December 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

B.M. No.
1678 - PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW, …DACANAY : December 2007 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions 7/29/22, 12:48 AM
Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence
December 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2007 > December 2007
Decisions > B.M. No. 1678 - PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE
OF LAW, BENJAMIN M. DACANAY:
B.M. No. 1678 - PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW,

BENJAMIN M. DACANAY
EN BANC
[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.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007decemberdecisions.php?id=1379 Page 1 of 7
B.M. No. 1678 - PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW, …DACANAY : December 2007 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions 7/29/22, 12:48 AM
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 â€• membership in good
standing â€• 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.
Puno, C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-

Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr.,
Nachura, Reyes, Leonardo-de Castro, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, J., on leave.
Endnotes:
1As evidence thereof, he submitted a copy of his Identification Certificate

No. 07-16912 duly signed by Immigration Commissioner Marcelino C.
Libanan.
2In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Deliquency of Atty. Marcial A.
Edillon, A.C. No. 1928, 19 December 1980, 101 SCRA 612.
3Heck 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.
11In 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.
13Resolution dated August 8, 2000 in Bar Matter No. 850 (Rules on

Mandatory Continuing Legal Education for Members of the IBP).
14Philippine 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.
Back to Home | Back to Main

December 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

December 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

December 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

B.M. No.

Philippine Supreme Court

B.M. No. 1678 - PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW,

[B.M. NO. 1678 : December 17, 2007]

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

Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He practiced

SECTION 2. Requirements for all applicants for admission to the bar. -

oath to remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a member of the

We approve the recommendation of the Office of the Bar Confidant with

The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions.2 It is so delicately

Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest

Section 1, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides:

Pursuant thereto, any person admitted as a member of the Philippine bar in

Admission to the bar requires certain qualifications. The Rules of Court

Moreover, admission to the bar involves various phases such as furnishing

The Constitution provides that the practice of all professions 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

Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the

(b) the payment of professional tax;

(c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing

Compliance with these conditions will restore his good standing as a

WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney Benjamin M. Dacanay is hereby

Puno, C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-

1As evidence thereof, he submitted a copy of his Identification Certificate

3Heck v. Santos, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657, 23 February 2004, 423 SCRA

5 Section 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court.

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.

11In re Integration of the Bar of the Philippines, 09 January 1973, 49

12 Section 139, RA 7160.

13Resolution dated August 8, 2000 in Bar Matter No. 850 (Rules on

14Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions v. Binalbagan Isabela

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.

Back to Home | Back to Main

You might also like