EN BANC
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO B.M. No. 1678
RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW,
BENJAMIN M. DACANAY,
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,*
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO, JR.
NACHURA,
REYES
and
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ.
Promulgated:
December 17, 2007
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
CORONA, J.:
This bar matter concerns the petition
of petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay for leave to resume the practice of law.
Petitioner
was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced law until he migrated to Canada
in December 1998 to seek medical attention for his ailments. He subsequently applied
for Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada’s free medical aid program. His
application was approved and he became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.
On July 14, 2006, pursuant to Republic
Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003),
petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship.[1] On that
day, he took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine
Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. Thereafter, he returned to the
Philippines and now intends to resume his law practice. There is a question,
however, whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in the
Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine citizenship in May 2004. Thus, this petition.
In
a report dated October 16, 2007, the Office of the Bar Confidant cites Section 2, Rule 138 (Attorneys and
Admission to Bar) of the Rules of Court:
SECTION
2. Requirements for all applicants for
admission to the bar. – Every applicant for admission as a member of the
bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of
age, of good moral character, and a resident of the Philippines; and must
produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character,
and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or
are pending in any court in the Philippines.
Applying the provision, the Office of
the Bar Confidant opines that, by virtue of his reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship, in 2006, petitioner has again met all the qualifications and has none
of the disqualifications for membership in the bar. It recommends that he be
allowed to resume the practice of law in the Philippines, conditioned on his
retaking the lawyer’s oath to remind him of his duties and responsibilities as
a member of the Philippine bar.
We
approve the recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant with certain
modifications.
The practice of law is a privilege
burdened with conditions.[2] It is so
delicately affected with public interest that it is both a power and a duty of
the State (through this Court) to control and regulate it in order to protect
and promote the public welfare.[3]
Adherence to rigid
standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality,
faithful observance of the rules of the legal profession, compliance with the
mandatory continuing legal education requirement and payment of membership fees
to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for
membership in good standing in the bar and for enjoying the privilege to
practice law. Any breach by a lawyer of any of these conditions makes him
unworthy of the trust and confidence which the courts and clients repose in him
for the continued exercise of his professional privilege.[4]
Section 1, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court provides:
SECTION
1. Who may practice law. – Any person
heretofore duly admitted as a member of the bar, or thereafter admitted as such
in accordance with the provisions of this Rule, and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law.
Pursuant thereto, any person admitted
as a member of the Philippine bar in accordance with the statutory requirements
and who is in good and regular standing is entitled to practice law.
Admission to the bar requires certain
qualifications. The Rules of Court mandates that an applicant for admission to
the bar be a citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-one years of age, of
good moral character and a resident of the Philippines.[5] He must
also produce before this Court satisfactory evidence of good moral character
and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have been filed or
are pending in any court in the Philippines.[6]
Moreover, admission to the bar involves
various phases such as furnishing satisfactory proof of educational, moral and
other qualifications;[7] passing
the bar examinations;[8] taking
the lawyer’s oath[9] and
signing the roll of attorneys and receiving from the clerk of court of this
Court a certificate of the license to practice.[10]
The second requisite for the practice
of law ― membership in good standing ― is a continuing requirement.
This means continued membership and, concomitantly, payment of annual
membership dues in the IBP;[11] payment
of the annual professional tax;[12] compliance
with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement;[13]
faithful observance of the rules and ethics of the legal profession and being
continually subject to judicial disciplinary control.[14]
Given
the foregoing, may a lawyer who has lost his Filipino citizenship still
practice law in the Philippines? No.
The Constitution provides that the
practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino
citizens save in cases prescribed by law.[15] Since Filipino
citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates membership
in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the
practice of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to
practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege denied to
foreigners.[16]
The exception is when Filipino
citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of another country
but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is because “all
Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine
citizenship under the conditions of [RA 9225].”[17] Therefore,
a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to
have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with
RA 9225. Although he is also deemed never
to have terminated his membership in the Philippine bar, no automatic right to
resume law practice accrues.
Under RA 9225, if a person intends to
practice the legal profession in the Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino
citizenship pursuant to its provisions “(he) shall apply with the proper
authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice.”[18] Stated
otherwise, before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA
9225 can resume his law practice, he must first secure from this Court the
authority to do so, conditioned on:
(a) the updating and payment in full of the annual
membership dues in the IBP;
(b) the payment of professional tax;
(c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours
of mandatory continuing legal education; this is specially significant to
refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws and update him
of legal developments and
(d) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which
will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as
an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines.
Compliance with these conditions will
restore his good standing as a member of the Philippine bar.
WHEREFORE, the
petition of Attorney Benjamin M. Dacanay is hereby GRANTED, subject to compliance with the conditions stated above and
submission of proof of such compliance to the Bar Confidant, after which he may
retake his oath as a member of the Philippine bar.
SO
ORDERED.
Associate Justice
W E C O N C U R:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
(On
Leave)
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice |
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice
|
|
MA. ALICIA M.
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO
Associate Justice
* On Leave.
[1] As evidence thereof, he submitted a copy of his Identification Certificate No. 07-16912 duly signed by Immigration Commissioner Marcelino C. Libanan.
[2] In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Deliquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edillon, A.C. No. 1928, 19 December 1980, 101 SCRA 612.
[3] Heck v. Santos, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657, 23 February 2004, 423 SCRA 329.
[4] In re Atty. Marcial Edillon, A.C. No. 1928, 03 August 1978, 84 SCRA 554.
[5] Section 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court.
[6] Id.
[7] Sections 2, 5 and 6, id.
[8] Sections 8 to 11 and 14, id.
[9] Section 17, id.
[10] Sections 18 and 19, id.
[11] In re Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, 09 January 1973, 49 SCRA 22; In re Atty. Marcial Edillon, supra note 3.
[12] Section 139, RA 7160.
[13] Resolution dated August 8, 2000 in Bar Matter No. 850 (Rules on Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for Members of the IBP).
[14] Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions v. Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Co., G.R. No. L-23959, 29 November 1971, 42 SCRA 302.
[15] See last paragraph of Section 14, Article XII.
[16] In re Bosque, 1 Phil. 88 (1902).
[17] Section 2, RA 9225. Emphasis supplied.
[18] Section 5(4), id.