In re: Medado

FACTS: Medano graduated from UP in 1979 and passed the same year’s bar examinations. He took the Attorney’s Oath. He was scheduled to sign the Roll of Attorneys but he failed to do so on his scheduled date, allegedly because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys 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. 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 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. In 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition, praying that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.

ISSUE: Whether Medano’s Petition be denied for gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit. NO

HELD: Petitioner demonstrated good faith and good moral character when he finally filed the Petition. It was not a third party who called this Court’s attention to petitioner’s omission; rather, it was Medado himself who acknowledged his own lapse, albeit after the passage of more than 30 years. For another, petitioner has not been subject to any action for disqualification from the practice of law. 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.

However, the SC cannot fully exculpate petitioner Medado from all liability for his years of inaction. While it appears quite clearly that petitioner committed indirect contempt of court by knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law, the SC found no liability for indirect contempt, as no formal charge pertaining thereto has been filed against him. 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.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: 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 1 YEAR after receipt of this Resolution. Petitioner is likewise ORDERED to pay a FINE of ₱32,000 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 will be severely by this Court.