Aguirre v. Rana

FACTS: Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. One day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar examinees as members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Aguirre filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. Complainant charged respondent with unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation. The Court allowed respondent to take his oath as a member of the Bar. However, the Court ruled that respondent could not sign the Roll of Attorneys pending the resolution of the charge against him. 

Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in the May 2001 elections before the MBEC of Mandaon, Masbate. Complainant further alleges that respondent filed with the MBEC a pleading wherein the respondent represented himself as counsel and signed the pleading as counsel for George Bunan. On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that respondent is a municipal government employee, being a secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate. As such, respondent is not allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or administrative body. On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice mayoralty candidate George Bunan without the latter engaging respondent’s services.

ISSUE: Whether respondent Rana engaged in unauthorized practice of law. YES

HELD: The Court affirmed the findings of the OBC that respondent Rana engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and therefore he cannot be admitted in the Philippine Bar. While respondent passed the Bar Examinations, and later on was allowed by the Court to take the lawyer’s oath, it was emphasized by the Court that it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. The Court held that passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law, and that respondent 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. The Court held that, having held himself out as "counsel" knowing that he had no authority to practice law, respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar. 

On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, the Court found that Bunan indeed authorized respondent to represent him as his counsel before the MBEC and similar bodies. So while there was no misrepresentation, respondent nonetheless had no authority to practice law.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, respondent Edwin L. Rana is DENIED admission to the Philippine Bar.