Case Summary (G.R. No. 199894)
Petitioner’s Background and Omission
After oath-taking, Medado returned to his province, lost the Notice to Sign, and unknowingly omitted the formal registration requirement. Years later, while preparing for MCLE compliance in 2005, he realized he could not provide a roll number. He continued practicing law—albeit non-litigation work—without correcting his status until filing a petition on 6 February 2012 to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.
Procedural History
The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) convened a clarificatory conference on 21 September 2012 and issued its Report and Recommendation on 4 February 2013, advising denial of the petition on grounds of gross negligence, misconduct, and lack of merit. Medado’s petition was then submitted for resolution by the Supreme Court en banc.
Office of the Bar Confidant’s Recommendation
The OBC concluded that Medado offered no valid explanation for his decades-long failure to register, characterizing his conduct as grossly negligent and unworthy of relief. It recommended outright denial of his request to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.
Court’s Findings on Merit and Good Faith
The Court distinguished this lapse from disbarable offenses, noting Medado’s self-reporting of his omission and longstanding unblemished practice record. His candid acknowledgment, absence of prior disciplinary actions, and demonstrated competence in various legal positions evidenced good faith and moral fitness to be admitted as a full member of the Bar.
Unauthorized Practice and Ethical Breach
Once aware that signing the roll was a distinct requirement, Medado’s continued practice without completing it constituted unauthorized practice of law. Under Rule 71, Section 3(e) of the Rules of Court, assuming the role of attorney without authority may amount to indirect contempt. His conduct also violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits aiding or engaging in unauthorized practice.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Applying the 1987 Constitution’s grant of judicial power, the Rules of Court, and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court reaffirmed that ignorance of law is no excuse. Medado’
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 199894)
Procedural History
- Petition filed on 6 February 2012 by Michael A. Medado seeking leave to sign in the Roll of Attorneys
- Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) held a clarificatory conference on 21 September 2012 and issued its Report and Recommendation on 4 February 2013
- OBC recommended denial of the petition for gross negligence, gross misconduct, and utter lack of merit
- Supreme Court en banc resolved to grant the petition subject to conditions and penalties
Facts
- Medado graduated with a Bachelor of Laws from the University of the Philippines in 1979 and passed the bar the same year with an average of 82.7
- Took the Attorney’s Oath on 7 May 1980 at the PICC
- Failed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on his scheduled date of 13 May 1980, having misplaced the Notice to Sign
- Believed for years that signing at the PICC entrance sufficed and regarded formal roll signing as non-urgent
- Discovered the Notice years later while reviewing old files and realized he had not completed the roll-signing requirement
- Engaged in corporate and taxation practice, not in active litigation, for over 30 years without a roll number
- Could not attend MCLE seminars in 2005 due to absence of a roll number
- Filed the petition only in 2012 upon recognizing the omission hi