Alawivs.AlauyaA.M.No.

SDC972P
February24,1997
Topics: Use of appellation attorney, practice of law.
Facts of the Case:
Sophia Alawi is a sales representative of EB Villarosa & Partners,
Co. Ltd. Of Davao City, while Ashari Alauya is an incumbent executive
clerk of court of 4th Judicial Sharia District in Marawi City.
Alawi and Alauya were classmates and friends. Through Alawis
agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on instalments by
Alauya of one of the housing units belonging to the abovementioned
firm. Thereafter, a housing loan was granted to Alauya by the National
Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC). On December 15,
1995, Alauya addressed a letter to the President of Villarosa and Co.
advising the termination of contract with the company, on the ground
that Alauyas consent was vitiated by gross misrepresentation, deceit,
fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by sales agent which makes
the contract void ab initio.
Alauya also wrote to Vice President of Credit and Collection
Group of National Home Mortgage Finance Corp. (NHMFC)
repudiating as fraudulent and void his contract with Villarosa & Co. and
asking for a cancellation of his housing loan.
Alauya also wrote to Ms. Corazon Ordonez, Head of Fiscal
Management and Budget Office, and to the Chief, Finance Division of
Supreme Court to stop deductions from his salary.
Alawi filed on SC a verified complaint dated January 25, 1996, to
which she appended a copy of the letter and accused Alauya of:
Imputation of libellous charges with no solid grounds through
manifest ignorance and evident bad faith.
Causing undue injury.
Unauthorized enjoyment of free postage.
Usurpation of the title attorney which only regular members of the
Philippine Bar may use.

Alauya thereafter claims that Alawi was only envious of him for being an
Executive Clerk of Court but also a scion of a Royal Family. He also
claimed that Alawi falsified his signature.
As with the use of the title attorney, he justified it by assertion that it is
synonymous with Counsellors-at-Law. He preferred to use attorney
because counsellor is often mistaken for councillor.
Issue:

Whether or not Alauya is guilty of libellous charges without solid

grounds through bad faith.
Whether or not Alauya is entitled to use the appellation attorney.

Court Ruling:
The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees (R.A. 6713) enunciates the State policy of promoting a high
standard of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service.
Public officials and employees must at all times respect the rights of
others and refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good
customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.
The conduct of behaviour of every official and employee of an agency
involved in administration of justice from presiding judge to the most
junior clerk, should be circumscribed with heavy burden of
responsibility.
He must act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty
and good faith.
As to Alauyas usurpation of the title attorney, the Court has declared
that persons who passed the Sharia Bar are not full-fledge members of
the Philippine bar. His disinclination to use the title counsellor does
not warrant his use of the title attorney.
In In re Meling, the Court said that the title attorney is
reserved only 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 who are authorized to practice

law in this jurisdiction.