Alawi V. Alauya (digest)

ALAWI  V.  ALAUYA   AM  No.  SDC-­‐97-­‐2-­‐P  –  February  24  1997   Narvasa     SUBJECT:  Canon  9  –  Assisting  in  unauthorized  practice  of  law     FACTS:   Sophia   Alawi   was   a   sales   representative   of   EB   Villarosa   &   Partners   Co.,   Ltd   of   Davao   City,   a   real  estate  housing  company.  Ashari  M.  Alauya  is  the  incumbent  executive  clerk  of  court  of   the  4th  Judicial  Shari’a  District  in  Marawi  City.     Through  Alawi’s  agency,  a  contract  was  executed  for  the  purchase  on  installment  by  Alauya   of  one  of  the  housing  units  belonging  to  the  Villarosa  &  Co.  and  in  connection  therewith,  a   housing   loan   was   also   granted   to   Alauya   by   the   National   Home   Mortgage   Finance   Corp.   (NHMFC).  Not  long  afterwards,  Alauya  addressed  a  letter  to  the  President  of  Villarosa  &  Co.   and   to   NHMFC   advising   of   the   termination   of   his   contract   with   Villarosa   &   Co.,   as   his   consent   was   vitiated   by   gross   misrepresentation,   deceit,   fraud,   dishonesty,   and   abuse   of   confidence.   According   to   him,   he   was   induced   by   Alawi   to   sign   a   blank   contract   on   the   assurance  that  Alawi  would  show  the  completed  document  to  him  later  for  correction,  but   she  never  did.       Alawi,   in   response,   filed   a   verified   complaint   praying   that   Alauya   be   dismissed   or   disciplined,   for   the   reason,   among   other   that   he   usurped   the   title   of   attorney   which   only   regular  members  of  the  Philippine  Bar  may  use.       In   response,   Alauya   first   submitted   a   preliminary   comment   in   which   he   questioned   the   authority  of  Atty.  Marasigan,  Asst.  Div.  Clerk  of  Court  who  signed  the  notices  of  resolution,   to   require   explanation   of   him,   pertaining   him   as   a   mere   assistant   and   that   the   resolution   was  a  result  of  strong  link  between  Alawi  and  Atty.  Marasigan’s  office.         Alauya   justified   his   use   of   the   title   “attorney”   by   the   assertion   that   it   is   lexically   synonymous   with     “counselors-­‐at-­‐law”,   a   title   to   which   Shari’a   lawyers   have   a   rightful   claim,  adding  that  he  prefers  the  title  of  “attorney”  because  “counselor”  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:   WON   respondent   Alauya   is   allowed   to   used   the   title   “attorney”   although   only   passing  the  Shari’a  Bar.       HELD:  No!   Persons   who   pass   the   Shari’a   Bar   are   not   full-­‐pledged   members   of   the   Philippines   Bar,   hence   may   only   practice   law   before   Shari’a   courts.   While   one   has   been   admitted   to   the   Shari’a  Bar,  and  one  who  was  been  admitted  to  the  Philippines  Bar,  may  both  be  considered   “counselors,”  in  the  sense  that  they  give  counsel  or  advice  in  a  professional  capacity,  only   the   latter   is   an   “attorney.”   The   title   of   “attorney”   is   reserved   to   those   who,   having   obtained   the  necessary  degree  in  the  study  of  law  and  successfully  taken  the  Bar  Examinations,  have  

been  admitted  to  the  IBP  and  remain  members  thereof  in  good  standing;  and  it  is  only  them   who  are  authorized  to  practice  law  in  this  jurisdiction.     Respondent’s  disinclination  to  use  the  title  of  “counselor”  does  not  warrant  his  use  of  the   title  attorney.       As   a   member   of   the   Shari’s   Bar   and   an   officer   of   the   Court,   Alawi   is   subject   to   a   standard   of   conduct  more  stringent  than  for  most  other  government  workers.  As  a  man  of  the  law,  he   may   not   use   language   which   is   abusive,   offensive,   scandalous,   menacing,   or   otherwise   improper.  As  a  judicial  employee,  it  is  expected  that  he  accord  respect  for  the  persons  and   the  rights  of  others  at  all  times,  and  that  his  every  act  and  word  should  be  characterized  by   prudence,   restraint,   courtesy,   dignity.   His   radical   deviation   from   these   salutary   norms   might  perhaps  be  mitigated,  but  cannot  be  excused,  but  his  strongly  held  conviction  that  he   had  been  grievously  wronged.  Alauya  was  reprimanded  for  use  of  excessively  intemperate   insulting  or  virulent  language,  i.e,  language  unbecoming  a  judicial  officer,  and  for  usurping   the  title  attorney;  and  is  warned  that  any  similar  or  other  impropriety  or  misconduct  in  the   future  will  be  dealt  with  more  severely.