ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[B.M. No. 887.August 21, 2001]

IN THE MATTER OF ADMISSION TO PRACTICE LAW et al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 21 2001.

B.M. No. 887(In the matter of Admission to Practice Law of Henry R. Onia, 1998 Bar Examinations passer, spouses Agripino and Francisa de Vera vs. Henry R. Onia.)

Respondent Henry Rada Onia took and passed the 1998 Bar examinations. After the release of the results of the said examinations, or on April 16, 1999, a complaint was filed by the Spouses Agripino and Francisca de Vera against the respondent averring that the latter does not possess the moral qualification expected from a member of the Bar. They, thus, prayed that respondent be forever barred from becoming a lawyer. Considering that at that time, respondent was already issued a clearance to take the oath as lawyer together with the other successful examinees, the Court in a Resolution dated May 3, 1999 allowed respondent to proceed with his oathtaking but ordered the deferment of his signing of the Roll until the resolution of the instant complaint.

In the complaint dated April 15, 1999, the Spouses de Vera charged respondent with usurpation of authority and falsification relative to the ejectment case filed against them by Hildergarda Rada-Onia and Laurenlino Rada, respondent's mother and uncle, respectively, with the Municipal Trial Court of Alaminos, Pangasinan. The plaintiffs were represented by the law firm, Casino, Creencia and Baldovino Law Offices through Atty. Manuel Pagdanganan Casino, with office address at 910 San Diego Street, Sampaloc, Manila. During the pre-trial conference of the case, respondent appeared as counsel of the plaintiffs when he has not yet passed the bar examinations at that time; and categorically stated that he is a member of the law firm which was allegedly fictitious and non-existent. Upon verification of the address given, complainants' found out that the same was the address of respondent's boarding house in Manila. Complainants further alleged that in some of the pleadings filed in court in the civil case, Atty. Manuel P. Casino used IBP No. 658724, when the IBP number issued to him for that year was IBP No. 417185. Complainants concluded that the falsehood and falsification were done with the help and control of respondent.

In the Resolution dated May 18, 1999, the Court En Banc referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for investigation, report and recommendation. Accordingly, hearings were conducted on June 14, July 17 and 18, September 6 and 7, 2000. The complainants presented four (4) witnesses: Angelina Mendoza, Jose Luis, Agripino de Vera and Julius De Vera. Exhibits "A" to "H" were presented as documentary evidence but were, however, not formally offered. The respondent, on the other hand, testified on his own behalf and presented his mother, Hildegarda Rada-Onia, as his other witness. Documentary evidence consisting of Exhibits "1" to "19" were also presented and formally offered, which were not opposed by the complainants.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the Office of the Bar Confidant submitted its report and findings, as follows:

Sometime in 1996, Laurentino C. Rada and Hildegarda C. Rada-Onia (plaintiffs), uncle and mother, respectively, of herein respondent, filed a complaint for ejectment against herein complainants, spouses Agripino and Francisca De Vera, with the Municipal Trial Court of Alaminos, Pangasinan. Representing the plaintiffs in the said case was the Casino Creencia and Baldovino Law Offices, through Atty. Manuel Pagdanganan Casino, with office address at 910 San Diego Street, Sampaloc, Manila. During the pre-trial conference of the case, however, it was respondent who appeared as counsel for the plaintiffs. Herein complainants, through their counsel, objected to the said appearance of respondent, as he had not yet passed the Bar examination, let alone admitted tq the Philippine Bar. The trial court required respondent to submit a legal justification for his appearance as counsel. Respondent cited Sec. 34, Rule l38 of the Rules of Court in support of his claim that he was eligible to appear as counsel before the trial court. In its Order of October 11, 1996, the trial court found the legal justification of respondent to be insufficient. It thereby denied the motion of respondent to appear as counsel. With the said order, respondent ceased to appear as counsel for the plaintiffs. It was, however, the contention of complainants that respondent continued to handle the case for the plaintiffs by resorting to falsification. The falsification allegedly consisted of forging the signature of Atty. Casino. The said forgery allegedly became more manifest when the IBP number used in the pleadings submitted in connection with the said case did not match the IBP number actually issued to Atty. Casino by the IBP, Tarlac Chapter, of which Atty. Casino is a member.

The complaint must be dismissed.

Respondent cannot be held liable for usurpation of authority or misrepresentation by appearing as counsel for the plaintiffs in the Civil Case No. 1674. Nothing in the evidence, both documentary and testimonial, which complainants presented show that respondent held himself out as a lawyer. The most that they could show to substantiate their accusation of usurpation of authority or misrepresentation against respondent was the latter's appearance during the pre-trial conference of the said case, where he declared himself to be the counsel for the plaintiffs. Such appearance, however, was not completed, as complainants, through their lawyer, questioned the same considering that respondent has not yet been admitted to the Philippine Bar at the time. Respondent explained that he made the said appearance in the honest belief that he could do so pursuant to Sec. 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The OBC is inclined to give respondent the benefit of the doubt. Respondent is no stranger to the plaintiffs in the case, they being his mother and uncle. Hence, as a law student, he took it upon himself to assist them in the litigation. The same is not devoid of any basis, though, as the said provision under the Rules of Court allows a more educated or capable person to appear in behalf of a litigant who cannot get a lawyer before municipal courts in relatively simple litigation. Besides, there was no evidence presented by complainants showing that respondent further appeared as counsel for the plaintiffs before the trial court or any other courts after the trial court issued an order disallowing his appearance as counsel.

On the alleged falsification being imputed to respondent, complainants again failed to present any convincing evidence that respondent ever perpetrated the said offense. True, complainants were able to show that the IBP number appearing in the pleadings purportedly filed by Atty. Casino does not match the actual IBP number issued to him in the year the said pleadings were filed. Complainants, however, did not present any evidence, which would clearly show that respondent was responsible for the forgery. At best, their allegation that it was respondent who did the falsification was speculative. Neither can the similar address of the Casino Creencia and Baldovino Law Offices and that of respondent be used as a basis to hold the latter liable for falsification. In the course of the investigation, complainants and respondent stipulated that the said law firm used as its office the residence of respondent at 910 San Diego St., Sampaloc, Manila. This belies their claim that the said law office is non-existent and fictitious.

In fine, complainant failed to prove that respondent is morally unfit to be admitted to the Philippine Bar. Even assuming, however, that the appearance as counsel for the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1674 during the pre-trial conference may be considered as unethical or inappropriate, the period (almost two years now) that he has been deprived to practice law is enough punishment therefor.

As the sixty-day period within which those who took the lawyer's oath on May 4, 1999, including respondent, must sign the Roll of Attorneys had already elapsed, it is necessary that respondent must take the lawyer's oath anew before he signs the Roll of Attorneys.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended that Henry R. Onia be now allowed to take the lawyer's oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys.

We adopt the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant.

The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. 1 Bongalonta v. Castillo, 240 SCRA 310 (1995).And one of these requirements which is given importance, far greater than the acquisition of knowledge and proficiency in law is the possession of good moral character. It is said that all aspects of moral character and behavior may be inquired into in respect of those seeking admission to the Bar. 2 In Re: Al C. Argosino, 246 SCRA 14 (1995).The charges hailed against the respondent, if really true, certainly undermine his qualification for admission and is a ground for refusal to admit him to the bar. However, the circumstances of the case readily show that there is no sufficient basis for the Court to deprive the respondent this privilege to practice the profession which he had worked hard for.

The alleged deception of the respondent is belied by the records which clearly disclose that he never concealed the fact that lie was not yet a lawyer when he appeared during the pre-trial conference in the ejectment case. His appearance as a non-lawyer representative or agent of his mother and uncle in said case was, in fact, questioned and put to issue before the municipal trial court. In the Order dated October 11, 1996, the municipal judge found the legal justification for his appearance as counsel of the parties insufficient and thus, denied respondent's manifestation and motion to appear as counsel. The order reads as follows:

ORDER

Pending before this court for resolution is the legal justification filed by counsel for the plaintiffs on September 16, 1996 in compliance with the Order of this court dated August 29, 1996, who not being a member of the bar, was required to submit legal justification for his appearance as counsel for the plaintiffs.

Said counsel again filed a Manifestation and Motion dated September 26, 1996 praying that he may be allowed by this court to submit some proceedings in connection with this case before his qualification to appear as counsel is finally resolved by this court.

The justification relied upon by the counsel for the plaintiffs is the provision of Section 34, Rule 138 and Section 1, Rule 138A of the Rules of Court.

Under Section 34, Rule 138, said law provides that a party may conduct litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for the purpose, or with the aid of an attorney.

Section 1, Rule 138A provides for a law student who has successfully completed his third year of the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal education program approved by the Supreme Court, may appear without compensation in any civil criminal and administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school.

Finding that the said counsel for the plaintiffs does not qualify to appear as counsel pursuant to the above-mentioned provisions of law, this Court finds his legal justification to be insufficient.

Accordingly, the Manifestation and Motion dated September 26, 1996 should also be denied as a consequence of his failure to qualify as counsel for the plaintiffs in this case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the counsel for the plaintiffs is hereby denied by this Court to appear as counsel in the aforementioned case and his Manifestation and Motion dated September 26, 1996 is hereby also ordered denied.

SO ORDERED. 3 Exhibit "3."

While we may not fully agree with the trial court's ruling on the matter and despite respondent's honest belief that there was no prohibition for him to appear as such pursuant to Rule 138, Section 34, suffice it to say, that respondent showed his adherence to the orders of the trial court and thereby, ceased to appear as counsel for his relatives. Such alleged infraction may even be mitigated by the fact that the parties which respondent represented in the ejectment case are no strangers to him, as they are his mother and uncle. It is quite understandable that after being sent to law school and finally, passed the bar examinations, respondent was expected to assist his family members in litigation. His appearance is not without basis as the rule explicitly provides that:

SEC. 34. By whom litigation conduction. - In the court of a justice of the peace, a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.

We also note that the instant complaint is the only instance where respondent's appearance in court was questioned. There is no evidence to show that respondent engaged in an unauthorized practice of law by holding himself out as a lawyer when he is not yet a member of the bar 4 See Tan vs. Sabandal, 126 SCRA 60 (1983).or continued to appear as counsel in the ejectment case.

With respect to the other charges of falsification, we agree that the evidence presented is not sufficient to substantiate the charges leveled against the respondent.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the complaint; respondent Henry R. Onia is allowed to take the lawyer's oath and sign the Roll of Attorneys.

Very truly yours,

LUZMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D.VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com