Requirements Before Admission To Bar and Judiciary - Bautista

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics
Atty. Higuit
Requirements to Admission
to the Bar and Judiciary
Kim Kathlyn P. Bautista
PALE | Kim Kathlyn Bautista 1

Case 1: IN THE MATTER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE

HARON S. MELING IN THE 2002 BAR EXAMINATIONS AND FOR
DISCIPLINARY ACTION AS MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE SHARI’A
BAR, ATTY. FROILAN R. MELENDREZ
B. M. No. 1154; June 8, 2004
Facts:
 A petition was filed by Atty. Melendrez to disqualify Haron S. Meling
(Meling) from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations and to impose on him the
appropriate disciplinary penalty as a member of the Philippine Shari’a Bar
 It was alleged that Meling did not disclose his three (3) pending criminal
cases, i.e. two Grave Oral Defamation and one Less Serious Physical
Injuries

 Melendrez also alleged that Meling has been using the title "Attorney" in
his communications, as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, despite the
fact that he is not a member of the Bar.
 Finding sufficient evidence, OBC recommended that Meling not be allowed

to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys in the event that he
passes the Bar Examinations.
Issue:
1. Whether Meling should be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the
Roll of Attorneys in the event that he passes the Bar Examinations?
2. Whether Meling should be sanctioned for using the appellation "Attorney"

in his letters?
Held:
1. Moot and academic. Meling did not pass the 2003 Bar Examinations.
 The standard form issued in connection with the application to take the
2002 Bar Examinations requires the applicant to aver that he or she "has
not been charged with any act or omission punishable by law, rule or
regulation before a fiscal, judge, officer or administrative body, or
indicted for, or accused or convicted by any court or tribunal of, any
offense or crime involving moral turpitude; nor is there any pending case
or charge against him/her."
 Despite the declaration required by the form, Meling did not reveal that
he has three pending criminal cases. His deliberate silence constitutes
concealment, done under oath at that.
 The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to determine

whether there is satisfactory evidence of good moral character of the
applicant. The nature of whatever cases are pending against the
applicant would aid the Court in determining whether he is endowed
with the moral fitness demanded of a lawyer.
 The requirement of good moral character is not only a condition

precedent to the admission to the practice of law, its continued
possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law
 Meling’s concealment of the fact that there are three (3) pending
criminal cases against him speaks of his lack of the requisite good moral
character and results in the forfeiture of the privilege bestowed upon
him as a member of the Shari’a Bar.

2. Yes. The membership of Haron S. Meling in the Philippine Shari’a Bar was
suspended.
 Persons who pass the Shari’a Bar are not full-fledged members of the
Philippine Bar, hence, may only practice law before Shari’a courts.
 While one who has been admitted to the Shari’a Bar, and one who has been
admitted to the Philippine Bar, may both be considered "counselors," in
the sense that they give counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only
the latter is an "attorney."
 The title "attorney" is reserved to those who, having obtained the

necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar
Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
and remain members thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are
authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.
Case 2: CONRADO N. QUE vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR.

A.C. No.7054; November 11, 2014
Facts:
 Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla filed a Profound Appeal for Judicial Clemency and
sought to be reinstated as a member of the Philippine Bar
 He was disbarred in 2009 from the practice of law on the following
grounds:
 abuse of court procedures and processes;
 filing of multiple actions and forum-shopping;
 willful, intentional and deliberate resort to falsehood and
deception before the courts;
 maligning the name of his fellow lawyer; and
 fraudulent and unauthorized appearances in court.
 His petition was denied several times.
 On July 18, 2014, the respondent filed a Profound Appeal for Judicial
Clemency reiterating his apologies to the Court.
 He stressed that the penalty of disbarment has already taken its toll on
his health; he has now become most frail and weak; and he had been
diagnosed with chronic kidney disease at stage five (5) and undergoing
dialysis thrice weekly.
 He also stressed that in the years that he had been excluded from the
practice of law, he devoted his time to Christian and charity pursuits
serving with all humility as a Lay Minister and a regular lecturer on Legal
Aspect of Marriage at St. Peter Church, Quezon City.

 The respondent also pleads for clemency, not because he intends to

practice law again, but to be made whole, to recover from being
shattered, and to finally have peace of mind.
 He expressed his sincere repentance and deep remorse by taking full

responsibility for his misdemeanor.
Issue:
Whether respondent’s appeal to be reinstated as member of the Philippine

Bar should be granted?
Held: No.
 Membership in the Bar is a privilege burdened with conditions.

 It is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right granted to everyone

who demands it, but rather, a special privilege granted and continued
only to those who demonstrate special fitness in intellectual attainment
and in moral character.
 The same reasoning applies to reinstatement of a disbarred lawyer. When

exercising its inherent power to grant reinstatement, the Court should
see to it that only those who establish their present moral fitness and
knowledge of the law will be readmitted to the Bar.
 The basic inquiry in a petition for reinstatement to the practice of law is
whether the lawyer has sufficiently rehabilitated himself or herself in
conduct and character.
 Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to
a great extent on the sound discretion of the Court.
 Although the Court believes that the respondent is not inherently lacking
in moral fiber as shown by his conduct prior to his disbarment, we are
not convinced that he had sufficiently achieved moral reformation.
 We are not fully convinced that the passage of more than four (4) years
is sufficient to enable the respondent to reflect and to realize his
professional transgressions.
 We emphasize that this is the second time that the respondent was
accused and was found guilty of gross misconduct.

 Considering the respondent’s earlier disbarment case(and subsequent

reduction of the penalty imposed as an act of clemency), and another
disbarment case against him still pending review by the Court, we are
not fully and convincingly satisfied that the respondent has already
reformed.
 Furthermore, we are not persuaded by the respondent's sincerity in

acknowledging his guilt. While he expressly stated in his appeal that he
had taken full responsibility of his misdemeanor, his previous inclination
to pass the blame to other individuals, to invoke self-denial, and to make
alibis for his wrongdoings, contradicted his assertion.

Case 3: IN RE: PETITION TO RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW

IN THE PHILIPPINES, EPIFANIO B. MUNESES
B.M. No. 2112; July 24, 2012
Facts:
 Petitioner Epifanio B. Muneses filed a petition with the OBC praying that
he be granted the privilege to practice law in the Philippines
 He became a member of the IBP on March 21, 1966 but he lost his
privilege to practice law when he became a citizen of the United States of
America (USA) on August 28, 1981
 On September 15, 2006, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship
pursuant to R.A. No. 9225 or the "Citizenship Retention and Re-
Acquisition Act of 2003" by taking his oath of allegiance as a Filipino
citizen before the Philippine Consulate General in Washington, D.C., USA
 He intends to retire in the Philippines and if granted, to resume the
practice of law.
Issue:
Whether petitioner should be allowed to resume practice of law?
Held:
Yes but the right to resume practice law is not automatic.
 Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar and is, in fact,
a continuing requirement for the practice of law.
 The loss thereof means termination of the petitioner’s membership in the

bar; ipso jure the privilege to engage in the practice of law.
 Under R.A. No. 9225, natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country
are deemed to have re-acquired their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
oath of allegiance to the Republic.
 Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country and later
re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a
member of the Philippine Bar.
 However, the right to resume the practice of law is not automatic. R.A. No.
9225 provides that a person who intends to practice his profession in the
Philippines must apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to
engage in such practice.

 The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is so
delicately affected with public interest that it is both the power and duty of
the State to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the
public welfare.
 Requirements needed to be complied with by Petitioner - Submit the
original or certified true copies of the following documents:
 Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
 Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
 Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
 Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the Bureau of Immigration;
 Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;
 Certification from the IBP indicating updated payments of annual
membership dues;
 Proof of payment of professional tax; and
 Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office.
Thank You!
Questions?

Requirements Before Admission To Bar and Judiciary - Bautista

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Requirements Before Admission To Bar and Judiciary - Bautista

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Requirements Before Admission To Bar and Judiciary - Bautista

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Kim Kathlyn P. Bautista

PALE | Kim Kathlyn Bautista 1

Case 1: IN THE MATTER OF THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BAR EXAMINEE

PALE | Kim Kathlyn Bautista 2

 Finding sufficient evidence, OBC recommended that Meling not be allowed

2. Whether Meling should be sanctioned for using the appellation "Attorney"

 The disclosure requirement is imposed by the Court to determine

 The requirement of good moral character is not only a condition

PALE | Kim Kathlyn Bautista 5

 The title "attorney" is reserved to those who, having obtained the

Case 2: CONRADO N. QUE vs. ATTY. ANASTACIO E. REVILLA, JR.

 His petition was denied several times.

PALE | Kim Kathlyn Bautista 8

 The respondent also pleads for clemency, not because he intends to

 He expressed his sincere repentance and deep remorse by taking full

Whether respondent’s appeal to be reinstated as member of the Philippine

PALE | Kim Kathlyn Bautista 9

 It is not a natural, absolute or constitutional right granted to everyone

 The same reasoning applies to reinstatement of a disbarred lawyer. When

PALE | Kim Kathlyn Bautista 11

 Considering the respondent’s earlier disbarment case(and subsequent

 Furthermore, we are not persuaded by the respondent's sincerity in

PALE | Kim Kathlyn Bautista 12

Case 3: IN RE: PETITION TO RE-ACQUIRE THE PRIVILEGE TO PRACTICE LAW

Yes but the right to resume practice law is not automatic.

 The loss thereof means termination of the petitioner’s membership in the

PALE | Kim Kathlyn Bautista 15

PALE | Kim Kathlyn Bautista 17

You might also like