Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
DISCUSSION:
However, the orderly conduct of judicial proceedings requires that counsel for
a party should file with the court his formal written appearance in the case.
However, the fact that he has not entered his appearance does not warrant
that his pleading filed has no legal effect whatsoever.
“but the presiding judge may, on motion of either party and on reasonable
grounds therefor being shown, require any attorney who assumes the right to
appear in a case to produce or prove the authority under which he appears, and to
disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of the person who employed
him, and may thereupon make such order as justice requires”
“An attorney wilfully appear in court for a person without being employed, unless
by leave of the court, may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court who
has misbehaved in his official transactions.”
SOPHIA ALAWI vs. ASHARY M. ALAUYA, Clerk of Court VI, Shari'a District
Court, Marawi City
FACTS:
Ashary Alauya transacted with Sophia Alawi to avail of a contract for the purchase
of one housing unit from EB Villarosa & Partner Co. Ltd., a real estate and housing
company. Shortly thereafter Alauya wrote to the company expressing his intent to
render the contract void ab initio.
Alawi filed a verified complaint against Alauya, alleging, among others, that Alawi
usurped the title of an attorney which is reserved only for the members of the
Philippine Bar.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Alauya's membership in the Sharia Bar endows him the title of an
attorney
HELD:
No. Alauya is hereby reprimanded for usurping the title of an attorney reserved for
those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and had
successfully passed the bar examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing.
Persons who passed the Sharia Bar are not full-fledged members of the Bar and
may only practice law before a Sharia Court, Alauya's disinclination to use the title
of counselor-at-law does not warrant his use of the title of an attorney.
FACTS:
Petitioner was conditionally admitted to take the 1999 Bar Examinations. Like many
others, he was directed to submit the required certification of completion of the
pre-bar review course within sixty (60) days from the last day of the examinations.
Petitioner passed the 1999 Examinations. But in a Resolution dated 13 April 2000
the Court disqualified him from becoming a member of the Philippine Bar and
declared his examinations null and void on two (2) grounds:
Petitioner explained that upon obtaining a ready-made form of the Petition and
affixing his signature on the space provided therefor, he requested his schoolmate/
friend Ms. Lilian A. Felipe to fill up the form, have it notarized and then to file it for
him with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC). He was not able to check the
veracity of the information supplied by Ms. Felipe who erroneously typed Philippine
Law School, instead of UST, on the space provided for the school where the
petitioner attended his pre-bar review course.
ISSUES:
WON the petitioner should be allowed to take the Lawyers Oath and sign in the Roll
of Attorneys.
HELD:
On the first ground, the Court accepted the explanation of the petitioner that in
view of the Certification of Completion dated July 22, 1999 issued by Dean Amado
L. Dimayuga of the UST Faculty of Civil Law which not only attested his enrolment
in UST but also his completion of the pre-bar review course, he thought it was not
anymore necessary to submit the required certification of completion of the pre-bar
review course.
On the second ground, the Court ruled in favour of the petitioner that the
statement in paragraph 8 of his Petition that he enrolled in and passed the regular
review classes at the Philippine Law School was a self-evident clerical error and a
mere result of an oversight which is not tantamount to a deliberate and wilful
declaration of falsehood.
The Official Receipt of his payment of tuition fee for the course
His Identification Card for the course
Car Pass to the UST campus
Individual Affidavits of classmates in the pre-bar review course in UST that
petitioner was their classmate and that he attended the review course
Separate affidavits of Five UST students/ acquaintances of petitioner that
they saw him regularly attending the review course
Affidavit of Professor Abelardo T. Domondon attesting to the attendance of
petitioner in his review classes and lectures in Taxation and Bar Review
Methods at the UST
Affidavit of Ms. Gloria L. Fernandez, maintenance staff at the UST Law
Department that she knew petitioner very well as he was among those who
would arrive early and request her to open the reading area and turn on the
airconditioning before classes started; and
Affidavit of Ms. Melicia Jane Parena, office clerk at the UST Faculty of Civil
Law, that Dean Dimayuga issued the Certification dated 22 July 1999 to the
effect that petitioner was officially enrolled in and had completed the pre-bar
review course in UST which started on April 14 1999 and ended September
24, 1999.
Petitioner, as citizen and taxpayer, filed this original action for the writ of
certiorari to invalidate then Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo’s nomination of former CJ
Hilaro Davide, Jr. as permanent representative to the UN for violation of sec. 23 of
RA No. 7157, the Philippine Foreign Service Act of 1991. At the time of nomination,
Davide was already 70 years old, which covers him for a mandatory retirement of
all officers and employees in the DFA which is at 65 years old.
ISSUE:
WON petitioner has a legal standing to bring suit because of his indefinite
suspension from the practice of law
RULING:
No. Petitioner’s suspension from the practice of law bars him from
performing “any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.” Certainly, preparing a
petition raising carefully crafted arguments on equal protection grounds and
employing highly legalistic rules of statutory construction to parse sec. 23 of RA no.
7157 falls within the proscribed conduct.
RULE 138-A
Section 4. Standards of conduct and supervision. — The law student shall comply
with the standards of professional conduct governing members of the Bar. Failure of
an attorney to provide adequate supervision of student practice may be a ground
for disciplinary action. (Circular No. 19, dated December 19, 1986).