Case Summary (B.M. No. 139)
Factual Background
Elmo S. Abad passed the 1978 bar examinations and thereafter engaged in acts he contended were consistent with admission to the Bar. On July 23, 1979 he paid a Bar Admission Fee of P175.00, a Certification Fee of P5.00, and membership dues to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for 1979–80, each evidenced by official receipts. On July 26, 1979 he signed his lawyer’s oath at the office of the Bar Confidant, and while waiting he was told by Atty. Romeo Mendoza, then Clerk of Court, that Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando wanted him to answer a pending Reply by Jorge Uy, which caused the taking of his oath to be suspended. On July 31, 1979 he filed a Reply and prayed that the Court determine his fitness to be a member of the Bar. Thereafter he paid successive IBP dues and professional tax receipts and was included by the Integrated Bar, Quezon City Chapter, as a qualified voter in 1981–82. He also filed a verified Notice and Motion on April 27, 1981 notifying the Court of the death of complainant Jorge Uy on January 8, 1981 and again seeking to be allowed to take his oath.
The Parties’ Contentions
Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr. charged Elmo S. Abad with practicing law without having been previously admitted to the Philippine Bar. Elmo S. Abad admitted that he practiced but relied on the payments of fees, his signing of the lawyer’s oath at the Bar Confidant’s office, his communications with Court officials, his filing of pleadings, his inclusion by the Integrated Bar as a member in good standing and as a qualified voter, and the death of the complainant as evidencing his belief that he had been admitted and was entitled to practice.
Procedural History
The complaint alleging unauthorized practice was docketed as BM No. 139 and was resolved by the Court en banc. The Court found that Elmo S. Abad could not deny the practice and examined whether the acts and payments he relied upon effected admission to the Bar. The Court also noted related proceedings: SBC No. 607 — Jorge Q. Uy vs. Elmo S. Abad was dismissed on November 25, 1982 because of the death of the complainant, and BM No. 136 — Esperanza T. Sistoso, et al. vs. Elmo S. Abad for qualified theft remained pending.
Court’s Findings on Admission Requirements
The Court held that payment of fees, membership in the Integrated Bar, inclusion as a voter, and the signing of a lawyer’s oath outside the formalities required by the Court did not constitute admission to the Philippine Bar. The Court emphasized that two essential requisites remained unperformed: the administration of the lawyer’s oath by the Supreme Court and the signature of the attorney in the Roll of Attorneys, as prescribed in Rule 138, Secs. 17 and 19, Rules of Court.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
Relying upon the requirements in Rule 138, Secs. 17 and 19, Rules of Court, the Court reasoned that formal admission to the Bar required both an oath administered by the Court and the affixation of the attorney’s signature to the Roll of Attorneys. The Court found that respondent’s reliance on clerical acts, fee payments, membership certificates, and professional tax receipts could not substitute for the Court’s prescribed acts of admission. Because respondent had practiced without having satisfied the Court’s admission requirements, the Court concluded that his conduct fell within the proscription of Rule 71, Sec. 3(e), Rules of Court as a contempt arising from unauthorized practice.
Ruling and Penalty
The Court adjudged the proven charge against Elmo S. Abad to constitute contempt. It imposed a fine of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) payable to the Court within ten days from notice and provided that failure to pay would result in imprisonment for twenty-five days. The Court’s decree concluded with the directive “SO ORDERED.” Chief Justice Fernando and Justices Teehankee, Makasiar, Concepcion Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., concurred; Justice Aquino was on leav
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (B.M. No. 139)
Parties and Posture
- Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr., President of the Philippine Trial Lawyers Association, Inc. filed the complaint charging illegal practice of law against the respondent.
- Elmo S. Abad was the respondent accused of practicing law without having been previously admitted to the Philippine Bar.
- The matter was resolved by the Court en banc on the record of BM No. 139 as reflected in the decision.
Key Facts
- Elmo S. Abad admitted that he practiced law prior to his formal admission to the Philippine Bar.
- The respondent presented receipts showing payment of a Bar Admission Fee, Certification Fee, and Integrated Bar of the Philippines membership dues in 1979.
- The respondent averred that he signed a Lawyer’s Oath in the Office of the Bar Confidant while awaiting his turn on July 26, 1979.
- The respondent asserted that the then Clerk of Court, Atty. Romeo Mendoza, included his name among those taking the Oath of Office by a letter of request dated July 23, 1979.
- The respondent recounted that the Chief Justice suspended his formal taking of the oath because the Court required him to answer a pending reply in SBC-607 (Jorge Q. Uy vs. Elmo S. Abad).
- The respondent filed a Reply on July 31, 1979, and thereafter paid successive Integrated Bar dues and professional tax receipts for 1980 and 1981, and received membership certifications and voter qualification notices.
- The respondent notified the Court of the death of complainant Jorge Uy and moved on April 27, 1981, for permission to take the Oath as a member of the Bar.
Issues Presented
- Whether Elmo S. Abad had been validly admitted to the Philippine Bar prior to his practice of law.
- Whether the respondent’s acts constituted contempt of court for unauthorized practice of law.
Court's Findings
- The Court found that the respondent had i