Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 497 views

    Beltran v. Abad

    Uploaded by

    Charm Pedrozo
    Elmo S. Abad was charged with practicing law without being admitted to the Philippine Bar. Abad claimed that he believed he had been admitted based on the following: 1) He paid bar admission and IBP fees in 1979; 2) His name was included on the list to take the lawyer's oath in 1979 but the oath was suspended; 3) He received IBP communications and paid dues from 1979-1981; 4) He had a certificate of IBP membership. However, the Supreme Court held that Abad should have known the two essential requirements of taking the lawyer's oath administered by the Court and signing the Roll of Attorneys had not been fulfilled. Therefore, Abad was found guilty of contempt of court

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Beltran v. Abad

    Uploaded by

    Charm Pedrozo
    497 views2 pages
    Elmo S. Abad was charged with practicing law without being admitted to the Philippine Bar. Abad claimed that he believed he had been admitted based on the following: 1) He paid bar admission and IBP fees in 1979; 2) His name was included on the list to take the lawyer's oath in 1979 but the oath was suspended; 3) He received IBP communications and paid dues from 1979-1981; 4) He had a certificate of IBP membership. However, the Supreme Court held that Abad should have known the two essential requirements of taking the lawyer's oath administered by the Court and signing the Roll of Attorneys had not been fulfilled. Therefore, Abad was found guilty of contempt of court

    Original Description:

    Beltran v. Abad

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Elmo S. Abad was charged with practicing law without being admitted to the Philippine Bar. Abad claimed that he believed he had been admitted based on the following: 1) He paid bar admission and IBP fees in 1979; 2) His name was included on the list to take the lawyer's oath in 1979 but the oath was suspended; 3) He received IBP communications and paid dues from 1979-1981; 4) He had a certificate of IBP membership. However, the Supreme Court held that Abad should have known the two essential requirements of taking the lawyer's oath administered by the Court and signing the Roll of Attorneys had not been fulfilled. Therefore, Abad was found guilty of contempt of court

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    497 views2 pages

    Beltran v. Abad

    Uploaded by

    Charm Pedrozo
    Elmo S. Abad was charged with practicing law without being admitted to the Philippine Bar. Abad claimed that he believed he had been admitted based on the following: 1) He paid bar admission and IBP fees in 1979; 2) His name was included on the list to take the lawyer's oath in 1979 but the oath was suspended; 3) He received IBP communications and paid dues from 1979-1981; 4) He had a certificate of IBP membership. However, the Supreme Court held that Abad should have known the two essential requirements of taking the lawyer's oath administered by the Court and signing the Roll of Attorneys had not been fulfilled. Therefore, Abad was found guilty of contempt of court

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Beltran v.

    David
    A. M. No. 139 March 28, 1983
    RE: ELMO S. ABAD, 1978 Successful Bar Examinee. ATTY.
    PROCOPIO S. BELTRAN, JR., President of the Philippine Trial
    Lawyers Association, Inc., complainant,
    vs.
    ELMO S. ABAD
    FACTS:
    Charged by Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr., president of the
    Philippine Trial Lawyers Association, Inc., of practicing law without
    having been previously admitted to the Philippine Bar, Mr. Elmo S.
    Abad could not deny and had to admit the practice. In exculpation he
    gives the following lame explanation:
    1. On July 23, 1979, respondent conformably with the Resolution
    of the Honorable Supreme Court En Banc dated July 10, 1979, ... prior
    to his taking the Oath of Office as a member of the bar, paid his Bar
    Admission Fee and also paid his Membership Dues for the year 197980 to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
    2. On July 26, 1979, Atty. Romeo Mendoza, the then Clerk of
    Court of the SC, included the respondent as among those taking the
    Oath of Office as Member of the Bar as shown by a Letter of Request.
    3. That while waiting for his turn to take Oath as a member of the
    Bar, he was made to sign my Lawyer's Oath by one of the Clerk in the
    Office of the Bar Confidant and while waiting there, Atty. Romeo
    Mendoza told me that Chief Justice Fernando wants to talk to me about
    the Reply of Mr. Jorge Uy (Deceased) to my Answer to his Complaint.
    The Honorable Chief Justice told me that I have to answer the Reply
    and for which reason the taking of my Lawyer's Oath was further
    suspended. He filed a reply
    4. He received a letter from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
    informing the respondent of an Annual General Meeting together with
    his Statement of Account for the year 1980-1981,
    5. Believing that with his signing of the Lawyer's Oath on July 26,
    1979 and his Reply to Mr. Jorge Uy's (Deceased) Answer, the SC did not
    ordered for the striking of his name in the Roll of Attorneys with IBP
    and therefore a Member in Good Standing, He paid his membership
    due and other assessments.
    6. That his name was included as a Qualified Voter for the
    election of officers and directors for the year 1981-1982,
    7. Respondent's belief and good faith was further enhanced by
    the fact that on January 8, 1981, Complainant Jorge Uy in SBC607 died
    and herein respondent submitted a verified Notice and Motion with the
    SC; notifying the Court of this fact with a prayer that herein respondent
    be allowed to take his Oath as Member of the Bar;

    8. Thereafter, respondent was again assessed by the IBP and


    likewise paid his Professional Tax Receipt for 1981 as shown by Official
    Receipt No. 3195776, ... .
    9. Respondent likewise has a Certificate of Membership in the IBP
    as well as a Certificate of Membership in Good Standing
    ISSUE: WON those circumstances constitute as admission to the
    Philippine Bar.
    HELD:
    No.
    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 proven charge against respondent Abad constitutes
    contempt of court (Rule 71, Sec. 3(e), Rules of Court.)
    Mr. Elmo S. Abad is hereby fined P500 payable to this Court
    within 10 DAYS from notice failing which he shall serve twenty-five (25)
    days imprisonment.

    You might also like