B.M. No. 2540
September 24, 2013
Facts
In 1979, Petitioner Medado is a graduate of Bachelor of Laws from the University of the Philippines and successfully passed the bar examinations. He took the lawyer’s oath but had failed to sign the Roll of Attorneys. Hence, this petition.
Medado prayed that he be allowed to sign the roll of attorneys. Moreover, he contended that he failed to sign the Roll of Attorneys because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys which he only found several years later upon rummaging to his old school files and when he was already working. It was only that time that he realized that he did not sign the Roll of Attorneys and that which he had sign at the entrance of the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) was simply an attendance record. Hence, he justifies his failure to sign the Roll of Attorneys as “neither willful nor intentional but based on a mistaken belief and an honest error of judgement.”
The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the petition be denied on the grounds of the petitioner’s gross negligence, gross misconduct, and utter lack of merit since petitioner could not offer a valid justification for his negligence in signing in the Roll of Attorneys.
Issue
Whether or not Medado engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when he engaged in the practice of law for 30 years without signing the Roll of Attorneys?
Held
Yes. The law provides that ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith, which follows that mistake of the law is not a lawful justification since everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences.
In the case at bar, Medado engaged in the unauthorize practice of law when he failed to sign the Roll of Attorneys. While he may have first operated under a mistake of fact when he thought he had signed the Roll of Attorneys at the PICC entrance, the moment he realized that he had signed merely an attendance records suggests that he could no longer claim a mistake of fact as a valid justification. At that moment, petitioner already knows that he is not a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar. Despite of his knowledge, he still continued to practice law without taking necessary steps to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
Therefore, petitioner willfully engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.