Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 164 views

    No. 18 Case Title: Atty. Procorpio Beltran vs. Elmo Abad Ticker: Nag Practice Agad - Di Pa Facts

    Uploaded by

    Royce Ann Pedemonte
    Elmo Abad was charged with practicing law without being admitted to the Philippine Bar. Abad claimed that he paid fees to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and signed his lawyer's oath, believing this allowed him to practice. However, the Court ruled that two requirements were not met: 1) his oath was not administered by the Court and 2) his name was not signed in the Roll of Attorneys. As Abad did not fulfill all requirements to become a lawyer, he was fined for contempt of court.

    Copyright:

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

    No. 18 Case Title: Atty. Procorpio Beltran vs. Elmo Abad Ticker: Nag Practice Agad - Di Pa Facts

    Uploaded by

    Royce Ann Pedemonte
    164 views1 page
    Elmo Abad was charged with practicing law without being admitted to the Philippine Bar. Abad claimed that he paid fees to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and signed his lawyer's oath, believing this allowed him to practice. However, the Court ruled that two requirements were not met: 1) his oath was not administered by the Court and 2) his name was not signed in the Roll of Attorneys. As Abad did not fulfill all requirements to become a lawyer, he was fined for contempt of court.

    Original Title

    BELTRAN VS. 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 Abad was charged with practicing law without being admitted to the Philippine Bar. Abad claimed that he paid fees to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and signed his lawyer's oath, believing this allowed him to practice. However, the Court ruled that two requirements were not met: 1) his oath was not administered by the Court and 2) his name was not signed in the Roll of Attorneys. As Abad did not fulfill all requirements to become a lawyer, he was fined for contempt of court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    164 views1 page

    No. 18 Case Title: Atty. Procorpio Beltran vs. Elmo Abad Ticker: Nag Practice Agad - Di Pa Facts

    Uploaded by

    Royce Ann Pedemonte
    Elmo Abad was charged with practicing law without being admitted to the Philippine Bar. Abad claimed that he paid fees to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and signed his lawyer's oath, believing this allowed him to practice. However, the Court ruled that two requirements were not met: 1) his oath was not administered by the Court and 2) his name was not signed in the Roll of Attorneys. As Abad did not fulfill all requirements to become a lawyer, he was fined for 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 1

    No.

    18
    Case Title: Atty. Procorpio Beltran vs. Elmo Abad 
    Ticker: Nag practice agad - di pa 
    Facts

     Elmo S. Abad was charged by Atty. Procopio Beltran, which is the president of the Philippine
    Trial Lawyers Association, Inc., of practicing law without having been previously admitted to the
    Philippine Bar. 

     In exculpation he gives the following lame explanation:


     
    1. He paid his Bar Admission Fee, Certification Fee and his Membership Dues for the year
    1979-80 to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines as shown by Official Receipts.
    2. The he was included as among those taking the Oath of Office as Member of the Bar as
    shown by a Letter of Request dated July 23, 1979.
    3. That on July 26, 1979, while waiting for his turn to take his Oath as a member of the Bar,
    he was made to sign his Lawyer’s Oath by one of the Clerk in the Office of the Bar
    Confidant. One of the Clerk told him that the Chief Justice wanted to talk to him. Then the
    Chief Justice told him that he had to Reply first to Mr. Jorge Uy’s (deceased) Answer and
    its Criminal complaint and for which reason the taking of his Lawyer’s Oath was further
    suspended.
    4. On July 31, 1979, he filed the Reply to Mr. Jorge Uy’s (deceased) Answer with a Prayer
    that the Supreme Court to determine his fitness to be a member of the Bar;
    5. While waiting for the appropriate action, he received a letter from the Integrated Bar of
    the Philippines (IBP), informing him of an Annual General Meeting together with his
    Statement of Account for the year 1980-1981, x x x.
    6. Believing that with by signing of the Lawyer’s Oath on July 26, 1979 and his Reply to
    Mr. Jorge Uy’s (Deceased) Answer, the Supreme Court did not ordered for the striking of
    his name in the Roll of Attorneys with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and therefore
    a Member in Good Standing, he paid his membership due and other assessments to the
    Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
    Issue:

    Whether Abad is already authorized to practice law? NO

    Ruling

    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: 
    1. His lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and 
    2. 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.)

    WHEREFORE, 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 twentyfive (25) days imprisonment.

    Doctrine/s
    Two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: 

    1. His lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court


    2. His signature in the Roll of Attorneys. (Rule 138, Secs. 17 and 19, Rules of Court.)

    You might also like