Dacanay vs. Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law

A lawyer who lost Philippine citizenship through naturalization in another country but reacquired it pursuant to RA 9225 is deemed never to have lost bar membership, but must secure authority from the Supreme Court and comply with specified conditions before resuming law practice.

Benjamin M. Dacanay was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960. He migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention and subsequently became a Canadian citizen in May 2004 to avail of Canada's free medical aid program. On July 14, 2006, petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 by taking his oath of allegiance before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Canada. He returned to the Philippines and sought to resume his law practice, prompting the present petition.

• Admission and Migration: Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960 and practiced law until December 1998, when he migrated to Canada for medical treatment.
• Loss of Citizenship: To avail of Canada’s free medical aid program, petitioner applied for and acquired Canadian citizenship in May 2004.
• Reacquisition of Citizenship: On July 14, 2006, pursuant to RA 9225, petitioner took his oath of allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto, Canada, thereby reacquiring his Philippine citizenship. He submitted Identification Certificate No. 07-16912 as proof thereof.
• Intent to Resume Practice: Petitioner returned to the Philippines and filed the present petition to resume the practice of law, raising the question of whether his membership in the Philippine bar was lost when he gave up his Philippine citizenship.

• Entitlement to Resume Practice: Petitioner maintained that his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 restored his qualifications for bar membership, entitling him to resume the practice of law.

• Compliance with Qualifications: The Office of the Bar Confidant countered that by virtue of reacquiring Philippine citizenship, petitioner had again met all the qualifications and possessed none of the disqualifications for bar membership under Section 2, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
• Conditional Resumption: The Office of the Bar Confidant argued that petitioner should be allowed to resume practice, provided he retakes the lawyer’s oath to remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a member of the Philippine bar.

• Effect of Loss of citizenship on bar membership: Whether a lawyer who lost Filipino citizenship may still practice law in the Philippines.
• Automatic resumption of practice under RA 9225: Whether a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship under RA 9225 automatically enjoys the right to resume law practice.

• Effect of loss of citizenship on bar membership: The privilege to practice law is ipso jure terminated upon loss of Filipino citizenship. The Constitution limits the practice of professions in the Philippines to Filipino citizens; because citizenship is a requirement for bar admission, loss thereof terminates bar membership and the corresponding privilege to practice law.
• Automatic resumption of practice under RA 9225: No automatic right to resume law practice accrues upon reacquisition of citizenship. While RA 9225 deems a naturalized Filipino as never having lost Philippine citizenship—and consequently never having terminated bar membership—Section 5(4) of RA 9225 requires an applicant to secure a license or permit from the proper authority before engaging in professional practice. Resumption is conditioned on: (a) updating and full payment of IBP annual membership dues; (b) payment of professional tax; (c) completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; and (d) retaking the lawyer’s oath.

• Citizenship as a continuing requirement for law practice — Filipino citizenship is a continuing requirement for the practice of law. Loss thereof ipso jure terminates membership in the Philippine bar and the privilege to engage in legal practice, as the Constitution limits professional practice to Filipino citizens.
• Deemed retention of bar membership under RA 9225 — A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country but subsequently reacquires Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 is deemed never to have lost Philippine citizenship and never to have terminated membership in the Philippine bar. However, the right to resume law practice is not automatic; authority must be secured from the Supreme Court subject to compliance with conditions ensuring good standing and professional competence.

• "Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines."
• "Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. Although he is also deemed never to have terminated his membership in the Philippine bar, no automatic right to resume law practice accrues."

• In re Bosque, 1 Phil. 88 (1902) — Followed. Cited for the principle that the practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners.
• In re Atty. Marcial Edillon, A.C. No. 1928 — Followed. Cited for the principle that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions and subject to judicial disciplinary control, and for the continuing requirement of IBP membership dues.

• Section 14, Article XII, 1987 Constitution — Limits the practice of all professions in the Philippines to Filipino citizens, save in cases prescribed by law. Applied to establish that loss of citizenship terminates the privilege to practice law.
• Section 2, Rule 138, Rules of Court — Requires applicants for admission to the bar to be citizens of the Philippines. Applied to determine that reacquisition of citizenship restores the petitioner's qualification for bar membership.
• Republic Act No. 9225, Sections 2 and 5(4) — Deems Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the Act's conditions; requires those intending to practice a profession to apply with the proper authority for a license or permit. Applied to justify that petitioner is deemed never to have lost bar membership but must secure authority from the Supreme Court before resuming practice.

Puno, C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes, Leonardo-de Castro, JJ.