A.M. SDC-97-2-P
February 24, 1997
Doctrine
Members of the Shari’a Bar cannot be called an “attorney”, unless they are also members of the Philippine Bar.
Facts
Petitioner is a sales representative of EB Villarosa & Partners Co. Ltd while respondent is an incumbent executive clerk of court of the 4th Judicial Shari’a District in Marawi City. It appears that both entered into a contract to purchase on installments a housing unit belonging to EB Villarosa & Partners Co. With this, a housing loan was granted to Alauya by the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation.
Afterwards, Alauya sent a series of letters addressed to the president and vice-president of the Villarosa Company and to the NHMFC asking for termination of his contract with the company. He alleged that his consent was vitiated by gross misrepresentation, deceit, fraud, dishonesty and abuse of confidence by Alawi t which made said contract void ab initio. Said sales agent acting in bad faith perpetrated such illegal and unauthorized acts which made said contract an Onerous Contract prejudicial to the rights and interests of herein respondent.
Upon knowledge of the series of letters, Alawi filed a complaint accusing Alauya of imputation of malicious and libelous charges with no solid grounds through manifest ignorance and evident bad faith which caused undue injury to, and blemishing her honor and established reputation; unauthorized enjoyment of the privilege of free postage; and usurpation of the title of “attorney,” which only regular members of the Philippine Bar may properly use.
On the other hand, Alauya justified the use of the title attorney by the assertion that it is synonymous with “Counsellors-at-law,” a title to which Shari’a lawyers are entitled to. Additionally, he said that he prefers the title of “attorney” because “counsellor” is often mistaken for “councilor,” “konsehal or the Maranao term “consial,” connoting a local legislator beholden to the mayor. Withal, he does not consider himself a lawyer.
Issue
Whether or not Alauya’s use of the title “attorney” is proper?
Held
No. The Supreme Court held that the title “attorney” is reserved only for those who have a degree in the study of law, passed the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and remain members thereof. It is only those who have met the aforementioned criteria are allowed to practice law in the Philippines. On the other hand, those who are member of the Shari’a Bar are not full-fledged members of the Philippine Bar, hence, can only practice law in the Shari’a Courts. Moreover, those who are members in the Philippine Bar and in the Shari’a Bar are called counsellors but only the former can be called an attorney.
In the case at bar, Alauya is not a member of the Philippine Bar but only of the Shari’a Bar which follows that he cannot used the title attorney and he can only practice law in the Shari’a courts.