Scribd
Upload
30 views3 pages

CANON9, 04.aguirre vs. Rana

The document discusses a case involving a respondent who passed the bar exam but had not yet been admitted to the bar. A complaint was filed alleging the respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by representing clients in legal matters. The court agreed and found the respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by filing pleadings on behalf of clients and calling himself counsel without a license. As the respondent had not yet been officially admitted to the bar, he did not have the authority to practice law.

Uploaded by

Anasor Go
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
30 views3 pages

CANON9, 04.aguirre vs. Rana

The document discusses a case involving a respondent who passed the bar exam but had not yet been admitted to the bar. A complaint was filed alleging the respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by representing clients in legal matters. The court agreed and found the respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by filing pleadings on behalf of clients and calling himself counsel without a license. As the respondent had not yet been officially admitted to the bar, he did not have the authority to practice law.

Uploaded by

Anasor Go
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Case [B. M. No. 1036.

June 10, 2003]


DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, complainant, vs. EDWIN L. RANA, respondent.
CASE DIGEST:
FACTS:
1. Respondent Edwin L. Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations.
2. Complainant Donna Marie Aguirre filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of
Admission to the Bar one day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar
passers on May 21, 2001 for unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation
of law and grave misrepresentation.
3. The court allowed respondent to take his oath as a Philippine Bar member on the
scheduled date but he could not sign the Roll of Attorneys until now pending the
resolution of the charge against him.
4. On the unauthorized practice of law and grave misconduct charges, complainant alleged
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.
5. Complainant further alleged that respondent filed a pleading dated May 19, 2001 with
the MBEC representing himself as counsel for an in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate,
George Bunan, and signed the pleading as counsel for George Bunan.
6. On the violation of law charge, complainant alleged that respondent as a municipal
government employee being a secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon,
Masbate, is not allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or
administrative body.
7. And on the grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant claimed that
respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the proclamation of the winning vice
mayoralty candidate.
8. On his part, respondent contends that he decided to assist and advice Brunan, not as a
lawyer but as a person who knows the law.
9. Respondent admitted on signing the pleading that objected to the inclusion of certain
votes in the canvassing but did not sign as a lawyer or represented himself as an
attorney in the pleading.

10. Respondent said that he resigned as a secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan and claimed
that the complaint is politically motivated considering the complainant is the daughter
of Silvestre Aguirre, the losing candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate.
11. Complainant alleged that on May 19, 2001, respondent signed as counsel for Emily
Estipona-Hao in filing a petition for proclamation as the winning candidate for mayor.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the respondent engaged in the unathorized practice of law as ground to
deny his admission to the practice of law?
HELD:
1. Yes, the court agreed on the findings and conclusion of the Office of the Bar Confidant
(OBC) that respondent engaged in the unathorized practice of law and thus does not
deserve admission to the Philippine Bar.
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.
The regulation of the practice of law is unquestionably strict. In Beltran, Jr. v. Abad, 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.
True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyers 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 qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know
that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely:
his lawyers oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of
Attorneys.
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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy