Beltran Vs Abad

Beltran vs Abad
FACTS:
Respondent Elmo S. Abad (“Abad”) was a successful examinee of the 1978 bar examinations
but was held in contempt of court for unauthorized practice of law for not taking the lawyer’s oath
and signing the roll of attorneys. He was fined to pay PhP 5,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in
case he failed to pay such through a court’s decision dated March 28, 1983, the respondent was able
to pay the fine.
Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr. (Atty. Beltran”), the complainant herein, file a MOTION TO
CIRCULARIZE TO ALL METRO MANILA COURTS THE FACT THAT ELMO S. ABAD IS NOT
AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE LAW on May 5, 1983, due to respondent’s alleged continous practice of
law even after the court decision. Abad denied the allegations. Because the motion and the
Opposition raised a question of fact, the court issued a resolution dated April 10, 1984, directing the
Clerk of Court to conduct an investigation in the premises and submit a report with appropriate
recommendation. According to the report, the documentary and testimonial evidence made by the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) proved that respondent is still practicing law despite the
court’s decision and its recommendations to:
a. impose a fine of PhP 2,000 payable within ten (10) days from receipt of this resolution
or an imprisonment of twenty (20) days in case of non-payment thereof, with warning of
drastic disciplinary action of imprisonment in case of any further practice of law after receipt of
this resolution; and
b. debarred from admission to the Philippine Bar until such time that the Court finds
him fit to become such a member.
Part of the recommendation is to issue a circular to all courts in the Philippines through the
Office of the Court Administrator that respondent Elmo S. Abad has not been admitted to the
Philippine Bar and is therefor not authorized to practice law.
The report has found that, over the denials of the respondent undre oath, he signed Exhibits B,
C, and D, and that he made appearances in Metro Manila Courts. This opens a charge of perjury.
Moreover, the report also says that Atty. Ruben A. Jacobe collaborated with the respondent as
counsels for Antonio S. Maravilla one of the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 26084, 26085 and 26086
of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. (Exhibit D.) Atty. Jacobe should be called to account for
his association with the respondent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Abad can engage in practice of law.
RULING:
No. The respondent cannot engage in the practice of law.
The bar examinee who succesfully passed the bar examination cannot practice law yet and is
not considered a member of the bar until he has taken his oath and signed the roll of attorneys which
are the essential requisites of becoming a lawyer as stated in Rule 138, Secs. 17 and 19, Rules of
Court.
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to
persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The
exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment
and even public trust, since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the
right to practice law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that
can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission
had practiced law without license.
The actuations of respondent as shown from the foregoing constitute a violation of Rule 71 of
the Rules of Court, SEC. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing, “(e) Assuming
to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without authority”, which should be
punished more severely considering his temerity in still continuing the practice of law despite the
decision of March 28, 1983.
The court ruled that respondent be debarred from admission to the Philippine Bar until such
time that the Court finds him fit to become such a member with a fine of P2,000.00 payable within
ten (10) days from receipt of this resolution or an imprisonment of twenty (20) days in case of non-
payment thereof, with warning of drastic disciplinary action of imprisonment in case of any further
practice of law after receipt of this resolution.
It is further recommended that a circular be issued to all courts in the Philippines through the
Office of the Court Administrator that respondent Elmo S. Abad has not been admitted to the
Philippine Bar, and is therefore not authorized to practice law.
So ordered.
NATURE:
A complaint for continuous unauthorized practice of law despite court decision. (GUILTY, The
respondent is debarred from admission to the Philippine Bar until the Court finds him fit to become
such a member and a fine of PhP 2,000 payable within ten (10) days or imprisonment of twenty (20)
days in case of non-payment thereof.)

Beltran Vs Abad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beltran Vs Abad

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

Beltran Vs Abad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beltran vs Abad

You might also like