Practice of law

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. (Land Title Abstract
and Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650) A person is also considered
to be in the practice of law when he: ... for valuable consideration engages in the
business of advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights under
the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending
or prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or
commission constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies and there, in such
representative capacity performs any act or acts for the purpose of obtaining or
defending the rights of their clients under the law. Otherwise stated, one who, in a
representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights
under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of
court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law. (State ex. rel. Mckittrick v..C.S.
Dudley and Co., 102 S.W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852

Philippine Lawyers Association v.Agrava, (105 Phil. 173,176-177) stated: The

practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the
preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,
the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges
and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action
taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment
and condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the
foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and
insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of
estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as do the
preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the
determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. (5 Am.
Jr. p. 262, 263). (Emphasis supplied)

Practice of law means 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 perform those acts which are characteristics of
the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of
service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill."
Passing the bar and the practice of law

Aguirre vs. Rana ,BM 1036, 10 June 2003

Facts: Atty. Rana work as a secretary at the vice mayor office before he passes the bar.
In year 2000 he pass the bar. In 21 May 2001 he acted as a counsel of the vice mayor
even his not yet taken his lawyers oath in 22 May 2001. Complainant filed a petition of
grave misconduct and misrepresentation because he is not yet a lawyer.

Issue: Wither or not petitioner is fit to be a member of the Philippine Bar, because he
acted as a lawyer even he is not yet taken his ROLE OF ATTORNEY?

Ruling: True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyers
oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-
fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is
immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-
law. Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer
still had to be performed, namely: his lawyers oath to be administered by this
Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.

NOTE

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is
limited to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained
and certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal
knowledge, educational attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of
the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing
the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from
one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had
practiced law without a license.
Before one is admitted to the Philippine Bar, he must possess the requisite moral
integrity for membership in the legal profession. Possession of moral integrity is of
greater importance than possession of legal learning. The practice of law is a privilege
bestowed only on the morally fit. A bar candidate who is morally unfit cannot practice
law even if he passes the bar examinations.

Khan vs. simbilio

It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business. It is a
profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary
consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law
advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood
should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the
administration of justice should be the primary consideration of lawyers, who must
subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to themselves.

PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW, BENJAMIN M. DACANAY,

B.M. No. 1678, December 17, 2007

Fact: Atty. Dacanay filed a petition to leave in the practice of law, for a reason of his
health. When he recover from his ailness, he returned to the Philippines and apply for
resumming his Philippine citizenship. Thus he also apply to resume his practice of law.

Issue: Whether or not the petition of Atty. Dacanay to resume in the practise of law
should be granted?

Held: Yes, The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is so delicately
affected with public interest that it is both a power and a duty of the State (through this
Court) to control and regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare.
Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of
morality, faithful observance of the rules of the legal profession, compliance with the
mandatory continuing legal education requirement and payment of membership fees to
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for membership in
good standing in the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. Any breach by a
lawyer of any of these conditions makes him unworthy of the trust and confidence which
the courts and clients repose in him for the continued exercise of his professional
privilege.
Note before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 can
resume his law practice, he must first secure from this Court the authority to do so,
conditioned on:

(a)the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP;

(b)the payment of professional tax;

(c)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 and

(d) the retaking of the lawyers oath which will not only remind him of his duties and
responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to
maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.

Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as a member of the
Philippine bar.

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF TELESFORO A. DIAO,

vs. SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ, A.C. No. 244 March 29, 1963

Facts: Atty. DIAO pass the bar. However Martinez filed a petition to disbar him, for the
reason that he did not finish his highschool education. Atty. Diao admitted such
allegation.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Diao should be disbar considering that he was not yet
graduate from highschool? And he pass the bar exam.

Held: Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to become an

attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular
manner is equally essential..

Cruz vs. Judge Mijares, G.R. No. 154464 September 11, 2008

Facts: Petitioner is a fourth year law student, he appear in court as a counsel on his
own case. Apparently, however, the judge denied him to practice law because he did not
proved that he was enroll in an authorized lawschool and legal clinic in pursuant of rule-
138 of rules of court, the non appearance of non lawyer.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner should be granted to represent himself as a counsel?

Held: Yes,

The case at bar involves a civil case, with the petitioner as plaintiff therein. The
solicitous concern that the Constitution accords the accused in a criminal prosecution
obviously does not obtain in a civil case. Thus, a party litigant in a civil case, who insists
that he can, without a lawyers assistance, effectively undertake the successful pursuit
of his claim, may be given the chance to do so. In this case, petitioner alleges that he is
a law student and impliedly asserts that he has the competence to litigate the case
himself.Evidently, he is aware of the perils incident to this decision.

In addition, it was subsequently clarified in Bar Matter 730, that by virtue of Section 34,
Rule 138, a law student may appear as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, without
need of the supervision of a lawyer, before inferior courts. Here, we have a law student
who, as party litigant, wishes to represent himself in court. We should grant his wish.

Rule 138, which provides:

Sec. 34. By whom litigation is conducted. - In the court of a justice of the peace, a party
may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him
for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct
his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either
personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.

Catu vs. Rellosa, A.C. No. 5738 February 19, 2008

Fact: Atty. Rellosa is a BRGY. Chairman, and he settled the dispute of complainant and
other parties, however the parties did not settled their dispute. Mr. Catu filed an
ejectment case, and Atty. Rellosa being PUNUNG TAGAPAMAYAPA acted as a counsel
to the opposing parties. Mr. Catu filed a complaint in IBP because Atty. Rellosa being a
punung Brgy. Acted as a counsel of the opposing parties.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Rellosa violated canon 6 of

Rule 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service,

accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in
which he intervened while in said service.
Held: No, Respondent cannot be found liable for violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. As worded, that Rule applies only to a lawyer who has left
government service and in connection with any matter in which he intervened while in
said service. In PCGG v. Sandiganbayan,[11] we ruled that Rule 6.03 prohibits former
government lawyers from accepting engagement or employment in connection with any
matter in which [they] had intervened while in said service.

Respondent was an incumbent punong barangay at the time he committed the

act complained of. Therefore, he was not covered by that provision.

However As punong barangay, respondent should have therefore obtained the

prior written permission of the Secretary of Interior and Local Government before he
entered his appearance as counsel for Elizabeth and Pastor. This he failed to do.

In acting as counsel for a party without first securing the required written permission,
respondent not only engaged in the unauthorized practice of law but also violated civil
service rules which is a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
Indeed, a lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he disregards
legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legal profession.

Public confidence in the law and in lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible
and improper conduct of a member of the bar.[18] Every lawyer should act and comport
himself in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity of the legal
profession.[19]

LINSANGAN vs. TOLENTINO, A.C. No. 6672 September 4, 2009

Fact : Atty. Linsangan filed an disbarment case against Atty. Tolentino because by his
paralegal who printed a calling card which constitute legal solicitation.
Issue: whether or not he must be discipline even though assuming that it was his
paralegal who printed such calling card?
Held: Yes, because through his paralegal he was benefited.

Doctrine
Time and time again, lawyers are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and
not a business; lawyers should not advertise their talents as merchants advertise their
wares. To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice
of law, degrade the profession in the publics estimation and impair its ability to efficiently
render that high character of service to which every member of the bar is called.

Hence, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a
ground for disbarment.

STEMMERIK vs MAS, A.C. No. 8010 June 16, 2009

Facts: Complainant is a foreigner, and he wanted to aquire property in the philippines.

Thus, he consulted the service of the respondent lawyer that he wanted to buy a land in
the philippines. The respondent lawyer tell him that he can aquire land in the philippine.
And the complainant give him 400000 pesos for the necessary document even he
knows that an alien cannot aquired land in the philippines. Thus, unfortunately the alien
filed a complaint to disbar him because he embezzled the money he gave to the
respondent lawyer.

Issue: Whether or not respondent lawyer should be disbar?

Held: Yes, because he disregard the constitution and the laws of the land. Respondent
being a lawyer is knowlegable that an alien cannot aquire land the the philippines.

Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution provides:

SEC. 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be

transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or
associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
All lawyers take an oath to support the Constitution, to obey the laws and to do no
falsehood.[21] That oath is neither mere formal ceremony nor hollow words. It is a sacred
trust that should be upheld and kept inviolable at all times

Lawyers, as members of a noble profession, have the duty to promote respect for
the law and uphold the integrity of the bar. As men and women entrusted with the law,
they must ensure that the law functions to protect liberty and not as an instrument of
oppression or deception.

Lawyers are servants of the law[23] and the law is their master. They should not
simply obey the laws, they should also inspire respect for and obedience thereto by
serving as exemplars worthy of emulation. Indeed, that is the first precept of the Code of
Professional Responsibility:

CANON 1 A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY

THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND
LEGAL PROCESSES.

Doctrine of non appearance of lawyer in case they have a case of disbarment.

Respondent should not be allowed to benefit from his disappearing act. He can
neither defeat this Courts jurisdiction over him as a member of the bar nor evade
administrative liability by the mere ruse of concealing his whereabouts. Thus, service of
the complaint and other orders and processes on respondents office was sufficient
notice to him.

ALCANTARA vs. PEFIANCO

Facts: A woman came out in the door of the prosecutors office, she was crying because
she wanted to settled the case because she has no money for the case. Respondent
shouted and bad remarks on Atty. Alcantara, (saying Why do you settle that case?
Have your client imprisoned so that he will realize his mistake.) and he throw unethical
words to Atty. Alcantara.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Pefiaco should be discipline because of those unethical
remarks? Considering that he became exasperate because the woman want to settle to
those who murder her husband?
Held: AMP!sorry but thats BAD.

Respondent said he was moved by the plight of the woman whose husband had been
murdered as she was pleading for the settlement of her case because she needed the
money. Be that as it may, respondent should realize that what he thought was righteous
did not give him the right to demand that Atty. Salvani and his client, apparently the
accused in the criminal case, settle the case with the widow. Even when he was being
pacified, respondent did not relent. Instead he insulted and berated those who tried to
calm him down. Two of the witnesses, Atty. Pepin Marfil and Robert Minguez, who went
to the Public Attorneys Office because they heard the commotion, and two guards at the
Hall of Justice, who had been summoned, failed to stop respondent from his verbal
rampage. Respondent ought to have realized that

this sort of public behavior can only bring down the legal profession in the public
estimation and erode public respect for it. Whatever moral righteousness respondent
had was negated by the way he chose to express his indignation. An injustice cannot be
righted by another injustice.

IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS MICHAEL A. MEDADO

Facts: Atty. Mencado pass the bar in 1979, and took his oath, however he did not sign
his role of attorney which is necessary to become a fall pledge lawyer. In 2005, when
Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars, he was
required to provide his roll number in order for his MCLE compliances to be credited.
Not having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to provide his roll number.

About seven years later, or on 6 February 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition,
praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.

Isuue: Whether or not Atty. Medado allow to sign of roll of attorney considering that it
was about 30 that he was not been able to sign the roll?

Held: At the outset, we note that not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys
would be akin to imposing upon him the ultimate penalty of disbarment, a penalty that
we have reserved for the most serious ethical transgressions of members of the Bar.

negates malice or evil motive, a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful

justification, because everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences.25
Ignorantia facti excusat; ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

Reyes vs. Chiong, A.C. No. 5148.July 1, 2003]

Facts: Complinant filed an estafa case against respondents client. In order to harass
his opponent counsel respondent instituted a civil case impleacating the said counsel. If
counsel will settle the criminal case, they will drop the civil case. Thus, complinant filed
before the IBP an disbarment case against Atty. Chiong.

Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of violating canon 8 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility provides that [a] lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy,
fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel.

Held: Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with courtesy,
dignity and civility.A great part of their comfort, as well as of their success at the bar,
depends upon their relations with their professional brethren.Since they deal constantly
with each other, they must treat one another with trust and respect.Any undue ill feeling
between clients should not influence counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward
each other. Mutual bickering, unjustified recriminations and offensive behavior among
lawyers not only detract from the dignity of the legal profession,[19] but also constitute
highly unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.

Furthermore, the Lawyers Oath exhorts law practitioners not to wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the
same.

OLBES vs. . DECIEMBRE , AC-5365. April 27, 2005

Doctrine

Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions. It is

bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law, but also known to
possess good moral character. A lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose
conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose
primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for which he [or she]
has sworn to be a fearless crusader.

By taking the lawyers oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law,
and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of
justice. Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a
manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the publics faith in the legal profession.
The oath that lawyers swear to likewise impresses upon them the duty of exhibiting the
highest degree of good faith, fairness and candor in their relationships with others. The
oath is a sacred trust that must be upheld and kept inviolable at all times. Thus, lawyers
may be disciplined for any conduct, whether in their professional or in their private
capacity, if such conduct renders them unfit to continue to be officers of the court.

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION,
A.M. No. 1928 August 3, 1978

Facts: Atty. Edilion refusses to be a member of the IBP, he contended that it violative of
his right to associotion, and he vehemently refused to pay IBP Dues.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Edilion is correct in his contention?

Held: integration does

not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not already a member. He bec
ame member of the bar when he passed the bar examinations. 7 all that integration actu
ally does is to provide an official national organization for the well-
defined but unorganized and incohesive group of which every lawyer is a ready a memb
er.

Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He i
s free to attend or nt attend the
meetings of his integrated bar chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he cho
oses. The only
compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. The supreme court,
in order to further the
state's legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may req
uire that the cost of
improving the profession in this fashion be shared by the subjects and beneficiaries of t
he regulatory program the lawyers