Attorney (n.

early 14c. (mid-13c. in Anglo-Latin), "one appointed by another to act in his

place," from Old French atorné "(one) appointed," past participle of aturner "to
decree, assign, appoint," from atorner "to assign," literally "to turn to"
(see attorn). The sense is of "one appointed to represent another's interests."

In English law, a private attorney (attorney in fact) was one appointed to act for
another in business or legal affairs (usually for pay); an attorney at law or public
attorney was a qualified legal agent in the courts of Common Law who prepared
the cases for a barrister, who pleaded them (the equivalent of a solicitor in
Chancery). So much a term of contempt in England that it was abolished by the
Judicature Act of 1873 and merged with solicitor.

LEGAL ETHICS – is a branch of moral science, which treats of the duties which
an attorney owes to the court, to the client, to his colleagues in the profession
and to the public as embodied in the Constitution, Rules of Court, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, Canons of Professional Ethics, jurisprudence, moral
laws and special laws.
Original Bases of Legal Ethics:
1. Canons of Professional Ethics
2. Supreme court Decisions
3. Statistics
4. Constitution
5. Treatises and publications
Present Basis of the Philippine Legal System: Code of Professional
Responsibility.
BAR V. BENCH
BAR – Refers to the whole body of attorneys and body of judges.
BENCH – denotes the whole body of counselors, collectively the members of

the legal profession.

Practice of Law – any activity, in or out of court which requires the application of
law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the
practice of law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which or devise or
service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill (Cayetano v.
Monsod, 201 SCRA 210).
Attorney-at-law/Counsel-at-law/Attorney/Counsel/ Abogado/Boceros: that
class of persons who are licensed officers of the courts, empowered to appear
prosecute and defend and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities, and
liabilities are developed by law as a consequence (Cui v. Cui, 120 Phil. 729).
Attorney in fact – an agent whose authority is strictly limited by the instrument
appointing him, though he may do things not mentioned in his appointment
necessary to the performance of the duties specifically required of him by the
power of attorney appointing him, such authority being necessarily implied. He is
not necessarily a lawyer.
Counsel de Oficio – a counsel, appointed or assigned by the court, from among
members of the Bar in good standing who, by reason of their experience and
ability, may adequately defend the accused.
Note: In localities where members of the Bar are not available, the court may
appoint any person, resident of the province and good repute for probity and
ability, to defend the accused. Sec. 7, Rule 116, Rules of Court.
Attorney ad hoc – a person named and appointed by the court to defend an
absentee defendant in the suit in which the appointment is made (Bienvenu v.
Factor’s of Traders Insurance Cp., 33 La.Ann.209)
Attorney of Record – one who has filed a notice of appearance and who hence
is formally mentioned in court records as the official attorney of the party. Person
whom the client has named as his agent upon whom service of papers may be
made.
(Reynolds v. Reynolds, Cal.2d580).
Of Counsel – to distinguish them from attorneys of record, associate attorneys
are referred to as “of counsel” (5 Am. Jur. 261).
Lead Counsel – The counsel on their side of a litigated action who is charged
with the principal management and direction of a party’s case.
House Counsel – Lawyer who acts as attorney for business though carried as
an employee of that business and not as an independent lawyer.
Bar Association – an association of members of the legal profession.
Advocate – The general and popular name for a lawyer who pleads on behalf of
someone else.
Barrister (England) – a person entitled to practice law as an advocate or
counsel in superior court.
Proctor (England) – Formerly, an attorney in the admiralty and ecclesiastical
courts whose duties and business correspond to those of an attorney at law or
solicitor in Chancery.
Titulo de Abogado – it means not mere possession of the academic degree of
Bachelor of Laws but membership in the Bar after due admission thereto,
qualifying one for the practice of law.
Admission to the Practice of Law
The Supreme Court has the power to control and regulate the practice of law.
Thus, the Constitution, under Article VIII, Sec. 5 (5) provides:
Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission to the
practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the under privileged.
The Supreme Court acts through a Bar Examination Committee in the Exercise
of his judicial function to admit candidates to the legal profession.
The Bar Examination Committee:
 Composed of (1) member of the Supreme Court who acts as Chairman and
eight (8) members of the bar.
 The 8 members act as examiners for the 8 bar subjects with one subject
assigned to each.
 The Bar Confidant acts as a sort of liason officer between the court and the
Bar Chairman on the other hand, and the individual members of the
committee on the other. He is at the same time a deputy clerk of court.
 Admission of examinees is always subject to the final approval of the court.
Practice of Law
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. (In Re:
Argosino, 1997).
Requirements for admission to the Bar:
1. citizen of the Philippines
2. at least 21 years old
3. of good moral character
4. Philippine resident
5. Production before the supreme court satisfactory evidence of:
1. good moral character
2. no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or
are pending in any court in the Philippines.
Requirement of Good Moral Character: a continuing requirement; good moral
character is not only a condition precedent for admission to the legal profession,
but it must also remain intact in order to maintain one’s good standing in that
exclusive and honored fraternity. (Tapucar vs. Tapucar, 1998)
Academic Requirements for Candidates:
1. a bachelor’s degree in arts and sciences (pre-law course)
2. a completed course in:
1. civil law
2. commercial law
3. remedial law
4. public international law
5. private international law
6. political law
7. labor and social legislation
 8. medial jurisprudence
9. taxation
10. legal ethics
Non-lawyers who may be authorized to appear in court:
1. Cases before the MTC: Party to the litigation, in person OR through an
agent or friend or appointed by him for that purpose (Sec. 34, Rule 138,
RRC)
2. Before any other court: Party to the litigation, in person (Ibid.)
3. Criminal case before the MTC in a locality where a duly licensed member of
the Bar is not available: the judge may appoint a non-lawyer who is:
1. resident of the province
2. of good repute for probity and ability to aid the accused in his
defense (Rule 116, Sec. 7, RRC).
4. Legal Aid Program – A senior law student, who is enrolled in a recognized
law school’s clinical education program approved by the supreme Court
may appear before any court without compensation, to represent indigent
clients, accepted by the Legal Clinic of the law school. The student shall be
under the direct supervision and control of an IBP member duly accredited
by the law school.
5. Under the Labor code, non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any
Labor Arbiter, if
1. they represent themselves, or if
2. they represent their organization or members thereof (Art 222, PO
442, as amended).
6. Under the Cadastral Act, a non-lawyer can represent a claimant before the
Cadastral Court (Act no. 2259, Sec. 9).
Public Officials who cannot engage in the private practice of Law in the
Philippines:
1. Judges and other officials as employees of the Supreme Court (Rule 148,
Sec. 35, RRC).
2. Officials and employees of the OSG (Ibid.)
3. Government prosecutors (People v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109).
4. President, Vice-President, members of the cabinet, their deputies and
assistants (Art. VIII Sec. 15, 1987 Constitution).
5. Members of the Constitutional Commission (Art IX-A, Sec. 2, 1987
Constitution)
6. Ombudsman and his deputies (Art. IX, Sec. 8 (2nd par), 1987 Constitution)
7. All governors, city and municipal mayors (R.A. No. 7160, Sec. 90).
8. Those prohibited by special law
Public Officials with Restrictions in the Practice of Law:
1. 1. No Senator as member of the House of Representative may
personally appear as counsel before any court of justice as before the
 Electoral Tribunals, as quasi-judicial and other administration bodies (Art.
VI, Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution).
2. Under the Local Government Code (RA 7160, Sec. 91)Sanggunian
members may practice their professions provided that if they are members
of the Bar, they shall not:
1. appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local
government unit or any office, agency, or instrumentality of the
government is the adverse party;
2. appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee
of the national or local government is accused of an offense committed
in relation to his office;
3. collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings
involving the local government unit of which he is an official;
4. use property and personnel of the government except when the
Sanggunian member concerned is defending the interest of the
government.
3. Under RA 910, Sec. 1, as amended, a retired justice or judge receiving
pension from the government, cannot act as counsel in any civil case in
which the Government, or any of its subdivision or agencies is the adverse
party or in a criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the
Government is accused of an offense in relation to his office.
Attorney’s Oath:
“I, __________________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain
allegiance to 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
willingly nor wittingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or
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 my knowledge and
discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the court as to my clients; and I impose
upon myself this voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose
of evasion. So help me God.” (Form 28, RRC)
Nature of Lawyer’s Oath
 The lawyer’s oath is not mere facile words, drift and hollow, but a sacred
trust that must be upheld and kept inviolable. (Sebastian vs. Calis, 1999)
 It 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
made when taking the lawyer’s oath. (In Re: Argosino, 1997, In Re: Arthur
M. Cuevas, 1998).
Code of Professional Responsibility
Chapter 1:
Lawyer and Society
CANON 1 – A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and for legal processes
 Duties of Attorneys:
1. to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the
Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines;
2. to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial
officers;
3. to counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him as
just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under
the laws;
4. 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;
5. 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;
6. 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;
7. not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action
or proceeding, or delay any man’s cause for any corrupt motive or interest;
8. never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the
defenseless or oppressed;
9. in the defense of a person accused of a 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.
Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
 Conviction for crimes involving moral turpitude – a number of lawyers have
been suspended or disbarred for conviction of crimes involving moral
turpitude such as:
1. estafa
2. bribery
3. murder
4. seduction
5. abduction
6. smuggling
7. falsification of public documents
  Morality as understood in law – This is a human standard based on
natural moral law which is embodied in man’s conscience and which guides
him to do good and avoid evil.
 Moral Turpitude: any thing that is done contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty or good morals.
 Immoral Conduct: that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless and
which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable
members of the community (Arciga vs. Maniwag, 106 SCRA 591).
 Grossly Immoral Conduct: One that is so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be
reprehensible to a high degree; it is a WILLFUL, FLAGRANT or
SHAMELESS ACT which shows a MORAL INDIFFERENCE to the opinion
of respectable members of the community. (Narag vs. Narag, 1998)
Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the
law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 1.03 – A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage
any suit or proceeding or delay any man’s cause.
Rule 1.04 – A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle the
controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
 If a lawyer finds that his client’s cause is defenseless, it is his burden/duty to
advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the
incontrovertible.
 It is unprofessional for a lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit,
except in rare cases where the blood, relationship or trust makes it his duty
to do so.
 Temper client’s propensity to litigate.
 Should not be an instigator of controversy but a mediator for concord and
conciliator for compromise.
 The law violated need not be a penal law. “Moral Turpitude” – everything
which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals.
 Give advice tending to impress upon the client and his undertaking exact
compliance with the strictest principles of moral law.
 Until a statute shall have been construed and interpreted by competent
adjudication, he is free and is entitled to advise as to its validity and as to
what he conscientiously believes to be its just meaning and extent.
 A lawyer has the obligation not to encourage suits. This is so as to prevent
barratry and ambulance chasing.
 Barratry – offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and suits,
either at law or otherwise; Lawyer’s act of fomenting suits among individuals
and offering his legal services to one of them.
 Ambulance Chasing – Act of chasing victims of accidents for the purpose of
talking to the said victims (or relatives) and offering his legal services for the
filing of a case against the person(s) who caused the accident(s).
CANON 2 – A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient
and convenient manner compatible with the independence, integrity and
effectiveness of the profession.
Rule 2.01 – A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of
the defenseless or oppressed.
Rule 2.02 – In such a case, even if a lawyer does not accept a case, he shall
not refuse to render legal advise to the person concerned if only to the
extent necessary to safeguard latter’s rights.
Rule 2.03 – a lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed
primarily to solicit legal business.
 Primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession from
business;
1. duty of service, of which the emolument is a by product, and in which one
may attain the highest eminence without making such money;
2. a relation as an ‘officer of court’ to the administration of justice involving
thorough sincerity, integrity and reliability;
3. a relation to clients in the highest degree of fiduciary;
4. a relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness and
unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and
encroachment on their practice or dealing with their clients.
 Defenseless – not in the position to defend themselves due to poverty,
weakness, ignorance or other similar reasons.
 Oppressed – victims of acts of cruelty, unlawful exaction, domination or
excessive use of authority.
Rule on Advertisements
 General Rule: No advertisements allowed. The most worthy and effective
advertisement possible is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust.

Lawyers may not advertise their services or expertise nor should not resort to
indirect advertisements for professional employment, such as furnishing or
inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be published in
connection with causes in which the lawyer has been engaged or concerning the
manner of their conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance of
the lawyer’s position, and all other self-laudation.

 Exceptions/ Permissible advertisements:

1. Reputable law lists, in a manner consistent with the standards of conduct
imposed by the canons, of brief biographical and informative data, are
allowed.
 2. Ordinary simple professional Card. It may contain only a statement of his
name, the name of the law firm which he is connected with, address,
telephone number and the special branch of law practiced.
3. A simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or of changes in the
partnership, associates, firm name or office address, being for the
convenience of the profession, is not objectionable.
4. Advertisements or simple announcement of the existence of a lawyer or his
law firm posted anywhere it is proper such as his place of business or
residence except courtrooms and government buildings.
5. Advertisements or announcement in any legal publication, including books,
journals, and legal magazines.
Rule 2.04 – A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily or
prescribed, unless circumstances so warrant.
 A lawyer cannot delay the approval of a compromise agreement entered
into between parties, just because his attorney’s fees were not provided for
in the agreement.
 Rule: A lawyer cannot compromise the case without client’s consent
(special authority). Exception: Lawyer has exclusive management of the
procedural aspect of the litigation (e.g. Submission for decision on the
evidence so far presented. But in case where lawyer is confronted with an
emergency and prompt/urgent action is necessary to protect clients interest
and there’s no opportunity for consultation, the lawyer may compromise.
 Rule: Refrain from charging rates lower than the customary rates.
Valid Justification: relatives, co-lawyers, too poor
CANON 3 – A lawyer in making known is legal services shall use only true,
honest, fair dignified and objective information or statement of facts.
Rule 3.01 – A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-auditory or unfair statement or
claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
 Violation of Rule 3.01 is unethical, whether done by him personally or
through another with his permission.
Rule 3.02 – In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading, or assumed
name shall be used. The continued use of the name of a deceased partner
is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its communication that
said partner is deceased.
Rule 3.03 – Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from
the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law
allows him to practice law concurrently.
Rule 3.04 – A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to
representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for,
publicity to attract legal business.
 It is unethical to use the name of a foreign firm.
  Death of a partner does not extinguish attorney-client relationship with the
law firm.
 Negligence of a member in the law firm is negligence of the firm.
CANON 4 – A lawyer shall participate in the improvement of the legal
system by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the
administration of justice.
 Examples: Presenting position papers or resolutions for the introduction of
pertinent bills in congress; Petitions with the Supreme Court for the
amendment of the Rules of Court.
CANON 5 – A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate
in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high
standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of students and
assist in disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence.

Objectives of integration of the Bar

 To elevate the standards of the legal profession
 To improve the administration of justice
 To enable the Bar to discharge its responsibility more effectively.
The three-fold obligation of a lawyer
 First, he owes it to himself to continue improving his knowledge of the laws;
 Second, he owes it to his profession to take an active interest in the
maintenance of high standards of legal education;
 Third, he owes it to the lay public to make the law a part of their social
consciousness.
CANON 6 – These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in
the discharge of their official tasks.
 Public Officials – include elective and appointive officials and employees,
permanent or temporary, whether in the career or non-career service,
including military and police personnel, whether or not they receive
compensation, regardless of amount. (Sec. 3 (b), RA 6713).
 The law requires the observance of the following norms of conduct by every
public official in the discharge and execution of their official duties:
1. commitment to public interest
2. professionalism
3. justness and sincerity
4. political neutrality
5. responsiveness to the public
6. nationalism and patriotism
7. commitment to democracy
8. simple living (Sec. 4, RA 6713)
Rule 6.01 – The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is
not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or
the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the
accused is highly reprehensible and is cause of disciplinary action.
Rule 6.02 – A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public
position to promote or advance his private interest, nor allow the latter to
interfere with his public duties.
Rule 6.03 – A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagements or employment in connection with any matter in which he
had intervened while in said service.
 Various ways a government lawyer leaves government service:
1. retirement
2. resignation
3. expiration of the term of office
4. dismissal
5. abandonment
 Q: What are the pertinent statutory provisions regarding this Rule?

A: Sec. 3 (d) RA 3019 as amended and Sec. 7 (b), RA 6713

Sec 3. Corrupt practice of Public Officers. In addition to acts or omission of

public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practice of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(d) accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private
enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency
thereof or within one year after termination.

Section 7 (b) of RA 6713 prohibits officials from doing any of the following acts:

1. own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee,

consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any private
enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their office unless expressly
allowed by law.

These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after
resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of
subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his
profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with, in
which case the one year prohibition shall likewise apply.

 Lawyers in the government service are prohibited to engage in the private

practice of their profession unless authorized by the constitution or law,
 provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their
official functions.
 Misconduct in office as a public official may be a ground for disciplinary
action (if of such character as to affect his qualification as lawyer or to show
moral delinquency).
 Should recommend the acquittal of the accused whose conviction is on
appeal, IF he finds no legal basis to sustain the conviction.
 Includes restriction is representing conflicting interest (e.g. Accepting
engagements vs. former employer, PNB)
 The OSG is not authorized to represent a public official at any state of a
criminal case.

Spanish for “lawyer,” abogado is a cousin of the English uncommon synonym for
the same, advocate (think of it in the noun sense).

Both come from the same Latin root: advocatus, which is a combination
of ad- (“towards”) and vocare (“to call”: think of voice, vocal, vocation — literally,
your calling!). So a lawyer, or advocate, literally meant, “one called [to help
others]”.

Although the sound mappings may not be obvious at first, we can see that the a-
b-g-d of abogado maps to the a-v-c-t of advocate.

take up the cudgels
 Meaning: argue strongly in support or against somebody

or something.
 Example: Environmental groups have taken up the
cudgels against multinational companies.

Cayetano v. Monsod
G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991
Facts:
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino
to the position of Chairman of the
COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on
Appointments on April 25, 1991. Petitioner
opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess the
required qualification of having been engaged
in the practice of law for at least ten years.
On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of
Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC.
On June 18, 1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he assumed
office as Chairman of the COMELEC.
Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments
of Monsod's nomination, petitioner as a
citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for certiorari
and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the
consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Election
s be declared null and void.
Issue:

Whether the appointment of Chairman Monsod of Comelec violates Section 1

(1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution?
Held:
The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1), Article IX-C, that 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.
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar
examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86-
55%. He has been dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
since its inception in 1972-73. He has
also been paying his professional license fees as lawyer for more than ten years.
At this point, it might be helpful to define private practice. The term, as commonly
understood, means "an individual or
organization engaged in the business of delivering legal services." (Ibid.).
Lawyers who practice alone are often called
"sole practitioners." Groups of lawyers are called "firms." The firm is usually a
partnership and members of the firm are the
partners. Some firms may be organized as professional corporations and the
members called shareholders. In either
case, the members of the firm are the experienced attorneys. In most firms, there
are younger or more inexperienced
salaried attorneys called "associates."
Hence, the Commission on the basis of evidence submitted doling the public
hearings on Monsod's confirmation, implicitly
determined that he possessed the necessary qualifications as required by law. T
he judgment rendered by the
Commission in the exercise of such an acknowledged power is beyond judicial
interference except only upon a clear
showing of a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1 Constitution). Thus,
only where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the Court
interfere with the Commission's judgment. In
the instant case, there is no occasion for the exercise of the Court's corrective
power, since no abuse, much less a grave
abuse of discretion, that would amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction and would
warrant the issuance of the writs
prayed, for has been clearly shown.
Besides in the leading case of Luego v. Civil Service Commission, he Court said
that, Appointment is an essentially
discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in which it is vested
according to his best lights, the only
condition being that the appointee should possess the qualifications
required by law. If he does, then the appointment
cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others better qualified who should
have been preferred. This is a political
question involving considerations of wisdom which only the appointing authority
can decide.

Ulep vs. Legal Clinic A.C. No. L-533

Topics:

“A lawyer, making known his legal services shall only use true, honest, fair,
dignified and objective information or statement of facts.”—Canon 3, Code of
Professional Responsibility

“A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading,
deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
qualifications for legal services.”—Rule 3.01, Code of Professional
Responsibility

Facts of the Case:

In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according
to Nogales, was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot
afford the services of big law firms.

Atty. Ulep files a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of its advertisements
which states undignified phrases like-- “Secret Marriage? P560.00 for a valid
marriage. Information on DIVORCE, ANNULMENT, ABSENCE, VISA. The Legal
Clinic, Inc. Please call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041 8:30am to 6:00pm 7th Floor
Victoria Bldg. UN Avenue, Manila.”

It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal
Problems in The Philippine Star because it is composed of specialists that can take
care of a client’s situation no matter how complicated it is, especially on marriage
problems like the Sharon and Gabby situation.

Citing John Bates vs. The State Bar of Arizona, Atty. Nogales said that it should
be allowed based on this American Jurisprudence. According to him, there is
nothing wrong with making known the legal services his Legal Clinic has to offer.

Issue:

Whether or not such advertisement may be allowed.

Court Ruling:

The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals, which is undoubtedly beyond

the domain of the paralegals. As stated in a previous jurisprudence, practice of law
is only reserved for the members of the Philippine bar, and not to paralegals. As
with the Legal Clinic’s advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility
provides that “a lawyer in making known his legal services must use only honest,
fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts.

A lawyer cannot advertise his talents in a manner that a merchant advertise his
goods. The Legal Clinic promotes divorce, secret marriages, bigamous marriages
which are undoubtedly contrary to law.

The only allowed form of advertisements would be: (1.) Citing your involvement in
a reputable law list, (2.) An ordinary professional card (3.) Phone directory listing
without designation to a lawyer’s specialization.

ROC 138 sec.1

31 scra 562
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS THE SENSE of the Court that Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen
be, as he is hereby, suspended from the practice of law until further orders, the
suspension to take effect immediately. Let copies of this resolution be furnished
the Secretary of Justice, the Solicitor General and the Court of Appeals for their
information and guidance.

94 phil 534
Consequently, (1) all the above-mentioned petitions of the candidates who failed
in the examinations of 1946 to 1952 inclusive are denied, and (2) all candidates
who in the examinations of 1953 obtained a general average of 71.5 per cent or
more, without having a grade below 50 per cent in any subjcet, are considered as
having passed, whether they have filed petitions for admission or not. After this
decision has become final, they shall be permitted to take and subscribe the
corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar on the date or dates that the
Chief Justice may set. So ordered.Wherefore, I hold that Republic Act No. 972 is
constitutional and should therefore be given effect in its entirety.

BAR MATTER NO. 702 May 12, 1994

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a Resolution of the Court En Banc

dated May 12, 1994.

Bar Matter No. 702 (In the Matter of Petition to authorize Sharia'h District Court
Judges to Appoint Shari'a Lawyers as Notaries Public, Atty. Royo M. Gampong,
petitioner)

Petitioner Royo M. Gampong, a Bachelor of Laws (LIB) graduate of Notre Dame

University who was admitted to the Philippine Shari'a Bar on October 7, 1991,
filed the instant petition praying that this Court, after due notice and hearing,
issue an order authorizing all Shari'a District Court Judges to appoint Shari'a
Lawyers who possess the qualifications and none of the disqualifications as
notaries public within their respective jurisdictions.

On the theory that Shari'a District Courts are co-equal with the regular Regional
Trial Courts in the hierarchy of the Philippine Judicial System, petitioner claims
that by analogy, Shari'a District Court Judges may be authorized to appoint the
members of the Philippine Shari'a Bar. Petitioner further argues that, being a
special member of the Philippine Bar and a practicing Shari'a lawyer, notarial
work is indispensable and imperative in the exercise of his profession; therefore,
he is qualified to be appointed as notary public by Shari'a District Judge.
Petitioner likewise claims that Shari'a lawyers cannot be appointed as notaries
public in their places of residence and in cities and other pilot centers where
Shari'a courts are established because the RTC Executive Judges in Cotabato
and Maguindanao require them to secure certifications from the IBP Secretary
that there are no practicing lawyers in the place where they are applying. Thus,
Shari'a lawyers lose their chance to be appointed as notaries public because of
the policy of the IBP chapters in Region 12 to appoint regular IBP members
practically in all municipalities and provinces.

The petition is denied.

The appointment, qualification, jurisdiction and powers of notaries public are

governed by the provisions of the Notarial Law embodied in Sections 231 to
Section 241, Chapter 11 of the Revised Administrative Code, Section 232 of the
Revised Administrative Code as amended by Executive Order No. 41, May 11,
1945 provides:

Section 232. Appointment of notaries public. — Judges of

Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) in the
respective may appoint as many notaries public as the public
good requires, and there shall be at least one for every
municipality in each province. Notaries public in the City of
Manila shall be appointed by one of the judges of the Court of
First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila to be
chosen by the judges of the branches of said court" (Words in
parenthesis supplied)

Strictly speaking, Shari'a District Courts do not form part of the integrated judicial
system of the Philippines. Section 2 of the Judiciary Reorganization Acts of 1980
(B.P. Blg. 129) enumerates the courts covered by the Act, comprising the
integrated judicial system. Shari'a Courts are not included in the enumeration
notwithstanding that, when said B.P. Blg. 129 took effect on August 14, 1981,
P.D. No. 1083 (otherwise known as "Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the
Philippines") was already in force. The Shari'a Courts are mentioned in Section
45 of the Act only for the purpose of including them "in the funding
appropriations."

The fact that judges thereof are required by law to possess the same
qualifications as those of Regional Trial Courts does not signify that the Shari'a
Court is a regular court like the Regional Trial Court. The latter is a court of
general jurisdiction, i.e., competent to decide all cases, civil and criminal, within
 its jurisdiction. A Shari'a District Court, created pursuant to Article 137 of
Presidential Decree No. 1083, is a court of limited jurisdiction, exercising original
only over cases specifically enumerated in Article 143 thereof. In other words, a
Shari'a District Court is not a regular court exercising general jurisdiction within
the meaning of Section 232 of the Notarial Law.

The fact, too, that Shari'a Courts are called "courts" does not imply that they are
on equal footing or are identical with regular courts, for the word "court" may be
applied to tribunals which are not actually judicial in character, but are quasi-
judicial agencies, like the Securities and Exchange Commission, Land
Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Boards,
Bureau of Patents, Trademark and Technology, Energy Regulatory Board, etc. 1

Moreover, decisions of the Shari'a District Courts are not elevated to this Court
by appeal under Rule 41, or by petition for review under Rule 45, of the Rules of
Court. Their decisions are final "whether on appeal from the Shari'a Circuit Court
or not" 2 and hence, may reach this Court only by way of a special civil action
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, similar to those of the National Labor
Relations Commission, or the Central Board of Assessment Appeals. 3

Furthermore, the qualifications for appointment as a judge of a Shari'a District

Court are different from those required of a judge of a Regional Trial Court under
Section 15 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 which provides:

Section 15. Qualifications — No person shall be appointed

Regional trial Court Judge unless he is a natural born citizen
of the Philippines, at least thirty-five years of age, and, for at
least ten years, has been engaged in the practice of law in the
Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as an
indispensable requirement.

In case of Shari'a Court judges, on the other hand, a Special Bar Examination for
Shari'a Courts was authorized by the Supreme Court in its En Banc resolution
dated September 20, 1983. Those who pass said examination are qualified for
appointment for Shari'a court judges and for admission to special membership in
the Philippine Bar to practice law in the Shari'a courts pursuant to Article 152, in
relation to Articles 148 and 158 of P.D. No. 1083. Said Article 152, P.D. No. 1083
provides, thus:

Art. 152. Qualifications. — No person shall be appointed

judge of the Shari'a Circuit Court unless he is a natural born
citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-five years of age, and
has passed an examination in the Sharia' and Islamic
 jurisprudence (fiqh) to be given by the Supreme Court for
admission to special membership in the Philippine Bar to
practice law in the Shari'a courts.

The authority thus conferred by the Notarial Law upon judges of the Court of First
Instance, now the Regional Trial Court, in their respective provinces to appoint
notaries public cannot be expanded to cloth the judges of the Shari'a District
Court with the same statutory authority. The authority to appoint notaries public
contemplated under Section 232 of the Notarial Law and the corresponding
supervising authority over them authorized under Section 248 thereof require the
qualifications and experience of an RTC Judge.

It must be made clear in this regard that since a person who has passed the
Shari'a Bar Examination does not automatically become a regular member of the
Philippine Bar, he lacks the necessary qualification to be appointed a notary
public. Section 233 of the Notarial Law provides for the qualifications for
appointment as notary public, thus:

Section 233. Qualifications for Appointment. — To be eligible

for appointment as notary public, a person must be a citizen of
the Philippines (or of the United States) and over twenty-one
years of age. He must, furthermore, be a person who has
been admitted to the practice of law or who has completed
and passed in the studies of law in a reputable university or
school of law, or has passed the examination for the office of
the peace or clerk or deputy clerk of court, or be a person who
had qualified for the office of notary public under the Spanish
sovereignty.

In the chartered cities and in the capitals of the provinces,

where there are two or more lawyers appointed as notaries
public, no person other than a lawyer or a person who had
qualified to hold the office of notary public under the Spanish
sovereignty shall hold said office.

In municipalities or municipal districts where no person resides

having the qualifications herein before specified or having
them, refuses to hold such office, judges of first instance may
appoint other persons temporarily to exercise the office of
notary public who have the requisite qualifications or fitness
and morality.
 In an En Banc resolution of the Court dated August 5, 1993, in Bar Matter No.
681 "Re: Petition to Allow Shari'a Lawyers to exercise their profession at the
regular courts," this Court categorically stated that a person who has passed the
Shari'a Bar Examination is only a special member of the Philippine Bar and not a
full-fledged member thereof even if he is a Bachelor of Laws degree holder. As
such, he is authorized to practice only in the Shari'a courts.

Only a person duly admitted as members of the Philippine Bar in accordance

with the Rules of Court are entitled to practice law before the regular courts.
Section 1, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

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.

This Court further emphasized in its resolution in Bar Matter 681, that:

In order to be admitted as member of the Philippine Bar, the

candidate must pass an examination for admission covering
the following subjects: Political and International Law; Labor
and Social Legislation; Civil Law and Taxation; Mercantile
Law; Criminal Law; Remedial Law; and Legal Ethics and
Practical Exercises (Sec. 11, Rule 138) Further, in order that a
candidate may be deemed to have passed the bar
examination, he must have obtained a general average of
75% in all the aforementioned subjects without failing below
50% in any subject (Sec. 14, Rule 138). On the other hand,
the subjects covered by the special bar examination for
Shari'a courts are: (1) Jurisprudence (Fiqh) and Customary
laws (Adat); (2) Persons, Family Relations and Property; (3)
Successions, Wills/Adjudication and Settlement of Property;
(4) Procedure in Shari'a Courts (See Resolution dated
September 20, 1983).

It is quite obvious that the subject matter of the two

examinations are different. The Philippine Bar Examination
covers the entire range of the Philippine Laws and
jurisprudence, while the Shari'a Bar Examination covers
Muslim personal laws and jurisprudence only. Hence, a
person who has passed the Shari'a Bar Examination, who is
not a lawyer, is not qualified to practice law before the regular
courts because he has not passed the requisite examinations
 for admission as a member of the Philippine Bar. However,
the Shari'a bar lawyer may appear before the Municipal Trial
Courts as agent or friend of a litigant, if appointed by the latter
for the purpose but not before the Regional Trial Courts as
only duly authorized members of the Bar may conduct
litigations in the latter court (Sec. 34, Rule 138).

Considering, therefore that a person who has passed the Shari'a Bar
Examination is only a special member of the Philippine Bar and not a full-fledged
member thereof even if he holds a Bachelor of Laws Degree, he is not qualified
to practice to qualified to practice law before the regular courts. As a general rule,
a Shari'a Lawyer is not possessed of the basic requisite of "practice of law" in
order to be appointed as a notary public under Section 233 of the Notarial Law in
relation to Section 1, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.

WHEREFORE, the petition to authorize Shari'a District Court Judges to appoint

Shari'a Lawyers as notaries public in their respective jurisdiction is DENIED.

Very Truly Yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Assistant Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1 See Circular 1-91, February 27, 1991.

2 Art 145, P.D. 1083.

3 See Resolution of November 26, 1990, G.R. No. 95895,

Heirs of Datu Mangindra Sinsuat, represented by Lourdes
Sinsuat v. Datu Haakon Sinsuat and Hon. Corocoy D. Moson,
Shari'a District Judge; cf., Tampar v. Usman, 200 SCRA 652
(1991); Rulona-Al Awadhi v. Astih, 165 SCRA 771 (1988).

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

ALAWI VS ALAUYA
Facts:
Sophia Alawi was a sale representative of E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd.
of Davao City. Ashari Alauya is the incumber executive of clerk of court of the 4th
Judicial Shari'a District in Marawi City. It appears that through Alawi's agency, a
contract was executed for the purchase on installments by Alauya of one of the
housing units belonging to the above mentioned firm (hereafter, simply Villarosa &
Co.); and in connection therewith, a housing loan was also granted to Alauya by
the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC). Not long afterwards,
or more precisely on December 15, 1995, Alauya addressed a letter to the
President of Villarosa & Co. advising of the termination of his contract with the
company.
Ruling:
1. As regards Alauya's use of the title of "Attorney," this Court has already had
occasion to declare that 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.
The title of "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.

2. WHEREFORE, respondent Ashari M. Alauya is hereby REPRIMANDED for the

use of excessively intemperate, insulting or virulent language, i.e., language
unbecoming a judicial officer, and for usurping the title of attorney; and he is
warned that any similar or other impropriety or misconduct in the future will be dealt
with more severely.

Cui v Cui
January 31, 2016Thinker Bell
Facts:

The Hospicio de San Jose de Barili, is a charitable institution established by the

spouses Don Pedro Cui and Dona Benigna Cui for the care and support, free of
charge, of indigent invalids, and incapacitated and helpless persons.” It acquired
corporate existence by legislation (Act No. 3239). Sec. 2 of the Act gave the
initial management to the founders jointly and, in case of their incapacity or
death, to “such persons as they may nominate or designate, in the order
prescribed to them. (embodied in Sec. 2 of the spouses deed of donation)”
Plaintiff Jesus Ma. Cui and defendant Antonio Ma. Cui are brothers, being the
sons of Mariano Cui, one of the nephews of the spouses Don Pedro and Dona
Benigna Cui. In 1960, the then incumbent administrator of the Hospicio, resigned
in favor of Antonio Cui pursuant to a “convenio” entered into between them that
was embodied on a notarial document. Jesus Cui, however had no prior notice of
either the “convenio” or of his brother’s assumption of the position.

Upon the death of Dr. Teodoro Cui, Jesus Cui wrote a letter to his brother
Antonio, demanding that the office be turned over to him. When the demand was
not complied, Jesus filed this case. Lower court ruled in favor of Jesus.

ISSUE
Who is best qualified as administrator for the Hospicio?

HELD
Antonio should be the Hospicio’s administrator.

Jesus is the older of the two and under equal circumstances would be preferred
pursuant to sec.2 of the deed of donation. However, before the test of age may
be, applied the deed gives preference to the one, among the legitimate
descendants of the nephews named, who if not a lawyer (titulo de abogado),
should be a doctor or a civil engineer or a pharmacist, in that order; or if failing all
theses, should be the one who pays the highest taxes among those otherwise
qualified.

Jesus Ma. Cui holds the degree of Bachelor of laws but is not a member of the
Bar, not having passed the examinations. Antonio Ma. Cui, on the other hand, is
a member of the Bar and although disbarred in 1957, was reinstated by
resolution, about two weeks before he assumed the position of administrator of
the Hospicio.

The term “titulo de abogado” means not mere possession of the academic
degree of Bachelor of Laws but membership in the Bar after due admission
thereto, qualifying one for the practice of law. A Bachelor’s degree alone,
conferred by a law school upon completion of certain academic requirements,
does not entitle its holder to exercise the legal profession. By itself, the degree
merely serves as evidence of compliance with the requirements that an applicant
to the examinations has “successfully completed all the prescribed courses, in a
law school or university, officially approved by the Secretary of Education.

The founders of the Hospicio provided for a lwayer, first of all, because in all of
the works of an administrator, it is presumed, a working knowledge of the law
and a license to practice the profession would be a distinct asset.

Under this criterion, the plaintiff Jesus is not entitled as against defendant, to the
office of administrator. Reference is made to the fact that the defendant Antonio
was disbarred (for immorality and unprofessional conduct). However, it is also a
fact, that he was reinstated before he assumed the office of administrator. His
reinstatement is recognition of his moral rehabilitation, upon proof no less than
that required for his admission to the Bar in the first place. Also, when defendant
was restored to the roll of lawyers the restrictions and disabilities resulting from
his previous disbarment were wiped out.