EN BANC
DONNA MARIE S.
AGUIRRE,
Complainant,
B.
M.
No. 1036
June 10, 2003
-versus-
EDWIN L. RANA,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The
Case
Before one is admitted
to the Philippine Bar, he must possess the requisite moral integrity
for
membership in the legal profession. Possession of moral integrity is of
greater importance than possession of legal learning. The practice of
law
is a privilege bestowed only on the morally fit. A bar candidate
who is morally unfit cannot practice law even if he passes the bar
examinations.chanrobles virtual law library
The Facts
Respondent Edwin L.
Rana ("respondent") was among those who passed the 2000 Bar
Examinations.cralaw:red
On 21 May 2001, one
day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar examinees
as
members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre
("complainant")
filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the
Bar.
Complainant charged respondent with unauthorized practice of law, grave
misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation.cralaw:red
The Court allowed respondent
to take his oath as a member of the Bar during the scheduled
oath-taking
on 22 May 2001 at the Philippine International Convention Center.
However, the Court ruled that respondent could not sign the Roll of
Attorneys
pending the resolution of the charge against him. Thus,
respondent
took the lawyer’s oath on the scheduled date but has not signed the
Roll
of Attorneys up to now.cralaw:red
Complainant charges
respondent for unauthorized practice of law and grave misconduct.
Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared
as
counsel for a candidate in the May 2001 elections before the Municipal
Board of Election Canvassers ("MBEC") of Mandaon, Masbate.
Complainant
further alleges that respondent filed with the MBEC a pleading dated 19
May 2001 entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing
of
Votes in Some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor. In
this
pleading, respondent represented himself as "counsel for and in behalf
of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan," and signed the pleading as
counsel for George Bunan ("Bunan").cralaw:red
On the charge of violation
of law, complainant claims that respondent is a municipal government
employee,
being a secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate.
As
such, respondent is not allowed by law to act as counsel for a client
in
any court or administrative body.cralaw:red
On the charge of grave
misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant accuses respondent of
acting
as counsel for vice mayoralty candidate George Bunan ("Bunan") without
the latter engaging respondent’s services. Complainant claims
that
respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the
proclamation
of the winning vice mayoralty candidate.cralaw:red
On 22 May 2001, the
Court issued a resolution allowing respondent to take the lawyer’s oath
but disallowed him from signing the Roll of Attorneys until he is
cleared
of the charges against him. In the same resolution, the Court required
respondent to comment on the complaint against him.cralaw:red
In his Comment, respondent
admits that Bunan sought his "specific assistance" to represent him
before
the MBEC. Respondent claims that "he decided to assist and advice
Bunan,
not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law." Respondent
admits
signing the 19 May 2001 pleading that objected to the inclusion of
certain
votes in the canvassing. He explains, however, that he did not
sign
the pleading as a lawyer or represented himself as an "attorney" in the
pleading.cralaw:red
On his employment as
secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan, respondent claims that he submitted
his resignation on 11 May 2001 which was allegedly accepted on the same
date. He submitted a copy of the Certification of Receipt of Revocable
Resignation dated 28 May 2001 signed by Vice-Mayor Napoleon
Relox.
Respondent further claims that the complaint is politically motivated
considering
that complainant is the daughter of Silvestre Aguirre, the losing
candidate
for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate. Respondent prays that the complaint be
dismissed
for lack of merit and that he be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.cralaw:red
On 22 June 2001, complainant
filed her Reply to respondent’s Comment and refuted the claim of
respondent
that his appearance before the MBEC was only to extend specific
assistance
to Bunan. Complainant alleges that on 19 May 2001 Emily Estipona-Hao
("Estipona-Hao")
filed a petition for proclamation as the winning candidate for mayor.
Respondent
signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in this petition. When respondent
appeared
as counsel before the MBEC, complainant questioned his appearance on
two
grounds: (1) respondent had not taken his oath as a lawyer; and (2) he
was an employee of the government.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent filed a Reply
(Re: Reply to Respondent’s Comment) reiterating his claim that the
instant
administrative case is "motivated mainly by political vendetta."
On 17 July 2001, the
Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant ("OBC") for
evaluation, report and recommendation.
OBC’s Report and
Recommendation
The OBC found that respondent
indeed appeared before the MBEC as counsel for Bunan in the May 2001
elections.
The minutes of the MBEC proceedings show that respondent actively
participated
in the proceedings. The OBC likewise found that respondent
appeared
in the MBEC proceedings even before he took the lawyer’s oath on 22 May
2001. The OBC believes that respondent’s misconduct casts a serious
doubt
on his moral fitness to be a member of the Bar. The OBC also
believes
that respondent’s unauthorized practice of law is a ground to deny his
admission to the practice of law. The OBC, therefore, recommends
that respondent be denied admission to the Philippine Bar.cralaw:red
On the other charges,
OBC stated that complainant failed to cite a law which respondent
allegedly
violated when he appeared as counsel for Bunan while he was a
government
employee. Respondent resigned as secretary and his resignation was
accepted.
Likewise, respondent was authorized by Bunan to represent him before
the
MBEC.
The Court’s Ruling
We agree with the findings
and conclusions of the OBC that respondent engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law and thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine
Bar.cralaw:red
Respondent took his
oath as lawyer on 22 May 2001. However, the records show that
respondent
appeared as counsel for Bunan prior to 22 May 2001, before respondent
took
the lawyer’s oath. In the pleading entitled Formal Objection to
the
Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in Some Precincts for the Office
of
Vice-Mayor dated 19 May 2001, respondent signed as "counsel for George
Bunan." In the first paragraph of the same pleading respondent
stated
that he was the "(U)ndersigned Counsel for, and in behalf of Vice
Mayoralty
Candidate, GEORGE T. BUNAN." Bunan himself wrote the MBEC on 14
May
2001 that he had "authorized Atty. Edwin L. Rana as his counsel to
represent
him" before the MBEC and similar bodies.chanrobles virtual law library
On 14 May 2001, mayoralty
candidate Emily Estipona-Hao also "retained" respondent as her
counsel.
On the same date, 14 May 2001, Erly D. Hao informed the MBEC that
"Atty.
Edwin L. Rana has been authorized by REFORMA LM-PPC as the legal
counsel
of the party and the candidate of the said party." Respondent
himself
wrote the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he was entering his "appearance as
counsel
for Mayoralty Candidate Emily Estipona-Hao and for the REFORMA
LM-PPC."
On 19 May 2001, respondent signed as counsel for Estipona-Hao in the
petition
filed before the MBEC praying for the proclamation of Estipona-Hao as
the
winning candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate.cralaw:red
All these happened even
before respondent took the lawyer’s oath. Clearly,
respondent
engaged in the practice of law without being a member of the Philippine
Bar.cralaw:red
In Philippine Lawyers
Association v. Agrava,[1]
the Court elucidated that:
The
practice
of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court;
it
embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to
actions
and special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings
on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition,
conveyancing.
In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in
matters
connected with the law, incorporation services, assessment and
condemnation
services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the
foreclosure
of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's claim in bankruptcy and
insolvency
proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters
of
estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice, as
do
the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done
involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal
effect
of facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jur. p. 262, 263).
[Italics
supplied] x x xchanrobles virtual law library
In Cayetano v. Monsod,[2]
the Court held that "practice of law" means any activity, in or out of
court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge,
training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform
acts which are usually performed by members of the legal profession.
Generally,
to practice law is to render any kind of service which requires the use
of legal knowledge or skill.
Verily, respondent was
engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the proceedings
before
the MBEC and filed various pleadings, without license to do so.
Evidence
clearly supports the charge of unauthorized practice of law. Respondent
called himself "counsel" knowing fully well that he was not a member of
the Bar. Having held himself out as "counsel" knowing that he had no
authority
to practice law, respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a member of
the Philippine Bar.[3]
The right to practice
law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege.
It is limited to persons of good moral character with special
qualifications
duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege
presupposes
possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and
even
public trust[4]
since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar
candidate
does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar
examinations.
The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one
who
has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had
practiced
law without a license.[5]
The regulation of the
practice of law is unquestionably strict. In Beltran, Jr. v. Abad,[6]
a candidate passed the bar examinations but had not taken his oath and
signed the Roll of Attorneys. He was held in contempt of court
for
practicing law even before his admission to the Bar. Under Section 3
(e)
of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, a person who engages in the
unauthorized
practice of law is liable for indirect contempt of court.[7]chanrobles virtual law library
True, respondent here
passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath.
However,
it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a
full-fledged
lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is
immaterial.
Passing the bar is not the only a qualification to become an
attorney-at-law.[8]
Respondent 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.[9]
On the charge of violation
of law, complainant contends that the law does not allow respondent to
act as counsel for a private client in any court or administrative body
since respondent is the secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan.cralaw:red
Respondent tendered
his resignation as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan prior to the acts
complained of as constituting unauthorized practice of law. In
his
letter dated 11 May 2001 addressed to Napoleon Relox, vice- mayor and
presiding
officer of the Sangguniang Bayan, respondent stated that he was
resigning
"effective upon your acceptance."[10]
Vice-Mayor Relox accepted respondent’s resignation effective 11 May
2001.[11]
Thus, the evidence does not support the charge that respondent acted as
counsel for a client while serving as secretary of the Sangguniang
Bayan.cralaw:red
On the charge of grave
misconduct and misrepresentation, evidence shows that Bunan indeed
authorized
respondent to represent him as his counsel before the MBEC and similar
bodies. While there was no misrepresentation, respondent nonetheless
had
no authority to practice law.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, respondent
Edwin L. Rana is DENIED admission to the Philippine Bar.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna,
JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
105 Phil. 173 (1959).chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
G.R. No. 100113, 3 September 1991, 201 SCRA 210.
[3]
Yap Tan v. Sabandal, 211 Phil. 252 (1983).chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
In the Matter of the Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm
Name Ozaeta, Romulo, etc., 30 July 1979, 92 SCRA 1.
[5]
Ui v. Bonifacio, Administrative Case No. 3319, 8 June 2000, 333 SCRA 38.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Bar Matter No. 139, 28 March 1983, 121 SCRA 217.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
People v. Santocildes, Jr., G.R. No. 109149, 21 December 1999, 321 SCRA
310.
[8]
Diao v. Martinez, Administrative Case No. 244, 29 March 1963, 7
SCRA
475.
[9]
Beltran, Jr. v. Abad, B.M. No. 139, 28 March 1983, 121 SCRA 217.
[10]
Respondent’s Comment, Annex "A".chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Ibid., Annex "B".chanrobles virtual law library |