Scribd
Upload
76 views2 pages

Aguirre v. Rana: Unauthorized Law Practice

Respondent Edwin L. Rana passed the 2000 Bar Examinations but before taking his oath, a complaint was filed against him for unauthorized practice of law. The complaint alleged that Rana appeared as counsel for a mayoralty candidate in the 2001 elections and filed pleadings signed as "counsel" despite not being a lawyer. Rana admitted assisting the candidate but claimed he did not represent himself as a lawyer. However, the Court found records showing Rana appeared as counsel and signed as counsel for candidates prior to taking his oath as a lawyer. The Court ruled Rana engaged in the unauthorized practice of law before becoming a member of the Philippine Bar and denied his admission.

Uploaded by

Marjaneh Rosales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
76 views2 pages

Aguirre v. Rana: Unauthorized Law Practice

Respondent Edwin L. Rana passed the 2000 Bar Examinations but before taking his oath, a complaint was filed against him for unauthorized practice of law. The complaint alleged that Rana appeared as counsel for a mayoralty candidate in the 2001 elections and filed pleadings signed as "counsel" despite not being a lawyer. Rana admitted assisting the candidate but claimed he did not represent himself as a lawyer. However, the Court found records showing Rana appeared as counsel and signed as counsel for candidates prior to taking his oath as a lawyer. The Court ruled Rana engaged in the unauthorized practice of law before becoming a member of the Philippine Bar and denied his admission.

Uploaded by

Marjaneh Rosales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

EN BANC

B. M. No. 1036 June 10, 2003


DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, Complainant,
vs.
EDWIN L. RANA, Respondent.

FACTS OF THE CASE


Respondent Edwin L. Rana passed the 2000 Bar Examinations, before the oath-taking
complainant Donna Marie Aguirre ("complainant") 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.
he Court allowed respondent to take his oath but 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 and that respondent filed a pleading, signed and
represented himself as "counsel for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George
Bunan,". and respondent is ua secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon,
Masbate and is not allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or
administrative body.
respondent admits that Bunan sought "specific assistance" to represent him before the
MBEC but not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law." Respondent admits
signing the pleading that objected to the inclusion of certain votes in the canvassing and
explained, that he did not sign the pleading as a lawyer or represented himself as an
"attorney" in the pleading and claimed that he submitted his resignation on 11 May 2001
which was allegedly accepted on the same date. he further claims that the complaint is
politically motivated by a political vedetta and the complaint be dismissed for lack of
merit and that he be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent the respondent engaged himself in an unauthorized practice
of law before being a full-fledged lawyer.

RULING OF THE COURT:


Yes. The court agrees that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and
does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar.
Before one is admitted to the Philippine Bar, he must possess the requisite moral
integrity for membership in the legal profession. Possession of moral integrity is of
greater importance than possession of legal learning. The practice of law is a privilege
bestowed only on the morally fit. A bar candidate who is morally unfit cannot practice
law even if he passes the bar examinations.
records show that respondent appeared as counsel for Bunan prior to 22 May 2001,
before respondent took the lawyer’s oath. He also filed and signed as "counsel for
George Bunan." In the first paragraph of the same pleading respondent stated that he
was the "(U)ndersigned Counsel for, and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate,
GEORGE T. BUNAN." Bunan himself wrote the MBEC on 14 May 2001 that he had
"authorized Atty. Edwin L. Rana as his counsel to represent him" and
mayoralty candidate Emily Estipona-Hao also "retained" respondent as her counsel.
informed the MBEC that "Atty. Edwin L. Rana has been authorized by REFORMA LM-
PPC as the legal counsel of the party and the candidate of the said party." Respondent
himself wrote that he was entering his "appearance as counsel for Mayoralty Candidate
Emily Estipona-Hao and for the REFORMA LM-PPC." respondent signed as counsel for
Estipona-Hao in the petition filed before the MBEC praying for the proclamation of
Estipona-Hao as the winning candidate.
All these happened even before respondent took the lawyer’s oath. Clearly, respondent
engaged in the practice of law without being a member of the Philippine Bar.
the evidence does not support the charge that respondent acted as counsel for a client
while serving as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan.
On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, evidence shows that Bunan
indeed authorized respondent to represent him as his counsel before the MBEC and
similar bodies. While there was no misrepresentation, respondent nonetheless had no
authority to practice law.
WHEREFORE, respondent Edwin L. Rana is DENIED admission to the Philippine Bar.

You might also like