Source: http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/56240
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:05:59+00:00

Document:
IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS MICHAEL A. MEDADO, PETITIONER.
We resolve the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys filed by petitioner Michael A. Medado (Medado).
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 Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) together with the successful bar examinees. He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980, but he failed to do so on his scheduled date, allegedly because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys given by the Bar Office when he went home to his province for a vacation.
Several years later, while rummaging through his old college files, Medado found the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. It was then that he 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.
In 2005, when Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars, he was required to provide his roll number in order 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.
The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) conducted a clarificatory conference on the matter on 21 September 2012 and submitted a Report and Recommendation to this Court on 4 February 2013. The OBC recommended that the instant petition be denied for petitioner’s gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit. It explained that, based on his answers during the clarificatory conference, petitioner could offer no valid justification for his negligence in signing in the Roll of Attorneys.
After a judicious review of the records, we grant Medado’s prayer in the instant petition, subject to the payment of a fine and the imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of law.
At the outset, we note that not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys would be akin to imposing upon him the ultimate penalty of disbarment, a penalty that we have reserved for the most serious ethical transgressions of members of the Bar.
In this case, the records do not show that this action is warranted.
Mahirap hong i-explain yan pero, yun bang at the time, what can you say? Takot ka kung anong mangyayari sa ‘yo, you don’t know what’s gonna happen. At the same time, it’s a combination of apprehension and anxiety of what’s gonna happen. And, finally it’s the right thing to do. I have to come here … sign the roll and take the oath as necessary.
For another, petitioner has not been subject to any action for disqualification from the practice of law, which is more than what we can say of other individuals who were successfully admitted as members of the Philippine Bar. For this Court, this fact demonstrates that petitioner strove to adhere to the strict requirements of the ethics of the profession, and that he has prima facie shown that he possesses the character required to be a member of the Philippine Bar.
Finally, Medado appears to have been a competent and able legal practitioner, having held various positions at the Laurel Law Office, Petron, Petrophil Corporation, the Philippine National Oil Company, and the Energy Development Corporation.
All these demonstrate Medado’s worth to become a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar. While the practice of law is not a right but a privilege, this Court will not unwarrantedly withhold this privilege from individuals who have shown mental fitness and moral fiber to withstand the rigors of the profession.
That said, however, we cannot fully exculpate petitioner Medado from all liability for his years of inaction.
While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal consequences of his acts 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 facti excusat; 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.
CANON 9 – A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
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 P32,000. 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.
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys is hereby GRANTED. Petitioner Michael A. Medado is ALLOWED to sign in the Roll of Attorneys ONE (1) YEAR after receipt of this Resolution. Petitioner is likewise ORDERED to pay a FINE of P32,000 for his unauthorized practice of law. During the one year period, petitioner is NOT ALLOWED to practice 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.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo, Abad, Perez, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
 Rollo, p. 1; Petition dated 6 February 2012.
 Id. at 20; TSN, 21 September 2012.
 Id. at 35-43; Report and Recommendation of the OBC dated 24 January 2013.
 Rollo, p. 28; Report and Recommendation of the OBC dated 24 January 2013.
 Id. at 3; Petition dated 6 February 2012.
 Id. at 22; TSN, 21 September 2012, p. 3.
 Id. at 34; id. at 15.
 Barcenas v. Alvero, A.C. No. 8159, 23 April 2010, 619 SCRA 1, 11.
 Rollo, p. 35; TSN, 21 September 2012, p. 16.
 Wooden v. Civil Service Commission, 508 Phil. 500, 515 (2005).
 Manuel v. People, 512 Phil. 818, 836 (2005).
 Aguirre v. Rana, 451 Phil. 428, 435 (2003).
 RULES OF COURT, Rule 71, Sec. 3(e).
 Tan v. Balajadia, 519 Phil. 632 (2006).
 RULES OF COURT, Rule 71, Sec. 3.
 See Tapay v. Bancolo, A.C. No. 9604, 20 March 2013; Noe-Lacsamana v. Busmente, A.C. No. 7269, 23 November 2011, 661 SCRA 1; and Cambaliza v. Cristal-Tenorio, 478 Phil. 378 (2004).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.