20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 121

VOL. 121, MARCH 28, 1983 217

Beltran, Jr. vs. Abad
*
BM No. 139. March 28, 1983.

RE: ELMO S. ABAD, 1978 Successful Bar Examinee.

ATTY. PROCOPIO S. BELTRAN, JR., President of the
Philippine Trial Lawyers Association, Inc., complainant, vs.
ELMO S. ABAD, respondent.

Legal Ethics; Successful bar candidates; Practice of Law;

Essential requisites for becoming a lawyer.—Respondent Abad
should know that the circumstances which he has narrated do not
constitute his admission to the Philippine Bar and the right to
practise law

_______________

* EN BANC.

218

218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Beltran, Jr. vs. Abad

thereafter. He should know that two essential requisites for

becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s
oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the
Roll of Attorneys. (Rule 138, Secs. 17 and 19, Rules of Court.)

Same; Same; Same; Contempt; Practicing law without having

been previously admitted to the Philippine bar, although already
successful bar candidate, constitutes contempt of court; Fine of
P500.00 or 25 days imprisonment for failure to pay the fine.—The
proven charge against respondent Abad contempt of court (Rule
71, Sec. 3(e), Rules of Court.) Mr. Elmo S. Abad is hereby fined
Five Hundred (P500.00) pesos payable to this Court within ten
(10) days from notice failing which he shall serve twenty­five (25)
days imprisonment.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686b949fc3825f5734003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/5
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 121

ABAD SANTOS, J.:

Charged by Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr., president of the

Philippine Trial Lawyers Association, Inc., of practicing
law without having been previously admitted to the
Philippine Bar, Mr. Elmo S. Abad could not deny and had
to admit the practice. In exculpation he gives the following
lame explanation:

“1. On July 23, 1979, respondent conformably with the

Resolution of the Honorable Supreme Court En
Banc dated July 10, 1979, x x x prior to his taking
the Oath of Office as a member of the bar, paid his
Bar Admission Fee in the amount of P175.00 as
shown by Official Receipt No. 8128792, x x x paid
his Certification Fee in the amount of P5.00 as
shown by Official Receipt No. 8128793, x x x and
also paid his Membership Dues for the year 1979­80
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines as shown
by Official Receipt No. 83740, x x x.
“2. On July 26, 1979, Atty. Romeo Mendoza, the then
Clerk of Court of the Honorable Supreme Court,
included the respondent as among those taking the
Oath of Office as Member of the Bar as shown by a
Letter of Request dated July 23, 1979, x x x
“3. At around Eleven O’clock in the morning of July 26,
1979, while waiting for my turn to take my Oath as
a member of the Bar, I was made to sign my
Lawyer’s Oath by one of the Clerk in the Office of
the Bar Confidant and while waiting there, Atty.
Romeo Mendoza told me that Chief Justice, the
Honorable Enrique M. Fernando

219

VOL. 121, MARCH 28, 1983 219

Beltran, Jr. vs. Abad

wants to talk to me about the Reply of Mr. Jorge Uy

(Deceased) to my Answer to his Complaint. The
Honorable Chief Justice told me that I have to
answer the Reply and for which reason the**taking
of my Lawyer’s Oath was further suspended.
“4. On July 31, 1979, I filed my Reply to Mr. Jorge Uy’s
Answer with a Prayer that the Honorable Supreme
Court determines my fitness to be a member of the
Bar;
“5. While waiting for the appropriate action which the
Honorable Supreme Court may take upon my
Prayer to determine my fitness to be a member of

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686b949fc3825f5734003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/5
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 121

the Bar, I received a letter from the Integrated Bar

of the Philippines, Quezon City Chapter dated May
10, 1980 informing the respondent of an Annual
General Meeting together with my Statement of
Account for the year 1980­1981,
x x x.
“6. Believing that with my signing of the Lawyer’s
Oath on July 26, 1979 and my Reply to Mr. Jorge
Uy’s (Deceased) Answer, the Honorable Supreme
Court did not ordered for the striking of my name
in the Roll of Attorneys with the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines and therefore a Member in Good
Standing, I paid my membership due and other
assessments to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, Quezon City Chapter, as shown by
Official Receipt No. 110326 and Official Receipt No.
0948, x x x. Likewise respondent paid his
Professional Tax Receipt as shown by Official
Receipt No. 058033 and Official Receipt No.
4601685, x x x.
“7. On February 28, 1981, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, Quezon City Chapter also included the
name of the respondent as a Qualified Voter for the
election of officers and directors for the year 1981­
1982, x x x.
“8. Respondent’s belief and good faith was further
enhanced by the fact that on January 8, 1981,
Complainant Jorge Uy in SBC­607 died and herein
respondent submitted a verified Notice and Motion
with the Honorable Supreme Court on April 27,
1981; notifying the Court of this fact with a prayer
that herein respondent be allowed to take his Oath
as Member of the Bar;

_______________

** The case was SBC No. 607­Jorge Q. Uy vs. Elmo S. Abad which was
dismissed on November 25, 1982 because of the death of the complainant.
However, there is still pending BM No. 136—Esperanza T. Sistoso, et al.
vs. Elmo S. Abad for qualified theft. The respondent was required to file
an answer on October 26, 1982.

220

220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Beltran, Jr. vs. Abad

“9. Thereafter, respondent was again assessed by the

Integrated Bar for his 1981­1982 membership due
and other assessment for which the undersigned

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686b949fc3825f5734003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/5
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 121

paid as shown by Official Receipt No. 132734 and

Official Receipt No. 3363, x x x.
“10. Respondent likewise paid his Professional Tax
Receipt for 1981 as shown by Official Receipt No.
3195776, x x x.
“11. Respondent likewise has a Certificate of
Membership in the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines as well as a Certificate of Membership
in Good Standing with the Quezon City Chapter of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, x x x.”

Respondent Abad should know that the circumstances

which he has narrated do not constitute his admission to
the Philippine Bar and the right to practise law thereafter.
He should know that two essential requisites for becoming
a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s
oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in
the Roll of Attorneys. (Rule 138, Secs. 17 and 19, Rules of
Court.)
The proven charge against respondent Abad constitutes
contempt of court (Rule 71, Sec. 3(e), Rules of Court.)
WHEREFORE, Mr. Elmo S. Abad is hereby fined Five
Hundred (P500.00) pesos payable to this Court within ten
(10) days from notice failing which he shall serve twenty­
five (25) days imprisonment.
SO ORDERED.

       Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Makasiar, Concepcion,

Jr., Guerrero, De Castro, Melencio­Herrera, Plana, Escolin,
Vasquez, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
     Aquino, J., is on leave.

Respondent fined P500.00 for contempt of Court.

Notes.—The power to punish a lawyer for contempt

should be exercised on the preservative and not on the
vindictive principle. (Sulit vs. Tiangco, 115 SCRA 207.)
The first duty of a lawyer is not to his client but to the
administration of justice. (Lubiano vs. Gordolla, 115 SCRA
459.)

221

VOL. 121, MARCH 28, 1983 221

Francisco vs. Berones

Fraudulent concealment by applicant of criminal cases

pending against him is a ground for the revocation of his
license to practice law. (In re: Victorio D. Lanuevo, 66
SCRA 245.)

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686b949fc3825f5734003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/5
20/01/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 121

Complainant should be aware that this Court does not

look with favor upon accusations arising from
dissatisfaction and resentment at the mode in which a
lawyer diligently and tenaciously prosecutes matters
entrusted to him. (Azor vs. Beltran, 63 SCRA 210.)
The recording of an attorney’s lien is limited to the
judgment counsel secured in a litigation of his client.
(Integrated Construction Services, Inc. vs. Relova, 65 SCRA
638.)
A charge against a lawyer that is intended for his
disbar­ment must be established by convincing evidence.
(Argana vs. Cruz, 65 SCRA 550.)

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001686b949fc3825f5734003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/5