Re: Elmo Abad Bar Matter No. 139, March 28, 1983

Re: Elmo Abad

Bar Matter No. 139, March 28, 1983


FACTS The case emerged when Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr., representing the Philippine Trial Lawyers Association, Inc., accused Mr. Elmo S. Abad of practicing law without the official admission to the Philippine Bar. On July 23, 1979, Elmo S. Abad, having passed the 1978 Bar Exam, proceeded to fulfill certain prerequisites believed to be leading to his official induction into the Philippine Bar. This included paying the Bar Admission Fee, Certification Fee, and Membership Dues for the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Abad was scheduled for his oath-taking on July 26, 1979. However, this was unexpectedly suspended when Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando required his response to an unrelated complaint, delaying his formal admission. Between 1979 and 1981, under the impression of being a bar member in good standing despite not having taken the official oath nor signed the Roll of Attorneys, Abad participated in legal practice. He continued paying membership dues and professional tax receipts, with his name appearing in official Integrated Bar records even as a qualified voter for their elections. Whether Mr. Elmo S. Abad’s actions, under the belief of being a member of the Philippine Bar without having fulfilled all requisites, constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.


RULING Yes, because there is necessity of taking the lawyer’s oath before the Supreme Court and signing in the Roll of Attorneys before being admitted to the practice of law.


Under the Law, Practicing law is a privilege accompanied by stringent procedural and ethical standards. Thus, Essential steps include passing the bar examination, taking the lawyer’s oath, and signing the Roll of Attorneys. It underscores the principle that legal practice is a privilege that requires strict compliance with procedural and ethical standards set forth by the legal system.


Here, the Philippine Supreme Court adjudged that Elmo S. Abad’s assumption of the status of a lawyer without completing the essential steps mandated by the Court (taking the lawyer’s oath and signing the Roll of Attorneys) indeed constituted unauthorized practice of law. This misapprehension and subsequent actions amounted to contempt of court, leading to a fine imposed on Abad of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00), with an alternative sentence of twenty- five (25) days imprisonment upon failure to pay the fine within the stipulated time.








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