FACTS
Respondent Edwin L. Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. One day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar examinees as members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre filed against the respondent. Complainant charged respondent with unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation.
The Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member of the Bar. 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.
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 wherein the respondent represented himself as counsel for and in be Vice Mayoralty Candidate and signed the pleading as counsel for him. Complainant claims that respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty candidate. 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.
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 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. Respondent prays that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and that he be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
ISSUE
WON respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar.
HELD
The records show that respondent appeared as counsel for Bunan and has also retained by a mayoralty candidate as her counsel. 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.
In Cayetano v. Monsod, 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.
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. Passing the bar is not the only 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
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.
DECISION
WHEREFORE, respondent Edwin L. Rana is DENIED admission to the Philippine Bar.
No comments:
Post a Comment