Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Climaco
Post under case digests, Legal Ethics at Thursday, March 01, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind
The respondent Judge not only denied the motion but also
appointed him as counsel de oficio for the two defendants.
POST A COMMENT
ShareFacebookTwitterEmail
FOLLOW BY EMAIL
Subscribe in a reader
CATEGORIES
Animals (1)
doctrines (3)
Entertainment (1)
Fashion (1)
Government-Issued ID (1)
Health (4)
How to (5)
IRS (1)
MCQ (28)
personal (6)
Pregnancy (1)
promo/discounts/freebies(56)
Psychiatry (5)
Sports (1)
Taxation (106)
Tips (12)
Travel (1)
RECOMMENDED READS
bethere2day
blog-links-exchange
BLOG-PH.com
Maruism
NURSINGnle
Scire Licet
The Digester
Uberdigests
ARCHIVE
Archive November (2) October (2) September (2) August (3) July (2) June (5) May (2) April (4) March
(2) February (25) January (46) December (1) April (25) March (237) February (292) January
(58) December (196) November (26) October (86) September (5)
Alawi v Alauya
January 31, 2016Thinker Bell
Facts:
Sophia Alawi was a sales representative of E.B. Villarosa & Partners Co., Ltd. of Davao City, a
real estate and housing company. Ashari M. Alauya is the incumbent executive clerk of court of
the 4th Judicial Shari’a District in Marawi City, They were classmates, and used to be friends.
Through Alawi’s agency, a contract was executed for the purchase on installments by Alauya of
one of the housing units of Villarosa. In connection, a housing loan was also granted to Alauya
by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).
Not long afterwards, Alauya addressed a letter to the President of Villarosa & Co. advising of the
termination of his contract with the company. He claimed that his consent was vitiated because
Alawi had resorted to gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence.
He laso wrote similar letters to the Vice President of Villarosa and the Vice President of
NHMFC.
On learning of Alauya’s letters, Alawi filed an administrative complaint against him. One of her
grounds was Alauya’s usurpation of the title of “attorney,” which only regular members of the
Philippine Bar may properly use.
Alauya justified his use of the title, “attorney,” by the assertion that it is “lexically synonymous”
with “Counsellors-at-law.” a title to which Shari’a lawyers have a rightful claim, adding that he
prefers the title of “attorney” because “counsellor” is often mistaken for “councilor,” “konsehal”
or the Maranao term “consial,” connoting a local legislator beholden to the mayor. Withal, he
does not consider himself a lawyer.
Issue:
Whether or not Alauya, a member of the Shari’a bar, can use the title of Attorney
Held:
He can’t. The title is only reserved to those who pass the regular Philippine bar.
As regards Alauya’s use of the title of “Attorney,” this Court has already had occasion to declare
that persons who pass the Shari’a Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar, hence
may only practice law before Shari’a courts. While one who has been admitted to the Shari’a
Bar, and one who has been admitted to the Philippine Bar, may both be considered
“counsellors,” in the sense that they give counsel or advice in a professional capacity, only the
latter is an “attorney.” The title of “attorney” is reserved to those who, having obtained the
necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been
admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing;
and it is they only who are authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction