Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    Bar Matter No. 1678

    Uploaded by

    Kamille Monica Flores
    1) The petitioner, Benjamin Dacanay, was admitted to the Philippine bar in 1960 but migrated to Canada in 1998 where he became a Canadian citizen in 2004. 2) In 2006, he reacquired his Philippine citizenship under the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. 3) There is a question of whether he lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his citizenship in 2004. The Supreme Court ruled that while he is deemed to never have lost his citizenship or bar membership, he must still apply for permission to resume practice and fulfill certain conditions.

    Copyright:

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

    Bar Matter No. 1678

    Uploaded by

    Kamille Monica Flores
    33 views3 pages
    1) The petitioner, Benjamin Dacanay, was admitted to the Philippine bar in 1960 but migrated to Canada in 1998 where he became a Canadian citizen in 2004. 2) In 2006, he reacquired his Philippine citizenship under the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. 3) There is a question of whether he lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his citizenship in 2004. The Supreme Court ruled that while he is deemed to never have lost his citizenship or bar membership, he must still apply for permission to resume practice and fulfill certain conditions.

    Original Title

    2. Bar Matter No. 1678

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The petitioner, Benjamin Dacanay, was admitted to the Philippine bar in 1960 but migrated to Canada in 1998 where he became a Canadian citizen in 2004. 2) In 2006, he reacquired his Philippine citizenship under the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. 3) There is a question of whether he lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his citizenship in 2004. The Supreme Court ruled that while he is deemed to never have lost his citizenship or bar membership, he must still apply for permission to resume practice and fulfill certain conditions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    33 views3 pages

    Bar Matter No. 1678

    Uploaded by

    Kamille Monica Flores
    1) The petitioner, Benjamin Dacanay, was admitted to the Philippine bar in 1960 but migrated to Canada in 1998 where he became a Canadian citizen in 2004. 2) In 2006, he reacquired his Philippine citizenship under the Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. 3) There is a question of whether he lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his citizenship in 2004. The Supreme Court ruled that while he is deemed to never have lost his citizenship or bar membership, he must still apply for permission to resume practice and fulfill certain conditions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    B.M. No.

    1678 December 17, 2007

    PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW, BENJAMIN M.


    DACANAY, petitioner.

    RESOLUTION

    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
    oath9 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.

    You might also like