In Re: Medado

A bar examinee who passes the bar examinations and takes the Attorney's Oath but fails to sign the Roll of Attorneys is not a full-fledged lawyer; while an initial honest mistake of fact may excuse the delay, continued practice of law after discovering the omission constitutes unauthorized practice of law punishable by penalties including fines and suspension; however, the Court may allow the petitioner to sign the Roll subject to appropriate penalties considering good moral character and competence demonstrated during the period of unauthorized practice.

Michael A. Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines College of Law in 1979 and passed the same year's Bar Examinations with a general weighted average of 82.7. On May 7, 1980, he took the Attorney's Oath at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) along with other successful bar examinees. He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on May 13, 1980, but failed to appear, allegedly because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys while on vacation in his province. Years later, while rummaging through old files, he found the Notice and realized he had not signed the Roll, having mistakenly believed that the attendance record he signed at the PICC entrance constituted the official Roll of Attorneys. Despite this realization, he continued practicing law for over 30 years, mainly in corporate and taxation work, under the mistaken belief that taking the oath was sufficient to confer full membership in the Bar.

• Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with a Bachelor of Laws degree in 1979 and passed the 1979 Bar Examinations with a general weighted average of 82.7.
• On May 7, 1980, he took the Attorney's Oath at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) with other successful bar examinees.
• He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on May 13, 1980, but failed to do so after misplacing the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys while on vacation in his province.
• Several years later, he discovered the Notice while rummaging through old college files and realized he had only signed an attendance record at the PICC entrance, not the official Roll of Attorneys.
• Despite this realization, he continued practicing law for over 30 years, working in corporate and taxation law, under the mistaken belief that taking the oath was sufficient for membership in the Bar.
• In 2005, during Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars, he was required to provide his roll number but could not do so as he had never signed the Roll.
• On February 6, 2012, he filed the instant Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys, acknowledging his lapse after more than 30 years.
• During his unauthorized practice, he held various positions at the Laurel Law Office, Petron, Petrophil Corporation, the Philippine National Oil Company, and the Energy Development Corporation.
• He has no record of any disciplinary action or disqualification from the practice of law.

• Medado argued that his failure to sign was neither willful nor intentional but based on an honest mistake of fact and honest error of judgment, believing that the attendance record he signed at the PICC entrance was the Roll of Attorneys.
• He contended that he operated under the mistaken belief that signing the Roll was not urgent or crucial to his status as a lawyer since he had already taken the oath.
• He emphasized that he demonstrated good faith and good moral character by voluntarily filing the petition himself rather than waiting for a third party to expose his omission.
• He highlighted his 30 years of competent legal practice in corporate and taxation work without any disciplinary actions against him as proof of his moral fitness and competence.
• He maintained that denying his petition would amount to disbarment, a penalty reserved for the most serious ethical transgressions, which he argued was not warranted in his case.

• The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) recommended denial of the petition, citing petitioner's gross negligence, gross misconduct, and utter lack of merit.
• The OBC found that Medado could offer no valid justification for his negligence in failing to sign the Roll of Attorneys for over 30 years.
• It emphasized that the petitioner engaged in unauthorized practice of law for three decades, which constitutes a serious violation of legal ethics and procedural requirements.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether petitioner may be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys despite the passage of more than 30 years from his scheduled signing date.
  • Whether petitioner's continued practice of law after discovering that he had not signed the Roll constitutes unauthorized practice of law.
  • What penalty should be imposed for petitioner's unauthorized practice of law.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Supreme Court granted the petition, allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of the Resolution, imposing a penalty akin to suspension since he cannot be suspended as he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer.
  • The Court found that while Medado may have initially operated under an honest mistake of fact regarding the signing requirement, he could no longer claim such excuse once he discovered the truth; his continued practice thereafter constituted willful unauthorized practice of law.
  • The Court imposed a fine of P32,000 for unauthorized practice of law and prohibited him from practicing law during the one-year period before signing the Roll.
  • The Court noted that denying the petition would be akin to disbarment, which is reserved for the most serious ethical transgressions, and found that Medado's demonstrated competence, lack of disciplinary record, and voluntary disclosure supported granting the petition despite the violation.

• Ignorantia facti excusat; ignorantia legis neminem excusat — Ignorance of fact excuses, but ignorance of the law excuses no one. The Court applied this maxim to distinguish between Medado's initial honest mistake of fact (believing he had signed the Roll) and his subsequent mistake of law (continuing to practice after discovering the omission), holding that the latter could not excuse his unauthorized practice.
• Unauthorized Practice of Law — The act of assuming to be an attorney or officer of the court and acting as such without authority, which may constitute indirect contempt of court. The Court found that Medado engaged in unauthorized practice when he continued to practice law after realizing he had not signed the Roll.
• Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — While literally prohibiting lawyers from assisting in unauthorized practice, the Court held that this Canon subsumes the prohibition against a lawyer's own unauthorized practice, as it embodies the duty to prevent unauthorized practice of law, a duty that extends to law students and Bar candidates.

• "Ignorantia facti excusat; ignorantia legis neminem excusat."
• "While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal consequences of his acts as it negates malice or evil motive, a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences."
• "While the practice of law is not a right but a privilege, this Court will not unwarrantedly withhold this privilege from individuals who have shown mental fitness and moral fiber to withstand the rigors of the profession."
• "Mahirap hong i-explain yan pero, yun bang at the time, what can you say? Takot ka kung anong mangyayari sa 'yo, you don't know what's gonna happen. At the same time, it's a combination of apprehension and anxiety of what's gonna happen. And, finally it's the right thing to do. I have to come here … sign the roll and take the oath as necessary." (Medado's testimony during clarificatory conference)

• Barcenas v. Alvero — Cited for the principle that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege.
• Wooden v. Civil Service Commission — Cited for the rule that honest mistake of fact negates malice or evil motive.
• Manuel v. People — Cited to distinguish between honest mistake of fact and mistake of law.
• Aguirre v. Rana — Cited for the principle that signing in the Roll of Attorneys is the act that makes one a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar.
• Tan v. Balajadia — Cited regarding indirect contempt of court for unauthorized practice of law.
• Tapay v. Bancolo, Noe-Lacsamana v. Busmente, and Cambaliza v. Cristal-Tenorio — Cited as precedents showing that violations of Canon 9 warrant suspension from the practice of law.

• Rules of Court, Rule 71, Section 3(e) — Provides that assuming to be an attorney or officer of court and acting as such without authority constitutes indirect contempt.
• Rules of Court, Rule 71, Section 3 — Cited regarding the procedure for indirect contempt requiring filing of charges and conduct of hearings.
• Canon 9, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not assist in the unauthorized practice of law, which the Court interpreted to include a prohibition against a lawyer's own unauthorized practice.