Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    in Re Medado, B.M. No. 2540, Sept. 4, 2013

    Uploaded by

    honeydolphin325
    Michael A. Medado graduated from law school in 1979 and passed the bar exam that year. In 1980, he took the Attorney's Oath but failed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys due to misplacing the notice. Years later while practicing law, he realized his mistake but did not sign in the roll. In 2005, he could not provide his roll number for legal training. He petitioned to sign in the roll in 2012. The court ruled against Medado, finding that while an initial mistake was made, continuing the unauthorized practice of law for years was a willful violation of professional ethics. As penalty, Medado must wait one year to sign the roll and pay a fine of 32,000 pesos.

    Copyright:

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

    in Re Medado, B.M. No. 2540, Sept. 4, 2013

    Uploaded by

    honeydolphin325
    9 views2 pages
    Michael A. Medado graduated from law school in 1979 and passed the bar exam that year. In 1980, he took the Attorney's Oath but failed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys due to misplacing the notice. Years later while practicing law, he realized his mistake but did not sign in the roll. In 2005, he could not provide his roll number for legal training. He petitioned to sign in the roll in 2012. The court ruled against Medado, finding that while an initial mistake was made, continuing the unauthorized practice of law for years was a willful violation of professional ethics. As penalty, Medado must wait one year to sign the roll and pay a fine of 32,000 pesos.

    Original Description:

    bar maTTER

    Original Title

    5. In re Medado, B.M. No. 2540, Sept. 4, 2013

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Michael A. Medado graduated from law school in 1979 and passed the bar exam that year. In 1980, he took the Attorney's Oath but failed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys due to misplacing the notice. Years later while practicing law, he realized his mistake but did not sign in the roll. In 2005, he could not provide his roll number for legal training. He petitioned to sign in the roll in 2012. The court ruled against Medado, finding that while an initial mistake was made, continuing the unauthorized practice of law for years was a willful violation of professional ethics. As penalty, Medado must wait one year to sign the roll and pay a fine of 32,000 pesos.

    Copyright:

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

    in Re Medado, B.M. No. 2540, Sept. 4, 2013

    Uploaded by

    honeydolphin325
    Michael A. Medado graduated from law school in 1979 and passed the bar exam that year. In 1980, he took the Attorney's Oath but failed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys due to misplacing the notice. Years later while practicing law, he realized his mistake but did not sign in the roll. In 2005, he could not provide his roll number for legal training. He petitioned to sign in the roll in 2012. The court ruled against Medado, finding that while an initial mistake was made, continuing the unauthorized practice of law for years was a willful violation of professional ethics. As penalty, Medado must wait one year to sign the roll and pay a fine of 32,000 pesos.

    Copyright:

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

    IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS MICHAEL A. MEDADO, PETITIONER.

    TOPIC: FIDELITY | Practice of Law | CANON - 9

    [ Practice of Law is not a right but a privilege…]

    FACTS:

    Michael A. Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with the degree of Bachelor of Laws
    in 1979 and passed the same year's bar examinations with a general weighted average of 82.7. On 7 May
    1980, he took the Attorney’s Oath at the PICC and was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13
    May 1980 but failed to do so allegedly because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys.
    Several years later, while rummaging through his things, he found said Notice. He then realized that he
    had not signed in the roll, and that what he had signed at the entrance of the PICC was probably just an
    attendance record.

    By the time Medado found the notice, he was already working. He stated that he was mainly doing
    corporate and taxation work, and that he was not actively involved in litigation practice. Thus, he operated
    under the mistaken belief that since he had already taken the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys
    was not as urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer and the matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys
    lost its urgency and compulsion and was subsequently forgotten."

    In 2005, when Medado attended MCLE seminars, he was required to provide his roll number for his MCLE
    compliances to be credited. Not having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to provide his roll
    number.

    About seven years later, or on 6 February 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition, praying that he be
    allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. He justifies this lapse by characterizing his acts as “neither willful
    nor intentional but based on a mistaken belief and an honest error of judgment.

    The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the instant petition be denied for petitioner’s gross
    negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit, saying that petitioner could offer no valid justification
    for his negligence in signing in the Roll of Attorneys.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the contention of Medado that he practiced law under honest mistake of fact is tenable
    and not violative of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

    RULING:

    No.

    While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal consequences of his acts2
    as it negates malice or evil motive, a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because
    everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences. Ignorantia factiexcusat; ignorantia legis
    neminem excusat.
    Applying these principles to the case at bar, Medado may have at first operated under an honest mistake
    of fact when he thought that what he had signed at the PICC entrance before the oath-taking was already
    the Roll of Attorneys. However, the moment he realized that what he had signed was merely an attendance
    record, he could no longer claim an honest mistake of fact as a valid justification. At that point, Medado
    should have known that he was not a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar because of his failure to
    sign in the Roll of Attorneys, as it was the act of signing therein that would have made him so. When, in
    spite of this knowledge, he chose to continue practicing law without taking the necessary steps to
    complete all the requirements for admission to the Bar, he willfully engaged in the unauthorized practice
    of law.

    Under the Rules of Court, the unauthorized practice of law by one’s assuming to be an attorney or officer
    of the court, and acting as such without authority, may constitute indirect contempt of court, which is
    punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. Such a finding, however, is in the nature of criminal contempt
    and must be reached after the filing of charges and the conduct of hearings. In this case, while it appears
    quite clearly that petitioner committed indirect contempt of court by knowingly engaging in unauthorized
    practice of law, we refrain from making any finding of liability for indirect contempt, as no formal charge
    pertaining thereto has been filed against him.

    Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgresses Canon 9 of 'the Code of
    Professional Responsibility, which provides:

    CANON 9 -A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.

    While a reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit lawyers from assisting in the unauthorized practice
    of law, the unauthorized practice of law by the lawyer himself is subsumed under this provision, because
    at the heart of Canon 9 is the lawyer's duty to prevent the unauthorized practice of law. This duty likewise
    applies to law students and Bar candidates. As aspiring members of the Bar, they are bound to comport
    themselves in accordance with the ethical standards of the legal profession.

    Turning now to the applicable penalty, previous violations of Canon 9 have warranted the penalty of
    suspension from the practice of law. As Medado is not yet a full-fledged lawyer, we cannot suspend him
    from the practice of law. However, we see it fit to impose upon him a penalty akin to suspension by
    allowing him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of this Resolution. For his
    transgression of the prohibition against the unauthorized practice of law, we likewise see it fit to fine him
    in the amount of ₱32,000. During the one year period, petitioner is warned that he is not allowed to
    engage in the practice of law, and is sternly warned that doing any act that constitutes practice of law
    before he has signed in the Roll of Attorneys will be dealt with severely by this Court.

    You might also like