FACTS:
Court held respondent Elmo S. Abad a successful bar examinee but has not been
admitted to the Philippine Bar in contempt of Court for unauthorized practice
of law and he was fined P500.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case he failed
to pay the fine. (121 SCRA 217). He paid the fine. Atty. Procopio S. Beltran,
Jr., the complainant, filed a MOTION TO CIRCULARIZE TO ALL METRO MANILA COURTS
THE FACT THAT ELMO S. ABAD IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW. The Report has
found as a fact, over the denials of the respondent under oath, that he signed
Exhibits B, C, and D, and that he made appearances in Metro Manila courts. This
aspect opens the respondent to a charge for perjury. The Report also reveals that Atty. Ruben A.
Jacobe collaborated with the respondent as counsels for Antonio S. Maravilla
one of the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 26084, 26085 and 26086 of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City. (Exhibit D.) Atty. Jacobe should be called to
account for his association with the respondent.
Respondent,
when asked about the aforesaid motions, Exhibits "B" and
"D", and the signatures therein, denied that he filed the same and
that the signatures therein are his. He also denied that he appeared in the
hearing in the afternoon of December
8, 1983 in the said trial court. According to him, he was in
Batangas at the time. He also testified that the only explanation he could give
regarding the signatures in the aforesaid exhibits is that the same could have
been effected by Atty. Beltran to show the Supreme Court that he (respondent)
was still illegally practicing law. As to the motion for examination and
analysis of respondent's signature, the Investigator, to afford respondent full
opportunity to prove his defense, sought the assistance of the National Bureau
of Investigation to compare respondent's signature in the aforesaid exhibits
with the signatures appearing in the pleadings that he filed in the Supreme
Court, which latter signature he admits as genuine and as his own. The
aforesaid documentary and testimonial evidence, as well as the above report of
the NBI, have clearly proved that respondent Abad is still practicing law
despite the decision of this Court of March 28, 1983.
ISSUES: Whether or not Abad can engage in practice of law.
Whether
or not Atty. Jacobe liable in his collaboration with the respondent.
HELD: No. Only those licensed by the Supreme Court may practice law in this
country. The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but
is a privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special
qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege
presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment
and even public trust, since a lawyer is an officer of the court. 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 license. Respondent Abad should know that the circumstances
which he has narrated do not constitute his admission to the Philippine Bar and
the right to practice law thereafter. He 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. (Rule 138, Secs. 17 and 19, Rules of Court.) The regulation of the
practice of law is unquestionably strict. 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. Mr. Elmo S. Abad is hereby fined Five
Hundred (P500.00) pesos payable to this Court within ten (10) days from notice failing which he shall serve twenty-five
(25) days imprisonment.
Yes. He violated Canon 9 Rule 9.01 – A lawyer shall not delegate to any
unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be
performed by a member of the Bar. in good standing. A lawyer shall not assist
anyone who is not a member of the Bar to practice law in this country. Thus, he
must not take as partner or associate in his law firm a person who is not a
lawyer, a lawyer who has been disbarred and a lawyer who has been suspended
from practice of law. The lawyer who assists in an unauthorized practice of law
whether directly or indirectly is subject to disciplinary action. Finally,
Atty. Ruben A. Jacobe is required to explain within ten (10) days from notice
why he should not be disciplined for collaborating and associating in the practice
of the law with the respondent who is not a member of the bar.
