I.

Definition and Nature of the Practice of Law

Regulation of the Practice of Law
Admission to the Bar
Privileges of a Lawyer
Duties of a Lawyer
Prohibitions/ Limitations in the Practice of Law
Unauthorized Practice of Law
Rule 138
GR No. 100113
BM No. 553
In re: Cunanan
In re: Meling
BM No. 1678
GR No. L-23959
AC No. 5738
AM No. P-220
BM No. 712
AC No. 11316
BM No. 2112
AC No. 10164
AC No. 5377
BM No. 1036
BM No. 2540

1.

Cayetano v Monsod
G.R. No. 100113
September 3, 1991

Facts:
In 1991, Monsod was nominated by President Aquino as Chairman of the COMELEC. Cayetano opposed the nomination because
allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsods nomination, petitioner filed a petition
for Certiorari and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the
Commission on Elections be declared null and void because Monsod did not meet the requirement of having practiced law for the last
ten years.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent posses the required qualifications of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
Held:
Petition DISMISSED.
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 those acts which are characteristics of the
profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the
use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill."
Philippine Lawyers Association [Link], (105 Phil. 173,176-177) stated:
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, conveying. 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.
Atty. Monsod worked in the law office of his father. Monsod worked as an operations officer for about two years in Costa
Rica and Panama, which involved getting acquainted with the laws of [Link] returning to the Philippines
in 1970, he worked with the Meralco Group, served as chief executive officer of an investment bank. As former SecretaryGeneral (1986) and National Chairman (1987) of NAMFREL. Monsod's work involved being knowledgeable in election
law. He appeared for NAMFREL in its accreditation hearings before the Comelec. In the field of advocacy, Monsod, in his
personal capacity and as former Co-Chairman of the Bishops Businessmen's Conference for Human Development, has
worked with the under privileged sectors, such as the farmer and urban poor groups, in initiating, lobbying for and
engaging in affirmative action for the agrarian reform law and lately the urban land reform bill. Monsod also made use of
his legal knowledge as a member of the Davide Commission, a quast judicial body, which conducted numerous hearings
(1990) and as a member of the Constitutional Commission (1986-1987), and Chairman of its Committee on Accountability
of Public Officers, for which he was cited by the President of the Commission, Justice Cecilia Muoz-Palma for
"innumerable amendments to reconcile government functions with individual freedoms and public accountability and the
party-list system for the House of Representative.

2. ULEP vs. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC

BM 553
n 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales was to move toward
specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a
complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latters advertisements which contain the following:
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday
during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retirees Visa.
Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina
Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in Star Week of Philippine Star
wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can take care of a clients problem no
matter how complicated it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that
he and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are specialists in various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc.
has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are
backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the US which now allows it
(John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is merely making known to the public the
services that The Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is allowed; whether or not its
advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is
composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal
services from simple documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are
undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of
law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law
cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a
lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement
of facts. The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without
violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his
goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and
other circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best advertising possible for a lawyer is a
well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character
and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching
public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is right and proper. A good and reputable
lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a

normal by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated the
following as allowed forms of advertisement:
1.

Advertisement in a reputable law list

2.

Use of ordinary simple professional card

3.

Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization

3. In re: Cunanan
Facts:
Congress passed Republic Act Number 972, commonly known as the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953.
Inaccordance with the said law, the Supreme Court then passed and admitted to the bar those
candidateswho had obtained an average of 72 per cent by raising it to 75 [Link] its approval, many
of the unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for admission to the barinvoking its provisions, while
other motions for the revision of their examination papers were still pendingalso invoked the aforesaid law
as an additional ground for admission. There are also others who havesought simply the reconsideration of
their grades without, however, invoking the law in question. To avoidinjustice to individual petitioners, the
court first reviewed the motions for reconsideration, irrespective ofwhether or not they had invoked
Republic Act No. 972.
Issue:
Whether or Not RA No. 972 is constitutional and valid
Held:
Republic Act No. 972 is unconstitutional and therefore, void, and without any force nor effect for the following reasons, to
wit:
1. Because its declared purpose is to admit 810 candidates who failed in the bar examinations of 1946-1952, and who, it
admits, are certainly inadequately prepared to practice law, as was exactly found by this Court in the aforesaid years. It
decrees the admission to the Bar of these candidates, depriving this Tribunal of the opportunity to determine if they are at
present already prepared to become members of the Bar. It obliges the Tribunal to perform something contrary to reason
and in an arbitrary manner. This is a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court.
2. Because it is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of this Court on the petitions of these 810 candidates, without
having examined their respective examination papers, and although it is admitted that this Tribunal may reconsider said
resolution at any time for justifiable reasons, only the Supreme Court and no other may revise and alter them. In
attempting to do it directly Republic Act No. 972 violated the Constitution.
3. By the disputed law, Congress has exceeded its legislative power to repeal, alter and supplement the rules on
admission to the Bar. Such additional or amendatory rules are, as they ought to be, intended to regulate acts subsequent
to its promulgation and should tend to improve and elevate the practice of law, and this Tribunal shall consider these rules
as minimum norms towards that end in the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers to the Bar,
inasmuch as a good bar assists immensely in the daily performance of judicial functions and is essential to a worthy
administration of justice. It is therefore the primary and inherent prerogative of the Supreme Court to render the ultimate
decision on who may be admitted and may continue in the practice of law according to existing rules.

4. In re: Meling
Facts:

Atty. Froilan Melenderz sought the disqualification of Haron Meling, a member of the
Sharia Bar and who intends to take the 2003 Bar Examination, on the ground that he
failed to disclose three criminal cases which are pending against him before the MTCC
of Cotabato City, as well his use of the appellation Atty. in his communications as
Secretary to the Mayor of Cotabato City, as shown by an Indorsement Letter which
showed that Meling used the appellation Atty and appears to have been received by
the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cotabato City. In his answer, Haron averred that he
honestly believed that the cases filed against him by Froilan was already closed and
terminated, as he was advised by retired Judge Corocoy Moson, their former professor,
to settle the matter with Froilan, and since the judge had moral ascendancy over them,
he believed that the matter was already terminated. With respect to the use of the
appellation Atty., He admitted that some of his communications really contained the
word, as they were typed by the office clerk.
Issue:
WON Melings act of concealing cases constitutes dishonesty.
Held:

Petition is GRANTED insofar as it seeks the imposition of appropriate

sanctions upon Haron S. Meling as a member of the Philippine Sharia Bar.
Yes.

Petitionseeks to prevent Haron S. Meling from taking the Lawyers Oath and
signing the Roll of Attorneys as a member of the Philippine Bar, the same is
DISMISSED for having become moot and academic.( he did not pass 2003 bar
but on a later year)

The non-disclosure of Meling of the criminal cases filed against him makes him
also answerable under Rule 7.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
which states that a lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false
statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for
admission to the bar
Practice of law, whether under the regular or the Sharia Court, is not a matter
of right but merely a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only
learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character.
The requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to
admission to the practice of law, its continued possession is also essential for
remaining in the practice of law
[8]

5.

PETITION
FOR
BENJAMIN M. DACANAY,

LEAVE

TO

RESUME

PRACTICE

OF

LAW,

BM No. 1678

Facts:
Petitioner practiced law until he migrated to Canada in 1998 to seek medical attention for his ailments. His
application was approved and he became a Canadian citizen in May [Link]
2006, pursuant to Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner
reacquired his Philippine citizenship. Thereafter, he returned to the Philippines and now intends to resume his law
practice.
Issue:
whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine
citizenship in May 2004.
Held:
Section 1, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 1. Who may practice law. Any person heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or
thereafter admitted as such in accordance with the provisions of this Rule, and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law.
Admission to the bar requires certain qualifications. The Rules of Court mandates that an applicant for admission to
the bar be
a citizen of the Philippines
at least twenty-one years of age

of good moral character and a resident of the Philippines. 5

He must also produce before this Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character and that no charges against
him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines. 6
The second requisite for the practice of law membership in good standing is a continuing requirement. This
means continued membership and, concomitantly, payment of annual membership dues in the IBP; 11 payment of the
annual professional tax;12 compliance with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement; 13 faithful
observance of the rules and ethics of the legal profession and being continually subject to judicial disciplinary
control.14
Given the foregoing, may a lawyer who has lost his Filipino citizenship still practice law in the Philippines? No.
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of another country but
subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225.
WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney Benjamin M. Dacanay is hereby GRANTED, subject to compliance with the
conditions stated above and submission of proof of such compliance to the Bar Confidant, after which he may
retake his oath as a member of the Philippine bar.

6. PAFLU vds Binalbagan and Muning

Facts:
The petitioners were complainants in a labor case, "PAFLU et al. vs. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co., et al." After trial,
the Court of Industrial Relations rendered a decision, ordering the reinstatement with backwages of complainants
Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenazas. Said decision became final. On 18 October 1963, Cipriano Cid & Associates,
counsel of record for the winning complainants, filed a notice of attorney's lien equivalent to 30% of the total
backwages. On 22 November 1963, Atty. Atanacio Pacis also filed a similar notice for a reasonable amount.
Complainants Entila and Tenazas on 3 December 1963, filed a manifestation indicating their non-objection to an
award of attorney's fees for 25% of their backwages, and, on the same day, Quentin Muning filed a "Petition for the
Award of Services Rendered" equivalent to 20% of the backwages. Munings petition was opposed by Cipriano Cid
& Associates the ground that he is not a lawyer.
The records of Case No. 72-ULP-Iloilo show that the charge was filed by Cipriano Cid & Associates through Atty.
Atanacio Pacis. All the hearings were held in Bacolod City and appearances made in behalf of the complainants
were at first by Attorney Pacis and subsequently by respondent Quintin Muning.
On 12 May 1964, the Court of Industrial Relations awarded 25% of the backwages as compensation for professional
services rendered in the case, apportioned as follows:
Attys. Cipriano Cid & Associates ............................................. 10%
Quintin Muning ......................................................................... 10%
Atty. Atanacio Pacis ................................................................. 5%
The award of 10% to Quintin Muning who is not a lawyer according to the order, is sought to be voided in the
present petition.
Issue:

May a non-lawyer recover attorney's fees for legal services rendered?

Held:
No.
The permission for a non-member of the bar to represent or appear or defend in the said court on behalf of a partylitigant does not by itself entitle the representative to compensation for such representation. For Section 24, Rule
138, of the Rules of Court, providing
Sec. 24. Compensation of attorney's agreement as to fees. An attorney shall be entitled to have
and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services, ...
imports the existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition to the recovery of attorney's fees. Such a
relationship cannot exist unless the client's representative in court be a lawyer. Since respondent Muning is not one,
he cannot establish an attorney-client relationship with Enrique Entila and Victorino Tenezas or with PAFLU, and he
cannot, therefore, recover attorney's fees. Certainly public policy demands that legal work in representation of
parties litigant should be entrusted only to those possessing tested qualifications and who are sworn, to observe the
rules and the ethics of the profession, as well as being subject to judicial disciplinary control for the protection of
courts, clients
WHEREFORE, the orders under review are hereby set aside insofar as they awarded 10% of the backwages as
attorney's fees for respondent Quintin Muning. Said orders are affirmed in all other respects. Costs against
respondent Muning.

7. AC No. 5738