Ciocon vs Judge Lumbao, AM No. OCA IPI No. 09-3210, 2021

Ciocon vs Judge Lumbao,

AM No. OCA IPI No. 09-3210, 2021


FACTS Ciocon-Reer and others filed an administrative complaint against Judge Lubao, accusing him of gross ignorance of the law, incompetence, inefficiency, and various violations including dishonesty and misconduct. Defendants did not submit their memorandum by the expected deadline of November 6, 2008. Plaintiffs submitted their memorandum on November 10, 2008. Without receiving the registry return card, Judge Lubao sought confirmation of receipt from the Post Office in December 2008, but received no reply. On May 20, 2009, Judge Lubao gave defendants one last chance to submit their memorandum within 30 days and directed plaintiffs to assist in delivery, but the plaintiffs failed, leading to another registered mail delivery on June 17, 2009. The OCA was able to establish the pattern in Karaans unauthorized practice of law. He would require the parties to execute a special power of attorney in his favor to allow him to join them as one of the plaintiffs as their attorney-in-fact. Then, he would file the necessary complaint and other pleadings "acting for and in his own behalf and as attorney-in-fact, agent or representative" of the parties. The fact that Karaan did not indicate in the pleadings that he was a member of the Bar, or any PTR, Attorneys Roll, or MCLE Compliance Number does not detract from the fact that, by his actions, he was actually engaged in the practice of law. Whether complainant Remberto C. Karaan, Sr. was engaging in unauthorized practice of law. 


RULING Yes, because activities within and outside of courtroom requiring legal expertise qualify as practicing law and the performance of such activities without formal title or bar registration constitutes unauthorized practice of law.


As defined in Cayetano v. Monsod, activities requiring legal knowledge and skill, even without formal title or bar registration, constitute unauthorized practice of law if performed by unlicensed individuals.


Here, the Court found Karaan functioning in a legal capacity without being a licensed attorney, making him liable for unauthorized practice. He is guilty of unauthorized practice due to his repeated actions of representing and filing documents on behalf of parties through a special power of attorney. The OCA recommended that Karaan be cited for indirect contempt and be sentenced to serve an imprisonment of ten days at the Manila City Jail, and to pay a fine of ₱1,000 with a warning that a repetition of any of the offenses, or any similar or other offense against the courts, judges or court employees will merit further and more serious sanctions.







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147