Case Summary (B.M. No. 2540)
Petitioner’s Factual Background
Medado graduated and passed the bar in 1979 and took the attorney’s oath on 7 May 1980. He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980 but did not do so, allegedly because he misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys after returning to his province. Years later, while reviewing old college files, he found the notice and realized he had not signed the Roll; he concluded that what he had signed at the PICC entrance was likely only an attendance record. By then he had been engaged primarily in corporate and taxation work and believed, mistakenly, that signing the Roll after taking the oath was not urgent. This lapse persisted until he encountered practical difficulties in 2005 when MCLE compliance required a roll number. He filed the petition to be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys on 6 February 2012.
Procedural History
The OBC conducted a clarificatory conference on 21 September 2012 and submitted its Report and Recommendation on 4 February 2013. The OBC recommended denial of the petition on grounds of gross negligence, gross misconduct and lack of merit. The case was resolved by the Supreme Court (En Banc) by Resolution granting the petition subject to conditions and penalties.
Issues Presented
- Whether Medado should be permitted to sign the Roll of Attorneys despite failing to sign on his scheduled date in 1980 and having practiced law without a roll number.
- Whether his conduct constituted unauthorized practice of law and, if so, the appropriate disciplinary or remedial measures.
Court’s Findings on Good Faith and Character
The Court found that refusing Medado the privilege to sign the Roll would amount to a de facto disbarment, a sanction reserved for the gravest ethical breaches, which the record did not justify. The petition was filed voluntarily by Medado (not initiated by a third party), reflecting acknowledgment of his lapse and demonstrable candor. He had no prior disqualification proceedings and had held responsible legal positions, which the Court considered evidence of mental fitness and moral character appropriate for bar membership.
Court’s Findings on Culpability and Unauthorized Practice
The Court distinguished mistake of fact from mistake of law. Initially, Medado’s belief that the PICC signature constituted signing the Roll might have been an honest mistake of fact. However, once he realized the PICC signature was only an attendance record, ignorance of the law no longer excused his failure to complete the formal requirement; everyone is presumed to know the law (ignorantia legis neminem excusat). After that realization, his continued practice without having signed in the Roll amounted to willful engagement in the unauthorized practice of law. The Court noted that such conduct may constitute indirect contempt under Rule 71, Sec. 3(e) and cited the penal consequences for indirect contempt, but declined to make a finding of criminal contempt because no formal charges were filed. The Court also observed that Medado’s conduct contravened Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which embodies the duty to prevent unauthorized practice and encompasses a lawyer’s own unauthorized practice.
Legal Authorities and Precedents Cited
- Rule 71, Section 3(e), Rules of Court (indirect contempt).
- Canon 9, Code of Professional Responsibility (prohibition against assisting or engaging in unauthorized practice).
- Case law cited in the resolution: Barcenas v. Alvero; Wooden v. Civil Service Commission; Manuel v. People; Aguirre v. Rana; Tan v. Balajadia; Tapay v. Bancolo; Noe-Lacsamana v. Busmente; Cambaliza v. Cristal‑Tenorio. These authorities were invoked for principles distinguishing mistake of fact and law, the characterization and punishment of unauthorized practice, and precedents on penalties for Canon 9 violations.
Penalty Assessed and Conditions Imposed
The Court exercised restraint by not imposing the ultimate sanction of disbarment
...continue readingCase Syllabus (B.M. No. 2540)
Case Caption, Citation, and Procedural Posture
- Case citation: 718 Phil. 286 EN BANC; B.M. No. 2540; Resolution dated September 24, 2013, penned by Chief Justice Sereno.
- Nature of proceeding: Petition to be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.
- Petitioner: Michael A. Medado.
- Relief sought: Leave to sign in the Roll of Attorneys despite failure to sign on the scheduled date in 1980.
- Procedural events: Petition filed 6 February 2012; clarificatory conference by the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) on 21 September 2012; OBC Report and Recommendation submitted 4 February 2013 (Report dated 24 January 2013); Resolution of the Court dated 24 September 2013 granting petition with conditions.
- Participating justices: Opinion by Sereno, C.J.; concurrence by Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, Abad, Perez, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ.; Brion and Villarama, Jr., JJ., on leave; Peralta, Bersamin, and Mendoza, JJ., on official leave.
Facts and Chronology
- Education and bar performance:
- Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with a Bachelor of Laws in 1979.
- He passed the 1979 Bar Examinations with a general weighted average of 82.7.
- Oath and original signing schedule:
- He took the Attorney’s Oath on 7 May 1980 at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC).
- He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980 but did not sign on that date.
- Reason for failure to sign:
- Petitioner alleges he misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys given by the Bar Office when he went home to his province for a vacation.
- Several years later, while reviewing old college files, he found the Notice and realized he had not signed in the Roll; he suspected what he signed at the PICC entrance was probably only an attendance record.
- Subsequent practice and belief:
- By the time he found the notice, he was already working and primarily doing corporate and taxation work, not active litigation.
- He operated under the mistaken belief that because he had taken the oath, signing the Roll was not as urgent or crucial to his status as a lawyer; the matter lost urgency and was forgotten.
- MCLE event and discovery:
- In 2005, when attending Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars, he was required to provide his roll number; not having signed in, he could not provide one.
- Filing of petition:
- About seven years after the MCLE incident, on 6 February 2012, Medado filed the instant petition to be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.
Office of the Bar Confidant Proceedings and Recommendation
- OBC conducted a clarificatory conference on 21 September 2012 (TSN, 21 September 2012).
- OBC submitted Report and Recommendation dated 24 January 2013 (received by the Court 4 February 2013).
- OBC recommendation: Deny the petition on grounds of petitioner’s gross negligence, gross misconduct, and utter lack of merit.
- OBC rationale: Based on petitioner’s answers during the clarificatory conference, he could offer no valid justification for his negligence in signing in the Roll of Attorneys.
Court’s Disposition and Relief Granted
- Final disposition: The Court granted Medado’s petition to sign in the Roll of Attorneys, subject to conditions.
- Conditions imposed:
- Petitioner is allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of the Resolution.
- Petitioner is ordered to pay a fine of P32,000 for unauthorized practice of law.
- During the one-year period, petitioner is not allowed to practice law.
- Petitioner is sternly warned that engaging in any act that constitutes the practice of law before signing in the Roll will be dealt with severely by the Court.
- Administrative directive: A copy of the Resolution is to be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
Court’s Reasons for Granting the Petition (Good Faith and Character)
- Avoidance of draconian sanction:
- The Court noted that denying Medado the right to sign in the Roll would be akin to imposing the ultimate penalty of disbarment, reserved for the most serious ethical transgressions; the records do not warrant such penalty here.
- Good faith and acknowledgment:
- Petitioner demonstrated good faith and good moral character when he voluntarily filed the Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys after discove