B. M. No. 1036. June 10, 2003DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, complainant, vs. EDWIN L. RANA,
respondent
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 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.
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 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.
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.
On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation,
complainant accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice mayoralty
candidate George Bunan without the latter engaging respondents services.
Complainant claims that respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent the
proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty candidate.
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.
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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be admitted as a member of
the Philippine Bar
RULING:
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 lawyers oath. Respondent filed pleadings and
signed as counsel for George Bunan. Bunan himself wrote to the MBEC that he had
authorized Atty. Edwin L. Rana as his counsel to represent him before the MBEC
and similar bodies. He was also retained as counsel for mayoralty candidate
Emily Estipona-Hao.
All these happened even before respondent took the lawyers
oath. Clearly, respondent engaged in the practice of law without being a member
of the Philippine Bar.
In Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava, 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.”
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.
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.
Comments
Post a Comment