Medado (Digest)

IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF
ATTORNEYS MICHAEL A. MEDADO, PETITIONER.

(DIGEST)
B.M. No. 2540
September 24, 2013
TOPIC:
Admission to the Bar, Unauthorized Practice of Law,
Canon 9, Signing of the Roll of Attorneys
FACTS:
Michael A. Medado passed the Philippine bar exams in
1979. On 7 May 1980, he took the Attorney’s Oath at
the PICC. He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys on 13 May 1980, but failed to do so allegedly
because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of
Attorneys. Several years later, while rummaging
through his things, he found said Notice. He then
realized that he had not signed in the roll, and that what
he had signed at the entrance of the PICC was probably
just an attendance record.
He thought that since he already took the oath, the

signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not as important.
The matter of signing in the Roll of Attorneys was
subsequently forgotten.
In 2005, when Medado attended MCLE seminars, he

was required to provide his roll number for his MCLE
compliances to be credited. Not having signed in the
Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to provide his roll
number.
About seven years later, in 2012, Medado filed the
instant Petition, praying that he be allowed to sign in
the Roll of Attorneys. Medado justifies this lapse by
characterizing his acts as “neither willful nor intentional
but based on a mistaken belief and an honest error of
judgment.
The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the

instant petition be denied for petitioner’s gross
negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit,
saying that petitioner could offer no valid justification
for his negligence in signing in the Roll of Attorneys.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner may be allowed to sign the
Roll of Attorneys.
RULING:
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition subject to
the payment of a fine and the imposition of a penalty
equivalent to suspension from the practice of law.
Not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys

would be akin to imposing upon him the ultimate
penalty of disbarment, a penalty reserved for the most
serious ethical transgressions. In this case, said action
is not warranted.
The Court considered Medado’s demonstration of good

faith in filing the petition himself, albeit after the
passage of more than 30 years; that he has shown that
he possesses the character required to be a member of
the Philippine Bar; and that he appears to have been a
competent and able legal practitioner, having held
various positions at different firms and companies.
However, Medado is not free from all liability for his

years of inaction.
A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful

justification, because everyone is presumed to know the
law and its consequences.
Medado may have at first operated under an honest

mistake of fact when he thought that what he had
signed at the PICC entrance before the oath-taking was
already the Roll of Attorneys. However, the moment he
realized that what he had signed was just an
attendance record, he could no longer claim an honest
mistake of fact as a valid justification. At that point, he
should have known that he was not a full-fledged
member of the Philippine Bar, as it was the act of
signing therein that would have made him so. When, in
spite of this knowledge, he chose to continue practicing
law, he willfully engaged in the unauthorized practice of
law.
Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law

likewise transgresses Canon 9 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. At the heart of Canon 9 is
the lawyer’s duty to prevent the unauthorized practice
of law. This duty likewise applies to law students and
Bar candidates. As aspiring members of the Bar, they
are bound to conduct themselves in accordance with
the ethical standards of the legal profession.
Medado cannot be suspended as he is not yet a full-
fledged lawyer. However, the Court imposed upon him a
penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign in
the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of the
Resolution. He was also made to pay a fine of P32,000.
Also, during the one-year period, petitioner was not
allowed to engage in the practice of law.

Medado (Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Medado (Digest)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Medado (Digest)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF

ATTORNEYS MICHAEL A. MEDADO, PETITIONER.

September 24, 2013

He thought that since he already took the oath, the

In 2005, when Medado attended MCLE seminars, he

The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the

Not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys

The Court considered Medado’s demonstration of good

However, Medado is not free from all liability for his

A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful

Medado may have at first operated under an honest

Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law

You might also like