A.

Practice of Law
1. Basic Concepts
a. Definition
 It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and
other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all
legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law.
b. A mere privilege and not a right
c. Law as a profession not a business or trade
 The Court stressed that the practice of law is a profession, not a business venture, where public service and the administration of justice
should be the primary considerations. The Court highlighted the distinctions between a profession and a business, underscoring the fiduciary
responsibility, integrity, and dignity required in lawyering.
1.Renato Cayetano v. Christian Monsod
 Renato L. Cayetano filed a petition challenging the qualification of Christian Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
after being appointed by President Corazon C. Aquino and confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The crux of Cayetano’s petition is
that Monsod does not meet the constitutional requirement of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
 Monsod, a member of the Philippine Bar since passing the bar examinations in 1960, was nominated by President Aquino in a letter received
by the Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991. The Commission on Appointments confirmed Monsod’s nomination on June 5, 1991.
Subsequently, Monsod took his oath of office and assumed the position on June 18, 1991.
 Monsod's professional background includes working in his father's law office, serving as an operations officer for the World Bank, holding
executive positions in various companies, and participating in legal and economic consultancy roles.
 He was also involved in advocacy work, including serving as Secretary-General and National Chairman of NAMFREL, and as a member of the
Constitutional Commission and the Davide Commission.
 Cayetano, as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, praying that the confirmation and appointment of
Monsod be declared null and void due to Monsod’s alleged non-compliance with the ten-year law practice requirement.
 Does Christian Monsod meet the constitutional requirement of “engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years” for his appointment as
COMELEC Chairman to be valid?
 Yes, Christian Monsod meet the constitutional requirement of “engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years” for his appointment as
COMELEC Chairman.
2.Mauricio C. Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc

 The Legal Clinic, Inc. which offered services related to secret marriages, divorce, annulment, visa acquisition, among others.
 Mauricio C. Ulep the petitioner, sought a directive from the Supreme Court for The Legal Clinic, Inc. to cease issuing such adverts and to
prohibit entities from advertising legal services beyond those sanctioned by law, arguing the advertisements were unethical and diminished
the integrity of the legal profession.
 In response, The Legal Clinic, Inc. (respondent) admitted to the publication of the advertisements, claiming it offered “legal support services”
through paralegals using modern technology and not the actual practice of law
 whether the services offered by The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised, constitute the practice of law
 whether such services, as advertised, are ethical and permissible under existing laws and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
 The Court found that the advertisements in question not only offered legal services directly but also misled the public into believing that such
services could circumvent Philippine law on marriage and divorce. It pronounced that these actions violated ethical standards and were
detrimental to the trust and confidence reposed in the legal profession
3. Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr. v. Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo

 This case arose from a paid advertisement by Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on July 5, 2000, offering annulment
services. The ad caught the attention of the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office, leading to an undercover inquiry which exposed
Simbillo’s guarantees of quick annulment processes for a fee. Further investigation revealed similar advertisements in other major
newspapers.
 Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr., as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information Office, lodged an administrative complaint
against Simbillo for improper solicitation of legal services, violating ethical standards for lawyers.
 Simbillo admitted to the acts but contested the ethical implications, advocating for the acceptability of legal service advertisements. The case
was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, which found Simbillo guilty, imposing a one-year suspension from
the practice of law.
 Simbillo filed an urgent motion for reconsideration, which the IBP denied. He then escalated the matter to the Supreme Court through a
petition for certiorari and urged the court to reconsider the stance on legal service advertisement. The Court consolidated his petition with
the administrative case and ultimately required submissions from both parties to proceed for decision.
 WON atty simbillo adverstising were legal
 No, attty simbilllos adverstising were illegal.

Ways on proper adverstising

 Online Presence:
Build a professional website with SEO-optimized content and a blog.
 Social Media:
Engage on platforms like LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter to share insights and connect with potential clients.
  Content Marketing:
Create informative blogs, videos, and webinars to showcase your expertise.
 Networking:
Join professional organizations and attend events to build relationships.
 Referral Programs:
Encourage client and professional referrals, possibly with incentives.
 Online Directories and Reviews:
List your practice in legal directories and solicit positive reviews.
 Email Marketing:
Send newsletters with valuable legal information to keep in touch with potential clients.
 Adherence to Legal Ethics:
Follow local bar association rules and maintain transparency about your services.
 Paid Advertising:
Use Google Ads and social media ads to target specific audiences.
 Community Involvement:
 Participate in pro bono work and host workshops to increase visibility and goodwill.
B. Supervision and Control of the Legal Profession

4.In Re: the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edillon

 Edillon faced disbarment for persistently refusing to pay membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) since its inception.
 The IBP Board of Governors adopted Resolution No. 75-65 on November 29, 1975, recommending Edillon's removal from the Roll of
Attorneys.
 This recommendation was submitted to the Supreme Court on January 21, 1976.
 Edillon argued that compulsory membership and dues payment to the IBP violated his constitutional rights to liberty and property.
 He also questioned the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, claiming the matter was administrative, not judicial.
 The Supreme Court set the case for hearing on June 3, 1976, and after considering the arguments, the matter was submitted for resolution.
 Whether non-payment of IBP dues warrants disbarment.
 If compulsory integration of the bar and requirement of membership dues payment infringes on constitutional rights.
 Yes, non-payment of IBP dues warrants disbarment.
 No, compulsory membership in the IBP and the requirement to pay membership dues do not violate a lawyer's constitutional rights.
 The Court emphasized that membership in the bar is a privilege with attached conditions, and failure to adhere to these could result in the
loss of such privilege. However, the Court also noted that there is room for consideration of reinstatement after sufficient evidence of reform
and contrition is shown
C. Requirements for Admission to Legal Practice

Who may practice law - Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to
practice law.

 Rule 138 (2) –

 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.
 Moral Turpitude - an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general,
contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or
good morals.
 Completed 4 year high school course,
 Bachelors of Science/Arts,
 Bachelor of Laws

Bar Subjects

 Civil Law
 Labor and Social Legislation
 Mercantile Law
 Criminal Law
 Political and International Law
 Taxation
 Remedial Law
 Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises
 Medical Jurisprudence , CLEP
5.Mercuria D. So v. Ma. Lucille P. Lee

 Ma. Lucille P. Lee, a successful examinee of the 2016 Bar Examinations, petitioned to retake the Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys.
 Petitions were filed on October 9, 2017, and March 15, 2019.
 Mercuria D. So, the complainant, alleged Lee was unfit for admission to the Bar due to her irresponsible attitude towards her monetary
obligations.
 So's complaint, filed on May 19, 2017, included a copy of the Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money against Lee.
 Lee admitted to obtaining a P200,000.00 loan from So, of which she had paid P140,000.00 over ten months but failed to continue payments
due to business losses.
 Lee requested more time to settle her debt.
 The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) noted Lee had declared another civil case, Civil Case No. 1436, for a sum of P1,450,000.00 with Joseph
"Nonoy" Bolos.
 The Court held Lee's request in abeyance pending the status of these cases.
 Lee later manifested the dismissal of Civil Case No. 740 due to a Compromise Agreement with So and the dismissal of Civil Case No. 1436 due
to a similar agreement with Bolos.
 Lee agreed to pay P15,000.00 monthly starting one month after signing the Roll of Attorneys.
 The OBC recommended allowing Lee to retake the Lawyer's Oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys, with conditions related to her debt
repayment to Bolos.
 Whether lee should be allowed to retake the lawyer's oath and sign the roll of attorneys.
 Yes, lee is allowed to retake the lawyer's oath and sign the roll of attorneys
 The Court ruled that not all civil cases pertain to acts involving moral turpitude
 The pendency of civil cases alone does not automatically disqualify an applicant from admission to the Bar. In Lee’s case, the civil cases alone
do not establish acts of moral turpitude as both cases were dismissed following Compromise Agreements
 The pendency of civil cases against a Bar passers does not necessarily involve moral turpitude, barring their admission, unless such cases
demonstrate notable acts of moral depravity. Good moral character is a continuing requirement for legal professionals.
6. Oscar B. Pimentel, et. Al. v. Legal Education Board

 The case originated from the controversies surrounding the implementation of the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT) as a
mandatory prerequisite for admission into law schools, as established under LEB Memorandum Order No. 7, Series of 2016 (LEBMO No. 7-
2016) by the Legal Education Board (LEB).
 Several petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of the policy and various LEB issuances on various grounds, including alleged
infringement on the academic freedom of educational institutions and on the power of the Supreme Court over admissions to the practice of
law.
 Petitioners, comprised of individuals aspiring to enter law school, law professors, and law schools themselves, argued that such LEB mandates
encroach upon the power of the Supreme Court and academic freedom by dictating who may be admitted to law schools.
 They sought the nullification of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 7662 (which established the LEB), certain LEB issances, and asked for
prohibitory injunctions against their implementation. The LEB and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the respondents,
defended the validity of the PhiLSAT and other related issuances as necessary regulatory measures to uplift the quality of legal education in
the Philippines.
 They argued that these measures were within the LEB’s mandate under RA 7662. The initial decision of the Supreme Court partially granted
the petitions, upholding the validity of some aspects of the law and LEB’s jurisdiction over legal education, but declared certain LEB actions
and provisions unconstitutional for infringing on the Supreme Court’s authority and the academic freedom of law schools.
 Following the resolution, various motions for reconsideration were filed by both the petitioners and the respondents, along with a new
pleading by the Philippine Association of Law Schools (PALS) seeking intervention, questioning particularly the mandatory nature of PhiLSAT
and other related issues.
 Whether the entirety of RA 7662 and LEBMO No. 7-2016 should be declared unconstitutional.
 The jurisdiction of the LEB over legal education.
 The constitutionality of the mandatory PhiLSAT and the imposition of a passing score as prerequisites for law school admission
 1. The Court found no cogent reason to invalidate the entirety of RA 7662 but maintained that certain sections of the law and related LEB
issuances impinged on the Court’s authority and academic freedom, therefore remaining unconstitutional.
 2. It reaffirmed the jurisdiction and authority of the LEB over legal education as exercised through regulatory measures, consistent with the
state policy to uplift the standards of legal education.
 3. The Court declared the entirety of LEBMO No. 7-2016 unconstitutional, invalidating all related LEB issuances regarding PhiLSAT. It held that
while the State could require an admission test, the mandatory nature of PhiLSAT and the imposition of a passing score unduly infringed on
the academic freedom of law schools
 The state’s supervisory and regulatory authority over legal education must not encroach upon the Supreme Court’s authority or the academic
freedom of law schools.
 Measures that are excessively controlling or violate fundamental freedoms may be deemed unconstitutional even if they aim to uplift
educational standards.
 Although the State has a compelling interest to uplift the standards of legal education in the country, Section 9 of LEBMO No. 7-2016 is
unconstitutional for unreasonably encroaching into the sphere of academic freedom of law schools to determine for themselves who to
admit as students.
LEB – is mandated to oversee the legal education system and supervise and accredit legal education institutions in the Philippines.

Academic Freedom: The right of educational institutions to decide on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be
taught, and who may be admitted to study.
 E. Good Moral Character as a Prerequisite to Bar Admission

7.In Re: the Disqualification of Bar Examinee Haron S. Meling in the 2002 Bar

 Petition Filed: Atty. Froilan R. Melendrez filed a petition on October 14, 2002.
 Allegations:
 Meling failed to disclose three pending criminal cases before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Cotabato City:
 Criminal Cases Nos. 15685 and 15686 for Grave Oral Defamation.
 Criminal Case No. 15687 for Less Serious Physical Injuries.
 The cases originated from an incident on May 21, 2001, where Meling allegedly defamed Melendrez and his wife and physically attacked
Melendrez's wife.
 Meling used the title "Attorney" in his official communications as Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City without being a member of the Bar.
 Meling's Response:
He believed in good faith the cases would be settled, based on advice from a retired judge.
 Claimed the use of the title "Attorney" was a clerical error.
 OBC Recommendation:
 Disqualify Meling from taking the Lawyer's Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys if he passed the Bar.
 Suspend Meling's membership in the Shari'a Bar
 Should Haron S. Meling be disqualified from taking the 2002 Bar Examinations due to his failure to disclose pending criminal cases?
 Should Haron S. Meling face disciplinary action for using the title "Attorney" without being a member of the Bar?
 The petition to disqualify Meling from taking the Lawyer's Oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys was dismissed as moot and academic
because Meling did not pass the 2003 Bar Examinations.
 The petition to impose disciplinary action on Meling as a member of the Philippine Shari'a Bar was granted. Meling's membership in the
Philippine Shari'a Bar was suspended until further orders from the Court.
 Meling's failure to disclose pending criminal cases showed dishonesty and lack of good moral character.
F. Bar Examinations.

8.In Re: Investigation of Angel J. Parazo

 The case originated from a story/news item prepared by Angel J. Parazo, the defendant in this case who is a reporter for the Star Reporter.
Paraiso published a story with the headline "CLAIM 'LEAK' IN LAST BAR TESTS - Applicants In Uproar, Want Anomaly Probed; One School
Favored.
 By Angel J. Parazo of the Star Reporter Staff" The news item alleges that in the recent bar examinations, some examinees claim to have seen
mimeograph copies of the questions in one subject, days before the tests were given, in the Philippine Normal School.
 The students who made the denunciation claim that the tests given were similar in every respect to the mimeograph copies seen held by
several students
 In the hearing, Mr. Parazo's lawyer invoked R.A. No. 53, Sec. 1, which states:
 The designated Chairman of the Committee of Bar Examiners - Mr. Justice Padilla - investigated Mr. Parazo, asking him to reveal the names of
the persons who informed him of the leakage.
 However, Mr. Parazo refused to comply. When Mr. Parazo was called to appear before the court, it was explained to him that the interest of
the State demands, and this court requires that he reveal the source or sources of his information and his news item.
 WON the matter of the leakage of the bar examination questions is a matter included under the interest of the state
 Can the Supreme Court compel Angel J. Parazo to reveal his sources under Republic Act No. 53?
 Yes, the Supreme Court can compel Angel J. Parazo to reveal his sources.
 Yes, the interest of the state extends to the integrity of the bar examinations and the reputation of the legal profession.
 The Court emphasized that the integrity of the bar examinations and the reputation of the legal profession are of significant
public interest.
 Bar exams are under the Supreme Court's supervision, and allegations of leakage directly affect the Court's credibility and the
legal profession's standards.
 Without Parazo's cooperation in revealing his sources, the Court could not effectively investigate the alleged anomaly.
 This lack of cooperation could undermine public confidence in the bar exams and the legal profession.
9. Re: 2003 Bar Examinations

 The case sprang from an alleged leakage in the 2003 Bar Examination for Mercantile Law.
 On September 22, 2003, the day after the exam, Justice Jose C. Vitug, the Chairman of the 2003 Bar Examinations Committee,
reported rumored anomalies to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., prompting an immediate investigation.
 The Court nullified the Mercantile Law exam and scheduled a retake, which was later canceled due to hardships on examinees.
Instead, the Court decided to redistribute the exam weight across the remaining subjects.
 Numerous petitions and motions regarding the issue led to the creation of an Investigating Committee composed of retired
Supreme Court Justices.
 The Committee embarked on an extensive investigation that included witnesses from various connections to the exam and the
suspect, Atty. Marcial O.T. Balgos, the Mercantile Law examiner.
 Detailed investigation revealed that the leakage originated from Atty. Balgos’ law firm, with direct involvement by Atty. Danilo
De Guzman, who unlawfully accessed and disseminated the exam questions.
 WON The liability of Atty. Danilo De Guzman in the unauthorized dissemination of the examination questions.
 WON Atty. Marcial O.T. Balgos’ responsibility for the leakage due to negligence in safeguarding the examination questions.
 Disbar Atty. Danilo De Guzman for grave misconduct and dishonesty, requiring his immediate cessation from the practice of law.
 Reprimand Atty. Marcial O.T. Balgos for negligence in the preparation and safeguarding of the bar exam questions, disqualifying
him from receiving any honorarium as an examiner in Mercantile Law.
 The 2003 Philippine Bar Examination leakage scandal is a pivotal event that underscored vulnerabilities in the administration of
the bar exams and catalyzed reforms to fortify the process against future leakages. It reflects on the legal profession’s
commitment to uphold its ethical standards and the Supreme Court’s unwavering stance to preserve the examination’s integrity.

G. Signing of the Roll

IBP – organization; The fundamental purposes of the Integrated Bar shall be to elevate the standards of the legal profession,
improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility more effectively.

MCLE (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education) - Continuing legal education is required of members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) to ensure that throughout their career, they keep abreast with law and jurisprudence, maintain the ethics of the
profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law; 36 units.

10. In Re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys Michael A. Medado

 Michael A. Medado graduated with a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of the Philippines in 1979.
 He passed the bar examinations the same year with a general weighted average of 82.7.
 On May 7, 1980, Medado took the Attorney's Oath at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC).
 He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on May 13, 1980, but failed to do so because he misplaced the Notice to
Sign the Roll of Attorneys given by the Bar Office.
 Medado discovered the notice years later while going through his old college files, realizing he had not signed the roll.
 By then, he was already working in corporate and taxation law and deemed signing the roll as not urgent.
 In 2005, during Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars, he was required to provide his roll number, which he
could not because he had not signed the roll.
 On February 6, 2012, Medado filed a petition to be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.
 The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) recommended denying the petition due to gross negligence and misconduct.
 The Supreme Court granted Medado's petition, subject to a fine and a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of
law.
 Should Michael A. Medado be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys despite his failure to do so for over 30 years?
 What penalty, if any, should be imposed on Medado for his unauthorized practice of law?
 Yes, Michael A. Medado is allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.
 Medado is fined P32,000 and is not allowed to practice law for one year from the receipt of the resolution.
 The Supreme Court noted that not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys would be akin to disbarment, a penalty
reserved for the most serious ethical transgressions.
 Medado demonstrated good faith and moral character by filing the petition himself, acknowledging his lapse after more than
30 years.
 While an honest mistake of fact could excuse his initial failure, his continued practice of law without signing the roll
constituted unauthorized practice.
11. Donna Marie S. Aguirre v. Edwin L. Rana

 Respondent Edwin L. Rana passed the 2000 Bar Examinations.

 On May 21, 2001, one day before the mass oath-taking, Donna Marie S. Aguirre filed a Petition for Denial of Admission to the
Bar against Rana.
 Charges included unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation.
 The Supreme Court allowed Rana to take his oath on May 22, 2001, but withheld his signing of the Roll of Attorneys.
 Aguirre alleged that Rana appeared as counsel for a candidate in the May 2001 elections before the Municipal Board of
Election Canvassers (MBEC) of Mandaon, Masbate, and filed a pleading on May 19, 2001.
 Aguirre claimed Rana was not permitted by law to act as counsel and misrepresented himself as Bunan's counsel without
authorization.
 Rana admitted to assisting Bunan but claimed he did so as a knowledgeable person, not as a lawyer.
 Rana stated he resigned from his government position on May 11, 2001.
 The case was referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation.
 Did Edwin L. Rana engage in the unauthorized practice of law?
  Did Rana commit a violation of law by acting as counsel while being a government employee?
 Did Rana commit grave misconduct and misrepresentation by acting as counsel without proper authorization?
 Yes, Edwin L. Rana engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
 No, Rana did not commit a violation of law by acting as counsel while being a government employee.
 No, Rana did not commit grave misconduct and misrepresentation by acting as counsel without proper authorization
 Consequently, the Court denied Rana's admission to the Philippine Bar.
 The Court emphasized that the practice of law includes the preparation of pleadings and other legal documents, which Rana
did without being a Bar member.
 This act demonstrated his moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar.
 The Court reiterated that practicing law is a privilege for persons of good moral character and special qualifications.
 Passing the bar exams alone does not grant the right to practice law; one must also take the lawyer's oath and sign the Roll of
Attorneys.
 Unauthorized practice of law involves engaging in legal representation without being a
member of the Bar.
 – The moral fitness for admission to the Philippine Bar encompasses not merely passing the
bar examination but also adhering to ethical conduct and integrity.
 – The practice of law is considered a privilege rather than a right, subject to strict
regulation by the judiciary and legal profession’s governing bodies.
H. Continuing Requirements for Membership in the Bar
12. Sps. Fernando C. Cruz and Amelia M. Cruz v. Onshore Strategic Assets
 Petitioners: Spouses Fernando C. Cruz and Amelia M. Cruz, and Millians Shoe, Inc.
 Respondents: Onshore Strategic Assets (SPV-AMC), Inc. (OSAI), United Overseas Bank Philippines, the Office of the Clerk of
Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, RTC of Marikina City, and the Register of Deeds of Marikina City.
 Complaint: Annulment of Extrajudicial Foreclosure Sale, Loan Documents, Accounting, and Damages.
 OSAI's Action: Moved to dismiss the complaint due to non-compliance with Bar Matter No. 1922 (MCLE Compliance Number
not included).
 RTC Decision: Granted the motion to dismiss on September 21, 2011, and denied the motion for reconsideration on March 19,
2012.
 CA Decision: Dismissed the appeal on July 25, 2013, and denied the motion for reconsideration on June 9, 2014.
 Supreme Court: Petitioners brought the case to the Supreme Court.
 Whether the CA erred in denying the motion for reconsideration and dismissing the petition, allegedly denying the
petitioners' right to due process.
 Whether the RTC erred in concluding that the negligence and mistake of counsel bind the client
 Supreme Court Decision: Denied the petition.
 Affirmation: Affirmed the CA's July 25, 2013 Decision and June 9, 2014 Resolution.
 RTC's Dismissal: Upheld the RTC's dismissal of the complain
 The petitioners' counsel failed to include the MCLE Compliance Number, a valid ground for dismissal.
 Requirement: Bar Matter No. 1922 mandates lawyers to indicate their MCLE Certificate of Compliance number or Certificate
of Exemption in all pleadings.
 Consequence: Failure to disclose this information results in dismissal and expunction of pleadings.
 Justification: Petitioners' counsel did not provide sufficient justification for non-compliance.
 Due Process: Dismissal was without prejudice, allowing petitioners to refile with proper compliance, thus not violating due
process.
 Negligence of Counsel: The negligence of counsel binds the client, and no exceptions to this rule applied.
 Strict compliance with procedural rules, such as MCLE requirements, is necessary to ensure legal standards are maintained.
 Errors of counsel in procedural compliance typically bind the client unless such errors result in gross negligence or clear
injustice.
13. In Re: Petition for the Disbarment of Atty. Estrella O. Laysa

 The case "Ollada v. Laysa" involves an administrative complaint for disbarment filed by Patricia Maglaya Ollada against Atty.
Estrella O. Laysa.
 Patricia, a senior citizen from Tagaytay City, sought legal help from Atty. Laysa concerning a dispute with her lessor, Melates M.
Salcedo.
 They met at Casino Filipino in Tagaytay City, where Atty. Laysa agreed to draft a demand letter dated December 27, 2006.
 Patricia issued a check for P35,000.00 to Atty. Laysa to initiate legal action against her lessor.
 After encashing the check on January 8, 2007, Atty. Laysa ceased all communication with Patricia.
 Due to deteriorating health and lack of updates, Patricia lost interest in the case and demanded her money back through a
letter dated July 24, 2007, which Atty. Laysa ignored.
 Patricia hired another counsel, Atty. Cecilia Corazon S. Dulay-Archog, who sent another demand letter on August 21, 2007,
requesting the return of P30,000.00.
 Despite the letters, Atty. Laysa did not return the money, leading Patricia to file a disbarment petition on May 29, 2008.
 The Court required Atty. Laysa to comment on the petition, but she failed to do so.
 The Court imposed a fine and referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.
 The IBP found that Atty. Laysa had not paid her membership dues since 2004 and had not complied with Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) requirements.
 The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended disbarment, but the IBP Board of Governors modified this to an indefinite
suspension and a fine of P5,000.00.
 The case was brought before the Supreme Court for final resolution.
 Did Atty. Estrella O. Laysa neglect her client's case and misappropriate the client's money?
 Should Atty. Estrella O. Laysa be disbarred for her actions, or is a lesser penalty appropriate?
 Yes, Atty. Estrella O. Laysa neglected her client's case and misappropriated the client's money.
 No, Atty. Estrella O. Laysa should not be disbarred. Instead, she is suspended from the practice of law for three years and
fined P5,000.00 and return 30,000 to complainant
 The decision emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of the legal profession.
I. Law Student Practice Rule

Clinical Legal Education Program is an experiential, interactive and reflective credit-earning teaching course with the objectives of
providing law students with practical know ledge, skills and values necessary for the application of the law, delivery of legal
services and promotion of social justice and public interest, especially to the marginalized, while inculcating in the students the
values of ethical lawyering and public service. It consists of learning activities covered by this Rule undertaken in either a l) law
clinic or an 2) externship, which shall incorporate the teaching of legal theory and doctrines, practical skills, as well as legal ethics.

Law Clinic refers to an office or center which is a component of the law school's clinical legal education program that renders
legal assistance and services as herein provided to eligible persons, groups, and/or communities.

Rule 138 (34)- the appearance of a non-lawyer, as an agent or friend of a party litigant, is expressly allowed.

Rule 138-A - provides for conditions when a law student (3rd yr and 4th yr), not as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, may
appear before the courts.

14. Ferdinand A. Cruz v. Alberto Mina, et.al

 Ferdinand A. Cruz, a third-year law student, aimed to appear as a private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 00-1705 for Grave
Threats.
 The complainant in the case was his father, Mariano Cruz.
 On September 25, 2000, Ferdinand filed a formal Entry of Appearance before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 45,
Pasay City.
 He based his appearance on Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the Supreme Court ruling in Cantimbuhan v.
Judge Cruz, Jr., which permits non-lawyers to appear before inferior courts as agents or friends of a party litigant.
 Despite having the public prosecutor's prior approval and written authority from his father, the MeTC denied his request on
February 1, 2002.
 The MeTC cited Circular No. 19 and Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court, which regulate limited law student practice.
 Ferdinand's motions for reconsideration were denied by both the MeTC and the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 116, Pasay
City.
 The RTC also denied his petition for certiorari and mandamus, prompting Ferdinand to file a petition with the Supreme Court.
 WON the petitioner who is a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent or a party litigant
 Yes, the petitioner who is a law student may appear before an inferior court as an agent or a party litigant
 Rule 138-A does not override Section 34 of Rule 138
15. Romulo Cantimbuhan, et. Al. v. Hon. Nicanor J. Cruz

 Petitioners included law students Romulo Cantimbuhan, Nelson B. Malana, and Robert V. Lucila.
 Cantimbuhan filed criminal complaints on April 6, 1979, against Patrolmen Danilo San Antonio and Rodolfo Diaz for less
serious physical injuries (Criminal Cases Nos. 58549 and 58550).
 Malana and Lucila sought to assist Cantimbuhan as private prosecutors.
 The fiscal, Leodegario C. Quilatan, opposed their participation.
 On August 16, 1979, Judge Nicanor J. Cruz, Jr. issued an order disallowing their appearances, citing the need for
representation by a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
 The petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on September 4, 1979.
 They subsequently filed a petition for certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition in a higher court.
 Can law students appear as private prosecutors in criminal cases for less serious physical injuries without the fiscal's
permission?
 Does the offended party have the right to be assisted by non-lawyers in prosecuting a civil action that is impliedly instituted in
a criminal case?
 The Court held that the fiscal's permission is not required for a private prosecutor's appearance.
 It affirmed that the offended party, Cantimbuhan, has the right to be assisted by non-lawyers in pursuing the civil action
related to the criminal case.
 The Court's decision was grounded in Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, allowing parties to conduct litigation with
the help of an appointed agent or friend in municipal courts.
  The Court clarified that the fiscal's role is supervisory and does not extend to preventing the offended party from receiving
assistance from non-lawyers.
 Since Cantimbuhan did not waive his civil action, he had a vested interest in the case's outcome and should not be denied
help from his friends.

16. Ferdinand A. Cruz v. Judge Priscilla Mijares

 The case revolves around Ferdinand A. Cruz, a fourth-year law student, who sought to litigate personally in a civil case for
abatement of nuisance (Civil Case No. 01-0410) which
 he filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 108, Pasay City. Cruz based his right to litigate on Section 34 of Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court, which allows non-lawyers to personally conduct their litigation.
 During pre-trial, Judge Priscilla Mijares mandated Cruz to obtain written permission from the Court Administrator to appear as
counsel for himself, a directive with which Cruz disagreed.
 This disagreement was followed by a Motion to Dismiss filed by the opposing counsel, which Cruz objected to, alleging that
such a motion is impermissible post-answer filing.
 Subsequently, Cruz filed a Manifestation and Motion to Inhibit, requesting Judge Mijares’ voluntary inhibition from the case
due to perceived partiality; this was denied in
 Orders dated April 19 and May 10, 2002. Cruz’s motion for reconsideration was also denied on July 31, 2002.
 Cruz then directly filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with the Supreme Court challenging the RTC’s
decisions and Judge Mijares’ refusal to inhibit herself.
 Whether the respondent court acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying Cruz’s personal appearance as a litigant and in
Judge Mijares’ refusal to voluntarily inhibit
 The Court did not find any grave abuse of discretion in Judge Mijares’ refusal to voluntarily inhibit herself.
 On Cruz’s appearance as a litigant:** The Court held that Cruz had the right to litigate personally under Section 34 of Rule 138,
without needing to comply with Rule 138-A, which applies specifically to law students representing indigent clients under a
legal clinic program. The court observed that Cruz aimed to represent himself, not as a law student under Rule 138-A, but as a
party exercising his right to personal litigation.
J. Proceedings where Lawyers are Prohibited to appear as counsels

17. Antonio C. Ramos, et. Al. v. Court of Appeals, et. Al

 Petitioners Antonio C. Ramos, Rosalinda M. Perez, Norma C. Castillo, and the Baliuag Market Vendors Association, Inc. filed a
petition on April 18, 1990, before the Regional Trial Court of Bulacan, Branch 19.
 The petition sought the nullification of Municipal Ordinances No. 91 (1976) and No. 7 (1990) and a lease contract over a
commercial arcade in Baliuag, Bulacan.
 During the hearing on April 27, 1990, the Provincial Fiscal appeared as counsel for the respondent Municipality of Baliuag,
opposing the petition.
 A writ of preliminary injunction was issued on May 9, 1990.
 The Provincial Fiscal and Provincial Attorney Oliviano D. Regalado filed an Answer on behalf of the municipality.
 At the pre-trial conference on May 28, 1990, Atty. Roberto B. Romanillos appeared as counsel for the municipality, filing
motions and participating in proceedings.
 Petitioners questioned Romanillos' authority on August 10, 1990, and formally moved to disqualify him on August 20, 1990.
 A joint motion was filed on August 22, 1990, by Atty. Romanillos and Atty. Regalado, with Romanillos withdrawing and Regalado
adopting the proceedings.
 The trial court denied the petitioners' motion to disqualify Romanillos and declared the proceedings valid.
 The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition and denied the motion for reconsideration, leading to this petition for review.
 Can a municipality be represented in a suit against it by a private counsel under present laws and jurisprudence?
 What is the status of the proceedings undertaken by an unauthorized private counsel?
 Can the provincial attorney of a province act as counsel for a municipality in a suit?
 No, a municipality cannot be represented by a private counsel in a suit against it, except in exceptional instances.
 The proceedings undertaken by an unauthorized private counsel can be validated if adopted by an authorized counsel,
provided no injustice is caused to the adverse party and no compensation is paid to the private lawyer.
 Yes, the provincial attorney can act as counsel for a municipality in a suit.
 Only the provincial fiscal, provincial attorney, and municipal attorney are authorized to represent a municipality in lawsuits, as
per Section 1683 of the Revised Administrative Code and related jurisprudence.
 Private lawyers may not represent municipalities, even in collaboration with authorized government lawyers, except in specific
disqualifying circumstances.
K. Privileges of a lawyer

18. Sophia Alawi v. Ashary M. Alauya

 Sophia Alawi, a sales representative for E.B. Villarosa & Co., Ltd., and Ashary M. Alauya, the Executive Clerk of Court of the 4th
Judicial Sharia District in Marawi City, were involved in a contractual dispute after Alauya entered a purchase agreement
through Alawi for a housing unit and obtained a housing loan from the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).
 Alauya later sought to terminate the contract, citing deceit and misrepresentation by Alawi, and communicated his grievances
to Villarosa & Co., NHMFC, and relevant court financial offices, denouncing Alawi’s actions.
 Upon discovering Alauya’s complaints, Alawi filed a verified complaint against him with the Supreme Court, accusing him of
making libelous charges, causing undue injury to her reputation, unauthorized use of free postage, and usurping the title of
“attorney.” Alauya responded, defending his actions as attempts to protect his rights and pointing out inconsistencies and
irregularities in his treatment and the contract process.
 The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, highlighting concerns over Alauya’s professional
conduct, particularly his use of intemperate language in his communications and his unwarranted assumption of the title
“attorney.”
 Whether Alauya’s use of derogatory language in his communications amounted to improper conduct unbecoming of a judicial
officer.
 Whether Alauya’s assumption of the title “attorney” constituted unauthorized practice of law or misrepresentation.
 The Court reprimanded Alauya for using excessively intemperate, insulting, or virulent language, which was deemed
unbecoming of a judicial officer. This behavior was found to be in violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees, which mandates public officials to act with propriety, respect for others, and refrain from
actions contrary to good morals and public policy.
 Furthermore, the Court held that Alauya’s use of the title “attorney” was inappropriate, as persons admitted to the Sharia Bar,
while considered counselors, do not have the same standing or privileges as those admitted to the Philippine Bar and thus
cannot rightfully use the title “attorney.”
 Public officials and employees must act with propriety, respect the rights of others, and refrain from conduct contrary to law,
good morals, and public policy (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, RA 6713).
 The title “attorney” is reserved for members of the Philippine Bar in good standing and cannot be used by those who have only
been admitted to the Sharia Bar.