Case Summary (B.M. No. 1036)
Petitioner, Respondent, and Allegations
Petitioner filed a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar one day before the scheduled oath-taking, charging the respondent with:
- Unauthorized practice of law (appearing as counsel before the MBEC on May 19, 2001)
- Grave misconduct and misrepresentation (acting as counsel without proper engagement)
- Violation of law (serving as government employee while representing private clients)
Key Dates
- May 11, 2001: Respondent tenders resignation as Sangguniang Bayan secretary (accepted same day)
- May 14, 2001: Written authorizations from George Bunan and Emily Estipona-Hao naming respondent as counsel
- May 19, 2001: Pleadings filed with MBEC signed by respondent as “counsel”
- May 21, 2001: Petition for denial of admission filed by complainant
- May 22, 2001: Respondent takes lawyer’s oath but is barred from signing the Roll of Attorneys pending complaint resolution
- July 17, 2001: Case referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC)
- June 10, 2003: En Banc decision
Applicable Law
- 1987 Constitution: moral fitness and integrity as prerequisite for the practice of law
- Rule 71, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court: unauthorized practice of law as indirect contempt
- Jurisprudence defining “practice of law” (Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava; Cayetano v. Monsod)
Procedural History
- Supreme Court allows the respondent to take the oath but withholds signature on the Roll of Attorneys.
- Respondent files a Comment: admits assisting Bunan “as a person who knows the law,” denies representing himself as an attorney, and submits resignation documents.
- Complainant files a Reply, adding that respondent also represented Estipona-Hao on May 14, 2001.
- Respondent reiterates political motivation defense.
- Court refers case to OBC for report and recommendation.
OBC Findings and Recommendation
- Respondent actively participated as counsel in MBEC proceedings before taking the oath.
- Respondent’s conduct raises serious doubts about his moral fitness.
- Unauthorized practice of law warrants denial of admission.
- On other charges, resignation was effective and authorizations valid, so no statutory violation.
- Recommendation: deny admission to the Bar.
Unauthorized Practice of Law
The Court agreed that:
- Respondent filed pleadings and appeared as “counsel” on May 14 and 19, 2001, before taking the oath and signing the Roll.
- Under long-standing jurisprudence, preparing and filing pleadings and representing clients before judicial bodies constitute the practice of law.
- Representing clients without a license undermines the requirement of good moral character under the 1987 Constitution.
Oath and Roll of Attorneys Requirement
- Passing the bar exam alone does not confer the right to practice.
- Final admission requires (1) taking the lawyer’s oath and (2) signing the Roll of Attorneys.
- Engagin
Case Syllabus (B.M. No. 1036)
Procedural Posture
- Complainant filed a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar on 21 May 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath-taking.
- The Supreme Court permitted respondent to take the lawyer’s oath on 22 May 2001 but withheld his signature on the Roll of Attorneys pending resolution of the charges.
- The Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for evaluation, report, and recommendation on 17 July 2001.
Facts
- Respondent passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took his oath on 22 May 2001.
- Before taking his oath, respondent signed and filed pleadings as “counsel” for vice-mayoralty candidate George Bunan before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers (MBEC) of Mandaon, Masbate, dated 19 May 2001.
- Respondent also appeared as counsel for mayoralty candidate Emily Estipona-Hao on 14 and 19 May 2001, representing the REFORMA LM-PPC party.
- Respondent was employed as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate, but submitted a resignation dated 11 May 2001, which was accepted by Vice-Mayor Napoleon Relox on the same date.
Charges
- Unauthorized practice of law for acting as counsel before the MBEC without being admitted to the Bar or signing the Roll of Attorneys.
- Grave misconduct for misrepresenting his status and authority to practice law.
- Violation of law for allegedly acting as counsel while employed by the municipal government.
- Grave misrepresentation for filing pleadings on behalf of a client who had not formally engaged his services.
Respondent’s Comment
- Admitted that George Bunan sought his “specific assistance” and that he signed the 19 May 2001 pleading, but clai