A.M. No.

93-7-696-0 February 21, 1995

In Re JOAQUIN T. BORROMEO, Ex Rel. Cebu City Chapter of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Facts:
The respondent in this case, Joaquin T. Borromeo, who has, for
some sixteen (16) years now, from 1978 to the present, been
instituting and prosecuting legal proceedings in various courts,
dogmatically pontificating on errors supposedly committed by the
courts, including the Supreme Court. Under the illusion that his
trivial acquaintance with the law had given him competence to
undertake litigation, he has ventured to represent himself in
numerous original and review proceedings. Expectedly, the results
have been disastrous. In the process, and possibly in aid of his
interminable and quite unreasonable resort to judicial proceedings,
he has seen fit to compose and circulate many scurrilous
statements against courts, judges and their employees, as well as
his adversaries, for which he is now being called to account. In
those publicly circulated writings, he calls judges and lawyers
ignorant, corrupt, oppressors, violators of the Constitution and the
laws, etc.
ISSUE: Are lawyers entitled to the same degree of latitude of
freedom of speech towards the Court?
RULING:
No. There can scarcely be any doubt of Borromeo's guilt of
contempt, for abuse of and interference with judicial rules and
processes, gross disrespect to courts and judges and improper
conduct directly impeding, obstructing and degrading the
administration of justice. He stubbornly litigated issues already
declared to be without merit, rendered adversely to him in many
suits and proceedings, rulings which had become final and
executory, obdurately and unreasonably insisting on the
application of his own individual version of the rules, founded on
nothing more than his personal (and quite erroneous) reading of
the Constitution and the law; he has insulted the judges and court
officers, including the attorneys appearing for his adversaries,
needlessly overloaded the court dockets and sorely tried the
patience of the judges and court employees who have had to act
on his repetitious and largely unfounded complaints, pleadings and
motions. On the contention that he "was exercising his rights of
freedom of speech, of expression, and to petition the government
for redress of grievances as guaranteed by the Constitution (Sec.

4, Art. III) and in accordance with the accountability of public

officials." The constitutional rights invoked by him afford no
justification for repetitious litigation of the same causes and issues,
for insulting lawyers, judges, court employees; and other persons,
for abusing the processes and rules of the courts, wasting their
time, and bringing them into disrepute and disrespect

DACANAYB.M. No. 1678 December 17, 2007

Facts:
Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He
practiced law until he migrated to Canada in December 1998 to
seek medical attention for his ailments. He subsequently applied
for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canadas free medical aid
program. His application was approved and he became a Canadian
citizen in May 2004.

Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar,

loss thereof terminates membership in the Philippine bar and,
consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law. In
other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the
privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a
privilege denied to foreigners.
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of
naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently
reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is because all Philippine
citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed
not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of
[RA 9225]. Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of
another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine
citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225.

On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship

Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his
Philippine citizenship. On that day, he took his oath of allegiance as
a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto,
Canada. Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines and now intends
to resume his law practice.

Before he can can resume his law practice, he must first secure
from this Court the authority to do so, conditioned on:o the
updating and payment of of IBP membership dues;o the payment
of professional tax;o the completion of at least 36 credit hours of
mandatory continuing legal education; this is specially significant
to refresh the applicant/petitioners knowledge of Philippine laws
and update him of legal developments ando the retaking of the
lawyers oath.

Issue:

DECISION: GRANTED.

WON petitioner may still resume practice? YES

Held:
Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides an applicant for
admission to the bar be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twentyone years of age, of good moral character and a resident of the
Philippines.5 He must also produce before this 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.

time he is holding tests, this is the first time that his right has been
questioned formally.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the
preparation and the prosecution of patent application, etc.,
constitutes or is included in the practice of law.
PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION vs. CELEDONIO AGRAVA
G.R. No. L-12426. February 16, 1959.
FACTS:
On may 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing
that he had scheduled an examination for the purpose of
determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys
before the Philippines Patent Office. According to the circular,
members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons with
sufficient scientific and technical training are qualified to take the
said examination. The petitioner contends that one who has
passed the bar examination sand is licensed by the Supreme Court
to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good standing is
duly qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office and
that the respondent Directors holding an examination for the
purpose is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the
law.The respondent, in reply, maintains the prosecution of patent
cases does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but
includes the application of scientific and technical knowledge and
training as a matter of actual practice so as to include engineers
and other individuals who passed the examination can practice
before the Patent office. Furthermore, he stressed that for the long

HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes such
appearance before the Patent Office, the representation of
applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of
their applications for patent, their opposition thereto, or the
enforcement of their rights in patent cases. Moreover, the practice
before the patent Office involves the interpretation and application
of other laws and legal principles, as well as the existence of facts
to be established in accordance with the law of evidence and
procedure. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of
cases or litigation in court but also embraces all other matters
connected with the law and any work involving the determination
by the legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions.
Furthermore, the law provides that any party may appeal to the
Supreme Court from any final order or decision of the director.
Thus, if the transactions of business in the Patent Office involved
exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge and
training, then logically, the appeal should be taken not to a court or
judicial body, but rather to a board of scientists, engineers or
technical men, which is not the case.