PRACTICE OF LAW
1. IN RE: CUNANAN – Admission to Bar exclusively a Judicial Function
Controversies arose from the passage of the Bar Flunkers’ Act. Generally, a candidate is deemed to have
passed if s/he obtains a gen ave of 75% in all subjects or without falling below 50% in any subject. However,
for the past exams, the passing grades were changed depending on the strictness of the correcting bar
examinations. Petitioners, who obtained lower averages who believe that they are qualified to practice law,
felt discriminated and went to Congress to seek remedy by the passage of RA 972. Said law admits Bar
candidates who suffered from insufficiency of materials due to the onset of war, as such, had inadequate
preparation for the practice of law as evidences by their failure to pass the Bar.
Matters relating to practice of law a Judicial responsibility
The Court ruled Congress encroached upon the powers of the Judiciary. The powers to admit, suspend, disbar
and reinstate attorneys or those in the practice of the profession are exclusively Judicial Responsibility. The
Constitution has not conferred on Congress and the SC equal responsibilities concerning the admission to the
practice of law. What the law seeks t cure was the defect in the judgment of court which was not a
constitutional power granted to them.
Public interest demands adequate preparation. Hence, cannot be admitted
Public interest demands adequate preparation and efficiency to the practice of law. Adequate legal
preparation is one of the vital requisites for the practice of law that should be developed constantly and
maintained firmly. To admit inadequately prepared individuals to dedicate themselves to such a delicate
mission is to create a serious social danger.
= PARTIALLY UNCONSITUTIONAL
2. ALAWI VS. ALAUYA – Canon 9 Assisting in unauthorized practice of law
Sophia Alawi is a sales representative for Villarosa, a real estate company. Ashari Alauya is an executive clerk
of court of a Shari’a Court. Through Alawi’s agency, Aluya was able to execute a contract for the purchase,
through installments, of one of the housing units in Villarosa. Subsequently, a housing loan form the NHMFC was
granted to Aluya. Later, Aluya sent a letter to Villarosa’s President, terminating his contract with said company
because Alawi allegedly falsified his signature and fraudulently bound him to a housing loan entailing monthly
deductions from his salary. When Alawi learned about such letter, she filed a case for his dismissal due to libel
and inappropriate use of “attorney”.
Libel charges with solid grounds
The Court ruled that Aluya, as a member of the Shari’a Bar and an officer of Court, is subject to a standard of
conduct more stringent than other government workers. It is efecte that he accord respect for every person
and that he should be prudent, courteous and dignified.
Attorney not lexically synonymous to Counsellors at law
The Court ruled that while those admitted to the Shari’a Bar and those admitted to the PH Bar, may both be
considered counselors. However, the title “Attorney” is reserved for those who, having obtained the necessary
degree in the study of law, have successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the IBP, and
remain in members in good standing. It is only they who are authorized to practice law in the Ph. The Court
declared that those who passed the Shari’a Bar are not full-fledge members of the PH Bar. Hence, may only
practice law before the Shari’a Courts.
= REPRIMANDED
3. IN RE SYCIP
Surviving partners of Atty. Sycip and Ozaeta petitioned that they be allowed to continuously use Sycip and
Ozaeta in the their firm name.
Law not like other businesses
The Court ruled that a partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships formed by other
professionals/businesses. The right to practice law is not a right, but a privilege. It is limited to persons of good
moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. In the PH, no local custom permits
the continued use of a deceased partner’s name in law partnerships because firm names identify the more
active and more senior members of the firm. By doing such, there is a possibility of deception upon the public.
A person in search of legal counsel might be guided by the familiar ring of a distinguished name appearing in
a firm title.
=DROP THE NAMES, but may be included in list of past partners
4. SPOUSES TEJADA VS. PALANA – Rule 1.01 Lawyers shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, deceitful conduct
Sps. Tejada filed a complaint to disbar Atty.Palaña. The latter allegedly took advantage of his knowledge as
a lawyer and fraudulently presented to sell a lot to the former who duly paid finances for the same. Despite
demands from the Sps, and notice from the Commission on Bar Discipline, Palana failed to settle and
participate in the proceedings.
He was suspended
The Court ruled that membership in the bar is a privile ge burdened with conditions. The strength of the legal
profession lies in the dignity and integrity of its members. Also, his acts violated the Lawyer;s Oath which
warrants the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against him.A lawyer should uphold the integrity and dignity
of the legal profession at all times. By withholding petitioners’ money, Palana demonstrated his lack of integrity
and fairness. Also, he totally ignored the drectives of IBP which shows a gross disrespect to the cpirt.
=SUSPENDED FOR 6 MOTNHS and ordere to settle loan
5. CAYETANO VS. MONSOD
Christian Monsod was nominated for the position of COMELEC Chairman. Cayetano opposed it because
Monsod was not qualified for not having been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years which the
Constitution mandates.
The Court held that practice of law is not limited to one appearing in court for it mean any activity, in or out
of court, which require the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.
DISSENT: Numerous activities employ the application of law. From the definition, one does not even have tobe
a lawyer to engage in the practice of law as long as his activities involved the application of some law.
Habitual, compensatory, lawyer-client relationship, application of law (Justice Padilla, cruz, Gutierrez) I fhe has
not dedicated his life to the law where membership of the bar is a requirement, he cannot be engaged in the
practice of law.
Practice of law – rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and
technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court or litigation, it
also embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken in matters connected with law.
6. B.M 2012 Mandatory Legal Aid Serice (Relevant part on "practice of law"
ADMISSION TO THE BAR
7. RE: APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE PHILIPPINE BAR VICENTE D. CHING
Vicente Ching, born in 1964, is the son of a Chinaman and a Filipina. Since his birth, he has resided in the PH.
After completing his legal studies, he filed to take the 1998 bar exams. The Court allowed him subject to the
condition that he must submit proof of his PH citizenship. He passed the bar, but was not allowed to take Oath
because of his citizenship because, on findings, he failed to elect PH citizenship within reasonable time. Court
held that he failed to elect Philippine citizenship.
=APPLICATION DENIED 
8. PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW, BENJAMIN M. DACANAY
Benjamin Dacanay went to Canada to seek medical help. To take advantage of its free medical aid program,
he became a Canadian citizen in 2004. Later, he reacquire his PH citizenship and returned to the PH. Now, he
intends to practice law. The Court ruled that, as a rule, the practice of law is reserved to Fil citizens. PH
citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar. Though Dacanay became a Canadian, he was able to
reacquire it under RA 9225. However, he can only resume if he updates his annual membership dues in IBP,
pays his professional tax, completes 36 hours MCLE, retake his lawyer’s oath.
9. RE: 1999 BAR EXAMINATIONS, MARK ANTHONY PURISIMA
Mark Purisima was conditionally admitted to take the 1999 Bar Exams upon the requirement that he submit a
certification of completion of his pre-bar review course 60 days from the last exams. He passed the Bar, but
Court disqualified him to become a member of the Bar because he failed to submit his require certificatie of
completion and he made a false statement that he tooke his pre-bar review course at the PH law School
when there as no such course. However, he presented documents supporting hthat he actually took the pre-
bar review at UST and that his classmate, whom he asked to submit his certificate, made the mistake of writing
PLS. The Court considered his explnataion (compassion and kindness). He was allowed to take Lawyer’s Oath
and be admitted to bar.
10. AQUIRRE VS. RANA
Rana passed the 2000 Bar Exams. Before the oath taking, Aguirre petitioned to deny his admission to the Bar.
Still, the Court allowed such, but he was not allowed to sign the Attorney’s Roll. It was alleged that, while not
yet a lawyer, Rana appeared as counsel for a candidate in an election while being as Secretary of the
Sangguniang Bayan. The Court ruled that the practice of law means to render any kind of sercice which
requires the use of legal knowledge or skill. Hoever, it is not a right but a privilege which presupposes possession
of integrity, legal knowledge, public trust. Consequently, a bar candidate does not acquire the practice of
law by simply passing the bar. As a privilege, practice of law can be withheld even from those hwo passed
the bar if the person seeking admission practice law without license. Significantly, Rana was able to take his
oath. Hoever, it is the signing of the Roll of Attorenys that finally makes one a full-feldged lawyer.
11. RE: PETITION OF AL ARGOSINO TO TAKE THE LAWYER'S OATH
Al Argosino passed the Bar, but was denied to take Oath and to sign the Attorney’s Roll due to his previous
conviction of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide from a hazing incident. He was later granted
1
probation. Later, he petitioned that he be allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath and sign the Attoreny’s roll. As
proof of his good moral character, he presented several certifications and oraganized a scholarship
foundation in honor of the hazing victim. The Court is pursaded that Argosino has exerted all efforts to atone
for Canlingan’s death. He was prepared to be given benefit of the doubt due to the youth’s tendency to be
rash. However, every lawyer shall at all time wigh his actions according to the sworn promises he makes when
taking the lawyer’s oath.
12. LETTER OF ATTY. ESTELITO P. MENDOZA PROPOSING REFORMS IN BAR EXAMINATIONS Through Amendments
to Rule 138 of Rules of Court)
PH Bar now open to Filipinos with Foreign Law Degrees – Filipinos who graduated from foreign law school are
allowed to take the Bar subject to conditions.
DUTIES AND PRIVILEGES OF LAWYERS
13. LAWYER'S OATH
I, _____, having been permitted to continue the practice of law in the PH, do solemnly swear that I recognize
the supreme authority of the RP; I will support the Constitution ad obey the laws as well as the legal orders of
the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will
not wittingly nor willingly promote or sue and groundless, false or unlawful sui, nor give aid nor consent to the
same; I will dela no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of
my knowledge and decretion with all good fidelity as well as to the courts, as to my clients; and I impose upon
myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. SO help me God.
14. STEMMERIK VS. MAS
Stemmerik Mas is a Danish citizen. In one of his trips to PH, he met Atty. Mas who told him he can acquire a
real property in the PH and presented the same from him. Subsequntly, Mas received funds for the acquisition
of the land which he showed to have legal documents prepared and notarized. Suddenly, Atty. Mas was no
longer found. Stemmerik came back to the Ph and found that aliens cannot acquire land in the PH. The Court
ruled that lawyers have the duty to promote respect for the law and upohold the integrity of the Bar. Mas
falsified dicmuents and breach his oath as a lawyer.
=DISBARRED
15. GALICINAO VS. CASTRO
Galicinao is the COC of RTC and Castro was the VP of IBP Nueva Vizcaya. Castro went to Galiciano’s office
to inquire about a case of whom he was neither a counsel or petitioner. Petitioner replied that there was no
record yet and a ctc is needed. Respondednt told her hat she should have informed him to which she
countered that it was not her duty to do so. Angered, Castro yelled, banged the door and cursed peititoner.
The Court ruled that responded clearly had no right to impose his will on the COC. His actions were
unbecoming of a lawyer considering that he acted in fornt of petitione’s subordinates. However, his accepted
apology tempered the penalty.
= WARNING
16. PANELCO VS. MONTEMAYOR
PANELCO charged Atty Montemayor with negligence in handling their cases which led to their unwarranted
financial losses. The Court ruled that the latter fell short of the competence and diligence required of every
member of the bar. He also failed ot live up to his duties and reposibilities and acted impormperly in handling
his cases without even offering any explantion regarding such. He showerd lack of regard for the charges
against him.
=DISBARRED
17. REYES VS CHONG, JR.
Atty. Reyes sought Atty. Chiong’s suspension when the latter filed a suite for damages aganst Pan and xu and
impleaded Reyes and Prosecutor Salanga without justification, in order to obtain leverage against eh estafa
case filed against his client. The Court held the Lawyers are officers fo the court empower to appear, defend
and prosecute.
=SUSPENDED
18. RE: SUSPENSION OF ATTY. BAGABUYO
Bagabuyo made several imputations against members of the Bar wihich cause Judge Buser to inhibit himself
from further tyring the case. The new judge approved the Bail, much to his dismay. Howecer, instead of going
to CA, he cause the publication of the Order granteing the accused, lambasting a judge. Court summoned
the writers who disclosed that what he wrote were according th Bagabuyo’s press conferenece. Despite
contemt, Bagabuyo presented himself to the media or interview and attacke d the integrity of another judge.
The Court ruled that he should upohold the dignity and tuhority of the Court.
=DISBARRED + WARNING
19. JUSTO VS. GALING
Justo employed services of Gling. Later, former employed another lawyer and the latter represented her
opponent. Peitioner claims conflict of interest. Lawyer Client relations hip exists nothwithstandin gclose
friendship
=SUSPENSION
20. MENDOZA VS. DECIEMBRE
Mendoza is a postal employee and creditor of Deciembere. The latter was alleged to have beend victimizing
employee of the Postal office by filling up blank checks issued to him as condition for loans without authority.
The Court ruled that a lawuer shall not engage in a conduct that adversely reflects hi fitness to practice law
or in any manner which would discredit the profession. Whether public or private, the lawyers may be
disciplined.
= DISBARRED
21. BERNARDO VS. MEJIA
Mejia is already 71 years old and has been barred from the practice of law for 15 years. He was disbarred
because he was found guilty of misappropriating funds and falsifying documents which belong to Bernardo.
In 1999, he prayed to be reinstated, but was denied. The Court finds that since Mejia’s disbarment, he has
shown remorse and that his punishment has lasted long enough. Since, peanlties, such as disbarment, are not
imposed to punish but to correct offenders.
22. IN RE: SC RESOLUTION dated 28 April 2003 in GR Nos. 145817 and 145822 (A.C No. 6332, April 17 2012)
Atty. Peña filed a motion to reraffle the case aginst Urban Bank due to the aledge suspicions of partiality of
Court Justices even without specidic, credible or extrinsic evidence that would indicate bias.
Peña learned from Singson that the latter was able to secure an order suspending redemption over Urban
Bank Sale. The former teased the latter about bribing the ponente (Puno) which the Singson did not deny. His
copy was never sent to him. When he clarified, he found that Singson’s document was falsified. Later, he
anonymously received to copies of a Resolution secure from the office of 2 different members of the Court.
The falsified document shows the motion was granted, when in fact it was merely noted. He concluded that
the Ponente misrepresented that resolution because the latter had special interest in the case
Session was called due to Pena’s statement which were strictly confidential and purely internal to the Court.
➢ They questioned how Pena was able to secure the copies of the documents which were
confidential to the court which he claimed to have been anonymously sent to him through
ordinary mail. He believed that the documents were authentic and was willing to accept the
consequences. Later, he received another mail containing the Court’s motiong to inhibit.
➢ Imputations of bribery against Justice Carpio – Liable for his imputations. He contravened the
ethical standards of the legal profession. He claimed that what was mentioned was a joke.
However, he alleged in his motion that Carpio was bribed.
➢ Against Justice Buena for bias in favor of De Leon
➢ Against CJ Panganiban on his affliation with the Rotary Club
➢ Against Justice Nachura
He employed unethical tactics for move for inhibition for 11 justices.
= DISBARRED
The Philippines’ legal system is a blend of civil law and common law systems, in which the practice of law is
regulated exclusively by the Supreme Court of the Philippines. No distinction exists between lawyers who give
legal advice (e.g., solicitors) and those who provide legal representation in court (e.g., barristers), as anybody
who wishes to practice law must meet the requirements provided in the Rules of Court.
Education
While admission to the practice of law is the sole prerogative of the Supreme Court, the accreditation of law
schools falls within the competence of the Legal Education Board. However, the Legal Education Board, which
was established in 1993, only began operating in late 2009, and has yet to prescribe the basic curriculum for
the study of law.
In any case, to be able to take up law, one must first complete “a bachelor’s degree in arts or sciences with
any of the following subjects as major or field of concentration: political science, logic, English, Spanish, history
and economics.”[1]These majors are, however, merely directory and not mandatory, as one can gain
admission to a duly accredited law school, provided his or her bachelor’s degree meets the minimum
requirements of the admitting law school.
To be eligible to take the bar examinations, a candidate must complete courses in “civil law, commercial law,
remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor and social legislation,
medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics”.[2]
2
 Admission To The Practice Of Law

After successfully completing the requisite number of course units towards the awarding of a law degree, a
candidate can file an application to take the bar examinations, provided he or she is“a citizen of the
Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines”.

The bar examinations are held once a year in the City of Manila, over a period of four (4) days, with the first
day being devoted to Political and International Law (morning) and Labor and Social Legislation (afternoon);
the second day, to Civil Law (morning) and Taxation (afternoon); the third day, to Mercantile Law (morning)
and Criminal Law (afternoon); and the fourth day, to Remedial Law (morning) and Legal Ethics and Practical
Exercises (afternoon). For the first three days, the relative weight of each morning subject is 15 per cent, while
that of each afternoon subject is 10 per cent; on the last day, the relative weights of the morning and
afternoon subjects are 20 per cent and 5 per cent, respectively.

To pass the bar examinations, a candidate must obtain “a general average of 75 per cent in all subjects,
without falling below 50 per cent in any subject.” The successful candidate is entitled to take the oath of office,
receive his or her certificate of membership to the Philippine Bar, and, finally, sign the roll of attorneys admitted
to practice. Only then does the passer of the bar examinations officially become a lawyer and can use the
title of “Attorney”.

Bar Exam

Once admitted to the practice of law, a lawyer must remain in good standing in order to maintain such
practice. This includes being a member of and paying the yearly dues to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines[3](“IBP”), evidence of which is reflected in the IBP official receipt number which must be stated in
all pleadings, motions and papers signed and filed by lawyers before Philippine courts.[4]The consequences
of using an outdated IBP official number include the court not acting upon said pleading, motion or paper
and disciplining the non-complying lawyer.[5]In extreme cases, the use of an expired IBP official receipt
number can lead to the dismissal of a case.[6]

Besides maintaining membership in the IBP, a practicing lawyer must also comply with the requirements on
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education[7](“MCLE”), which entails completing “every three (3) years at least
thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE Committee”,[8]unless
exempt.[9]As with the IBP official receipt number, practicing members of the bar are required to indicate the
number and date of issue of their MCLE Certificate of Compliance “in all pleadings filed before the courts or
quasi-judicial bodies”.

Foreign Lawyers

The practice of law is reserved exclusively to Philippine citizens[10]who have completed the requisite
coursework at a duly accredited Philippine law school,[11]and have passed the bar examinations.

There were two exceptions to the citizenship and education requirement, but due to the passage of time,
these may no longer apply. Under the first exception, United States citizens who, before July 4, 1946, were
licensed to practice before Philippine courts, are able to continue such practice.

Under the second exception, Philippine citizens who were “enrolled attorneys in good standing in the Supreme
Court of the United States or in any circuit court of appeals or district court therein, or in the highest court of
any State or Territory of the United States”, having practiced at least five years in any of said courts prior to July
4, 1946, could be admitted without examination,even if they completed their legal studies overseas.

Consequently, foreign lawyers cannot engage in the practice of law in the Philippines, and must be
represented by a member of the Philippine Bar in all matters connected with such practice.