petitioner is
now morally fit to be a lawyer.
After a very careful evaluation of this case, we
resolve
to
allow
petitioner
Al
Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's oath,
sign the Roll of Attorneys and practice the
legal
profession with
the
following
admonition:
In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer' s
oath, the Court recognizes that Mr. Argosino is
not inherently of bad moral fiber. On the
contrary, the various certifications show that he
is a devout Catholic with a genuine concern for
civic duties and public service.

The Court is persuaded that

Mr. Argosino has exerted all efforts to
atone for the death of Raul Camaligan.
We are prepared to give him the benefit
of the doubt, taking judicial notice of
the general tendency of youth to be
rash, temerarious and uncalculating.
We stress to Mr. Argosino that the
lawyer's oath is NOT a mere ceremony
or formality for practicing law. Every
lawyer should at ALL TIMES weigh
his actions according to the sworn
promises he makes when taking the
lawyer's oath. If all lawyers conducted
themselves strictly according to the
lawyer's oath and the Code of
Professional
Responsibility,
the
administration
of
justice
will
undoubtedly be faster, fairer and easier
for everyone concerned.
The Court sincerely hopes that
Mr. Argosino will continue with the
assistance he has been giving to his
community. As a lawyer he will now be
in a better position to render legal and
other services to the more unfortunate
members of society.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, petitioner
Al
Caparros Argosino is
hereby
ALLOWED to take the lawyer's oath
on a date to be set by the Court, to sign
the Roll of Attorneys and, thereafter, to
practice the legal profession.
SO ORDERED.

||| (Re: Al Argosino, B.M. No. 712 (Resolution),

[March 19, 1997])

Maria Victoria Ventura vs Atty. Danilo Samson

A.C. No. 9608 (November 27, 2012)
Before the Court
is the Complaint
Disbarment against Atty. Danilo
Samson led by Maria Victoria Ventura.

for

Facts:
Complainant led a complaint for disbarment
against the respondent
for
grossly
immoral conduct. She alleged that respondent
had carnal knowledge of her twice when she
was still a minor, the rst being committed
in the maids room and the other committed
in the respondents poultry farm.
Respondent did not deny the deed, but alleged
that the
sexual act was
done with
mutual consent,
the
complainant
even accepting the fees he had given after the
intercourse. Respondent also alleged that the
complainant was of
loose
morals
and that complaint was only concocted so
that the complainant can extort money
from him.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondents act warrant
disbarment
Ruling:
Immoral conduct involves
acts that
are
willful, agrant, or shameless, and that show a

moral indifference to
upright and respectable
community.

the opinion of the

members
of the

Respondent
has violated the trust
and condence
reposed on him by
complainant,
then a
13-yearold minor who for a time was under
respondents
care.
Whether the
sexual encounter
between the
respondent
and complainant was
or was
not with the
latters consent is of no moment. Respondent
clearly
committed
a disgraceful,
grossly immoral and highly reprehensible act.
Such conduct is a transgression of the
standards of morality required of the legal
profession
and should
be disciplined
accordingly.
Adjudication:
Respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson is hereby
DISBARRED for Gross 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.

In Re JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO Rel.

Cebu City Chapter of the IBP
A.M. No. 93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995
Facts:
The respondent in this case, Joaquin T.

Borromeo, is not a lawyer but has

apparently read some law books, and
ostensibly come to possess some
superficial awareness of a few
substantive legal principles and
procedural rules. Incredibly, with
nothing more than this smattering of
learning, the respondent has, for some
sixteen (16) years now, from 1978 to
the present, been instituting and
prosecuting legal proceedings in
various
courts,
dogmatically
pontificating on errors supposedly
committed by the courts, including the
Supreme
Court.
Case 1: Cases involving Traders Royal
Bank
(TRB).
The first bank that Joaquin T.
Borromeo appears to have dealt with
was the Traders Royal Bank (TRB). On
June 2, 1978, he got a loan from it in
the sum of P45,000.00. This he secured
by a real estate mortgage created over
two parcels of land covered by TCT
No. 59596 and TCT No. 59755 owned,
respectively, by Socorro BorromeoThakuria (his sister) and Teresita
Winniefred Lavarino. On June 16,
1978, Borromeo obtained a second loan
from TRB in the amount of P10,000.00,
this time giving as security a mortgage
over a parcel of land owned by the
Heirs of Vicente V. Borromeo, covered
by TCT No. RT-7634. Authority to
mortgage these three lots was vested in
him by a Special Power of Attorney
executed by their respective owners.

Case 2: Cases involving United Coconut

Planters
Bank
(UCPB).
Borromeo (together with a certain Mercader)
also borrowed money from the United Coconut
Planters Bank (UCPB) and executed a real
estate mortgage to secure repayment thereof.
The mortgage was constituted over a 122square-meter commercial lot covered by TCT
No. 75680 in Borromeo's name. This same lot
was afterwards sold on August 7, 1980 by
Borromeo to one Samson K. Lao for
P170,000.00, with a stipulation for its
repurchase (pacto de retro) by him (Borromeo,
as the vendor). The sale was made without the
knowledge
and
consent
of
UCPB.
Case 3: Cases involving Security Bank and
Trust
Co.
(SBTC).
The third banking institution which Joaquin T.
Borromeo engaged in running court battles,
was the Security Bank & Trust Company
(SBTC). From it Borromeo had obtained five
(5) loans in the aggregate sum of P189,126.19,
consolidated in a single Promissory Note on
May 31, 1979. To secure payment thereof,
Summa Insurance Corp. (Summa) issued a
performance bond which set a limit of
P200,000.00 on its liability thereunder. Again,
as in the case of his obligations to Traders
Royal Bank and UCPB, Borromeo failed to
discharge his contractual obligations. Hence,
SBTC brought an action in the Cebu City RTC
against Borromeo and Summa for collection.
Issue:

Whether the respondent-accused is liable for

constructive
contempt?
Held:
Joaquin T. Borromeo is found and declared
GUILTY of constructive contempt repeatedly
committed over time, despite warnings and
instructions given to him, and to the end that
he may ponder his serious errors and grave
misconduct and learn due respect for the
Courts and their authority, he is hereby
sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of
TEN (10) DAYS in the City Jail of Cebu City
and to pay a fine of ONE THOUSAND
PESOS (P1,000.00). He is warned that a
repetition of any of the offenses of which he is
herein found guilty, or any similar or other
offense against courts, judges or court
employees, will merit further and more serious
sanctions.

540 SCRA 424 Civil Law Private

International Law Nationality Theory
Practice of Law is Reserved for Filipinos
In 1998, Atty. Benjamin Dacanay went to
Canada to seek medical help. In order for him
to take advantage of Canadas free medical
aid program he became a Canadian citizen in
2004. In 2006 however, he re-acquired his
Philippine citizenship pursuant to Republic Act
9225 of the Citizenship Retention and ReAcquisition Act of 2003. In the same year, he
returned to the Philippines and he now intends
to resume his practice of law.

ISSUE: Whether or not Benjamin

Dacanay may still resume his practice
of law.
HELD: Yes. As a rule, the practice of
law and other professions in the
Philippines are reserved and limited
only to Filipino citizens. Philippine
citizenship is a requirement for
admission to the bar. So when Dacanay
became a Canadian citizen in 2004, he
ceased to have the privilege to practice
law in the Philippines. However, under
RA 9225, a Filipino lawyer who
becomes a citizen of another country is
deemed never to have lost his
Philippine citizenship if he reacquires
his Filipino citizenship in accordance
with RA 9225. Hence, when Dacanay
reacquires his Filipino citizenship in
2006, his membership to the Philippine
bar was deemed to have never been
terminated.
But does this also mean that he can
automatically resume his practice of
law right after reacquisition?
No. Dacanay must still comply with
several conditions before he can
resume his practice of law, to wit:
(a) the updating and payment in full of
the annual membership dues in the IBP;
(b) the payment of professional tax;
(c) the completion of at least 36 credit
hours of mandatory continuing legal
education; this is especially significant
to refresh the applicant/petitioners
knowledge of Philippine laws and
update him of legal developments and

(d) the retaking of the lawyers oath which

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.
Compliance with these conditions will restore
his good standing as a member of the
Philippine bar.

N RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL

OF ATTORNEYS
BM No. 2540 September 24, 2013
FACTS:
Petitioner Michael Medado, who obtained his
law degree in the year 1979,took and passed
the same years bar examinations and took
the Attorneys Oath, failed to sign the
Attorneys Roll. After more than 30 years of
practicing the profession of law, he filed the
instant Petition on February 2012, praying that
he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.
Medado said that he was not able to sign the
Roll of Attorneys because he misplaced the
notice given to him and he believed that since
he had already taken the oath, the signing of
the Roll of Attorneys is not urgent, nor as
crucial to his status as a lawyer. The Office of
the Bar Confidant (OBC) after conducting
clarificatory conference on the matter
recommended to the Supreme Court that the
instant petition be denied for petitioners
gross negligence, gross misconduct and
utter lack of merit.

ISSUE:
WON the petitioner be allowed to sign in the
roll of attorneys?
RULING:
Yes, the Court allowed the petitioner to sign
the Roll of Attorneys subject to the payment of
a fine and the imposition of a penalty
equivalent to suspension from the practice of
law.The Court cannot forbid the petitioner
from signing the Roll of Attorneys because
such action constitutes disbarment. Such
penalty is reserved to the most serious ethical
transgressions of members of the Bar.The
Court cited three main points which
demonstrate Medados worth to become a
full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar.
First, Medado demonstrated good faith and
good moral character when he finally filed the
instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of
Attorneys. It was Medado himself who
admitted his own error and not any third
person. Second, petitioner has not been subject
to any action for disqualification from the
practice of law. He strove to adhere to the strict
requirements of the ethics of the profession
and that he has prima facie shown that he
possesses the character required to be a
member of the Philippine Bar. Third, Medado
appears to have been a competent and able
legal practitioner,having held various positions
at the Laurel Law Office, Petron, Petrophil
Corporation, the Philippine National Oil
Company, and the Energy Development
Corporation. However, the Court cannot fully
free Medado from all liability for his years of
inaction. His justification of his action, that it
was neither willful nor intentional but based

on a mistaken belief and an honest

error of judgment was opposed by
the Court.
A mistake of law cannot be utilized
as a lawful justification, because
everyone is presumed to know the law
and its consequences.
Although an honest mistake of fact
could be used to excuse a person from
the legal consequences of his acts he
could no longer claim it as a valid
justification by the moment he realized
that what he had signed was merely an
attendance record. His action of
continuing the practice of law in spite
of his knowledge of the need to take the
necessary steps to complete all
requirements for the admission to the
bar constitutes unauthorized practice of
law. Such action transgresses Canon
9of 'the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which provides:
CANON 9 - A lawyer shall not, directly
or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized
practice of law.
With respect to the penalty, previous
violations of Canon 9 have warranted
the penalty of suspension from the
practice of law. However, in the instant
case the Court could not warrant the
penalty of suspension from the practice
of law to Medado because he is not yet
a full-fledged lawyer. Instead, the Court
see it fit to impose upon him a penalty
similar to suspension by allowing him

to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one ( 1) year

after receipt of the Resolution and to fine
him in the amount of P32,000.The instant
Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys is
Affirmed. Petitioner Michael A. Medado is
ALLOWED to sign in the Roll of Attorneys
ONE (1) YEAR after receipt of the Resolution.
Petitioner is likewise ORDERED to pay a
FINE ofP32,000 for his unauthorized practice
of law. During the one year period,petitioner is
NOT ALLOWED to practice law, and is
STERNLY WARNED that doing any act that
constitutes practice of law before he has signed
in the Roll of Attorneys will be dealt with
severely by the Court.

CATU vs RELLOSA
A.C. NO. 5738, FEBRUARY 19, 2008
FACTS: Petitioner initiated a complaint
against Elizabeth Catu and Antonio Pastor who
were occupying one of the units in a building
in Malate which was owned by the former. The
said complaint was filed in the Lupong
Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, Zone 79 of
the 5th District of Manila where respondent was
the punong barangay. The parties, havinG been
summoned for conciliation proceedings and
failing to arrive at an amicable settlement,
were issued by the respondent a certification
for the filing of the appropriate action in court.
Petitioner, thus, filed a complaint for ejectment
against Elizabeth and Pastor in the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila where
respondent entered his appearance as counsel
for the defendants. Because of this, petitioner

filed the instant administrative complaint

against the respondent on the ground that he
committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer
and as a public officer when he stood as
counsel for the defendants despite the fact that
he presided over the conciliation proceedings
between the litigants as punong barangay. In
his defense, respondent claimed that as
punong barangay, he performed his task
without bias and that he acceded to
Elizabeths request to handle the case for free
as she was financially distressed. The
complaint was then referred to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) where after
evaluation, they found sufficient ground to
discipline respondent. According to them,
respondent violated Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and, as an elective
official, the prohibition under Section 7(b) (2)
of RA 6713. Consequently, for the violation of
the latter prohibition, respondent committed a
breach of Canon 1. Consequently, for the
violation of the latter prohibition, respondent
was then recommended suspension from the
practice of law for one month with a stern
warning that the commission of the same or
similar act will be dealt with more severely.

government service and in connection

to former government lawyers who are
prohibited from accepting employment
in connection with any matter in which
[they] had intervened while in their
service. In the case at bar, respondent
was an incumbent punong barangay.
Apparently, he does not fall within the
purview of the said provision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the foregoing findings

regarding the transgression of respondent as
well as the recommendation on the imposable
penalty of the respondent were proper.

Second, it is not Section 90 of RA 7160

but Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713 which
governs the practice of profession of
elective local government officials.
While RA 6713 generally applies to
all public officials and employees, RA
7160, being a special law, constitutes
an exception to RA 6713 .Moreover,
while under RA 7160,certain local
elective officials (like governors,
mayors, provincial board members and
councilors) are expressly subjected to a
total or partial proscription to practice
their profession or engage in any
occupation, no such interdiction is
made on the punong barangay and the
members of the sangguniang barangay.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
since they are excluded from any
prohibition, the presumption is that
they are allowed to practice their
profession. Respondent, therefore, is
not forbidden to practice his profession.

HELD: No. First, respondent cannot

found liable for violation of Rule 6.03
Code of Professional Responsibility as
applies only to a lawyer who has

Third, notwithstanding all of these,

respondent still should have procured a
prior permission or authorization from
the head of his Department, as required
by civil service regulations. The failure

be
the
this
left

of respondent to comply with Section 12, Rule

XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules
constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer:
to obey the laws. In acting as counsel for a
party without first securing the required
written permission, respondent not only
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law but
also violated a civil service rules which is a
breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in

unlawful,
dishonest,
immoral
or
deceitful conduct.

For not living up to his oath as well as for not

complying with the exacting ethical standards
of the legal profession, respondent failed to
comply with Canon 7 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:

CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL

TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
THE DIGNITY OF
THE
LEGAL
PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

A lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it.

In so doing, he disregards legal ethics and
disgraces the dignity of the legal profession.
Every lawyer should act and comport himself
in a manner that promotes public confidence in
the integrity of the legal profession. A member
of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from
his office as an attorney for violation of the
lawyer's oath and/or for breach of the ethics of
the legal profession as embodied in the Code
of Professional Responsibility.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Vicente G.

Rellosa is hereby found GUILTY of
professional misconduct for violating his oath
as a lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He
is therefore SUSPENDED from the practice
of law for a period of six months effective
from his receipt of this resolution. He is
sternly WARNED that any repetition of
similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Respondent is strongly advised to look up and
take
to
heart the
meaning of
the
word delicadeza.

JUVY P. CIOCON-REER, ET AL. vs.

JUDGE ANTONIO C. LUBAO
A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3210-RTJ | June 20,
2012 |Carpio, J.
FACTS:
The complainants were the plaintiffs in Civil
Case No. 7819 that was appealed from MTC
General Santos City to RTC, Branch 22, which
was the post of the respondent Judge. Judge
Lubao then issued an Order on 12 September
2008 directing the parties to file their
memoranda within 30 days from receipt.
Complainants averred that defendants should
have received the Order by 07 October
2008,giving them until 06 November 2008 to
file the memoranda, but they failed to do so.
That notwithstanding, Judge Lubao still

didnt decide the case 4 months from

November 6. On 20 May 2009,he even
gave the defendants a last chance to file
their memoranda but the same was
received by defendants only on 17 June
2009. Thus, the complainants filed the
instant complaint with the OCA against
the Judge for gross ignorance of the
law, rules or procedures, gross
incompetency,violation of RA 3019,
violation of Arts. 171 and 172of the
RPC and pertinent provisions of the
Code of Judicial Conduct.Judge Lubao,
in his Comment, informed the Court
that one of the complainants, Remberto
C.Karaan, Sr., is engaging in the
practice of law even though he is not a
lawyer. Karaan replied by saying that
Judge Lubao was only evading the
topic at handand thus violating again
basic rules of procedure and the law.
The OCA dismissed the complaint
saying that there was no evidence of
fraud, bad faith or dishonesty of Judge
Lubao in giving the said Orders. OCA
said that the remedy of complainants
isa judicial remedy and not an
administrative
case.The
Supreme
Court, in a Resolution dated
24November 2010, dismissed the
complainant against Judge Lubao and
ordered Karaan to show cause why he
should not be cited in contempt. Thus,
Karaan moved for a reconsideration of
the dismissal before the Supreme
Court.
ISSUE:

WON Judge Lubao is guilty of gross ignorance

of the law, rules or procedures, gross
incompetency, violation of RA 3019, violation
of Arts.171 and 172 of the RPC and pertinent
provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct
HOLD:
No. The SC held that not all administrative
complainants against judges should merit
sanctions to judges especially if no bad faith,
dishonesty or corruption is present. Judge
Lubao could not be faulted for acting carefully
before proceeding with the civil case and in
giving all the parties an opportunity to be
heard.Further, the SC held that Karaan was
indeed engaged in unauthorized practice of law
and he was held in indirect contempt by the
SC. His act of requiring the parties to execute a
Special
Power
of Attorney in his favor to allow him to be a pa
rty litigant constituted such illegal practice. He
was imposed a penalty of 10,000.00 for his
actions.

RULE 138
Attorneys and Admission to Bar
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.
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 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.
Section 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.
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 designate 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.
Section 17. Admission and oath of successful
applicants. An applicant who has passed the
required examination, or has been otherwise
found to be entitled to admission to the bar,
shall take and subscribe before the Supreme
Court the corresponding oath of office.
Section 18. Certificate. The supreme Court
shall thereupon admit the applicant as a
member of the bar for all the courts of the
Philippines, and shall direct an order to be
entered to that effect upon its records, and that
a certificate of such record be given to him by
the clerk of court, which certificate shall be his
authority to practice.
Section 19. Attorney's roll. The clerk of the
Supreme Court shall kept a roll of all attorneys
admitted to practice, which roll shall be signed
by the person admitted when he receives his
certificate.
Section 20. Duties of attorneys. It is the
duty of an attorney:
(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines and to support the Constitution
and obey the laws of the Philippines.
(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts of justice and judicial officers;
(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or
proceedings only as appear to him to be just,
and such defenses only as he believes to be
honestly debatable under the law.
(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining
the causes confided to him, such means only as
are consistent with truth and honor, and never
seek to mislead the judge or any judicial

officer by an artifice or false statement

of fact or law;
(e) To maintain inviolate the
confidence, and at every peril to
himself, to preserve the secrets of his
client, and to accept no compensation
in connection with his client's business
except from him or with his knowledge
and approval;
(f) To abstain from all offensive
personality and to advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor or reputation of
a party or witness, unless required by
the justice of the cause with which he is
charged;
(g) Not to encourage either the
commencement or the continuance of
an action or proceeding, or delay any
man's cause, from any corrupt motive
or interest;
(h) Never to reject, for any
consideration personal to himself, the
cause of the defenseless or oppressed;
(i) In the defense of a person accused of
crime, by all fair and honorable means,
regardless of his personal opinion as to
the guilt of the accused, to present
every defense that the law permits, to
the end that no person may be deprived
of life or liberty, but by due process of
law.
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.
Section 22. Attorney who appears in lower
court presumed to represent client on appeal.
An attorney who appears de parte in a case
before a lower court shall be presumed to
continue representing his client on appeal,
unless he files a formal petition withdrawing
his appearance in the appellate court.
Section 23. Authority of attorneys to bind
clients. Attorneys have authority to bind
their clients in any case by any agreement in
relation thereto made in writing, and in taking
appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial
procedure. But they cannot, without special
authority, compromise their client's litigation,
or receive anything in discharge of a client's
claim but the full amount in cash.
Section 24. Compensation of attorneys;
agreement as to fees. An attorney shall be
entitled to have and recover from his client no
more than a reasonable compensation for his
services, with a view to the importance of the
subject matter of the controversy, the extent of
the services rendered, and the professional
standing of the attorney. No court shall be
bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert
witnesses as to the proper compensation, but
may disregard such testimony and base its

conclusion on its own professional knowledge.

A written contract for services shall control the
amount to be paid therefor unless found by the
court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
Section 25. Unlawful retention of client's
funds; contempt. 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.
Section 26. Change of attorneys. An
attorney may retire at any time from any action
or special proceeding, by the written consent of
his client filed in court. He may also retire at
any time from an action or special proceeding,
without the consent of his client, should the
court, on notice to the client and attorney, and
on hearing, determine that he ought to be
allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the
name of the attorney newly employed shall be
entered on the docket of the court in place of
the former one, and written notice of the
change shall be given to the advance party.
A client may at any time dismiss his attorney
or substitute another in his place, but if the
contract between client and attorney has been
reduced to writing and the dismissal of the
attorney was without justifiable cause, he shall
be entitled to recover from the client the full
compensation stipulated in the contract.
However, the attorney may, in the discretion of
the court, intervene in the case to protect his
rights. For the payment of his compensation
the attorney shall have a lien upon all
judgments for the payment of money, and
executions issued in pursuance of such

judgment, rendered in the case wherein

his services had been retained by the
client.
Section 27. Attorneys removed or
suspended by Supreme Court on what
grounds. A member of the bar may
be removed or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court
for any deceit, malpractice, or other
gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason
of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of
the oath which he is required to take
before the admission to practice, or for
a wilfull disobedience of any lawful
order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willful appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without
authority so to do. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the purpose
of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
Section 28. Suspension of attorney by
the Court of Appeals or a Court of
First Instance. The Court of Appeals
or a Court of First Instance may
suspend an attorney from practice for
any of the causes named in the last
preceding section, and after such
suspension such attorney shall not
practice his profession until further
action of the Supreme Court in the
premises.
Section 29. Upon suspension by the
Court of Appeals or Court of First
Instance, further proceedings in
Supreme Court. Upon such

suspension, the Court of Appeals or the Court

of First Instance shall forthwith transmit to the
Supreme Court a certified copy of the order of
suspension and a full statement of the facts
upon which the same was based. Upon the
receipt of such certified copy and statement,
the Supreme Court shall make a full
investigation of the facts involved and make
such order revoking or extending the
suspension, or removing the attorney from his
office as such, as the facts warrant.
Section 30. Attorney to be heard before
removal or suspension. No attorney shall be
removed or suspended from the practice of his
profession, until he has had full opportunity
upon reasonable notice to answer the charges
against him, to produce witnesses in his own
behalf, and to be heard by himself or counsel.
But if upon reasonable notice he fails to appear
and answer the accusation, the court may
proceed to determine the matter ex parte.
Section 31. Attorneys for destitute litigants.
A court may assign an attorney to render
professional aid free of charge to any party in a
case, if upon investigation it appears that the
party is destitute and unable to employ an
attorney, and that the services of counsel are
necessary to secure the ends of justice and to
protect the rights of the party. It shall be the
duty of the attorney so assigned to render the
required service, unless he is excused
therefrom by the court for sufficient cause
shown.
Section 32. Compensation for attorneys de
oficio. Subject to availability of funds as
may be provided by the law the court may, in
its discretion, order an attorney employed as
counsel de oficio to be compensates in such
sum as the court may fix in accordance with

section 24 of this rule. Whenever such

compensation is allowed, it shall be not less
than thirty pesos (P30) in any case, nor more
than the following amounts: (1) Fifty pesos
(P50) in light felonies; (2) One hundred pesos
(P100) in less grave felonies; (3) Two hundred
pesos (P200) in grave felonies other than
capital offenses; (4) Five Hundred pesos
(P500) in capital offenses.
Section 33. Standing in court of person
authorized to appear for Government. Any
official or other person appointed or designated
in accordance with law to appear for the
Government of the Philippines shall have all
the rights of a duly authorized member of the
bar to appear in any case in which said
government has an interest direct or indirect.
Section 34. By whom litigation conducted.
In the court of a justice of the peace a party
may conduct his litigation in person, with the
aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for
the purpose, or with the aid an attorney. In any
other court, a party may conduct his litigation
personally or by aid of an attorney, and his
appearance must be either personal or by a
duly authorized member of the bar.
Section 35. Certain attorneys not to practice.
No judge or other official or employee of
the superior courts or of the Office of the
Solicitor General, shall engage in private
practice as a member of the bar or give
professional advice to clients.
Section 36. Amicus Curiae. Experienced
and impartial attorneys may be invited by the
Court to appear as amici curiae to help in the
disposition of issues submitted to it.
Section 37. Attorneys' liens. An attorney
shall have a lien upon the funds, documents
and papers of his client which have lawfully

come into his possession and may

retain the same until his lawful fees and
disbursements have been paid, and may
apply such funds to the satisfaction
thereof. He shall also have a lien to the
same extent upon all judgments for the
payment of money, and executions
issued in pursuance of such judgments,
which he has secured in a litigation of
his client, from and after the time when
he shall have the caused a statement of
his claim of such lien to be entered
upon the records of the court rendering
such judgment, or issuing such
execution, and shall have the caused
written notice thereof to be delivered to
his client and to the adverse paty; and
he shall have the same right and power
over such judgments and executions as
his client would have to enforce his lien
and secure the payment of his just fees
and disbursements.
RULE 138-A
Law Student Practice Rule
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).
Art. 209, Revised Penal Code. Betrayal of
trust by an attorney or solicitor. Revelation
of secrets. In addition to the proper
administrative action, the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period, or a fine
ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall
be imposed upon any attorney-at-law or
solicitor ( procurador judicial) who, by any
malicious breach of professional duty or of
inexcusable negligence or ignorance, shall
prejudice his client, or reveal any of the secrets
of the latter learned by him in his professional
capacity.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon an
attorney-at-law
or
solicitor

(procurador judicial) who, having undertaken

the defense of a client or having received
confidential information from said client in a
case, shall undertake the defense of the
opposing party in the same case, without the
consent of his first client.

Art. 222. Appearances and Fees.

1. Non-lawyers may appear before the
Commission or any Labor Arbiter only:
1.

If they represent themselves; or

2. If
they
represent
their
organization or members thereof.
2. No attorneys fees, negotiation fees or
similar charges of any kind arising from any
collective bargaining agreement shall be
imposed on any individual member of the
contracting union: Provided, However, that
attorneys fees may be charged against
union funds in an amount to be agreed upon
by the parties. Any contract, agreement or
arrangement of any sort to the contrary shall
be null and void. (As amended by
Presidential Decree No. 1691, May 1, 1980)