AGUIRRE vs. RANAB. M. No.

1036 June 10, 2003FACTS:

Respondent Edwin L. Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. Respondent,
while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counself o r a c a n d i d a t e i n t h e M a y 2 0 0 1 e l e c t i o n s e f o r e t h e
M u n i c i p a l B o a r d o f Election !an"assers of Mandaon, Masate and filed with the MBE! a
pleadingd a t e d 1 # M a y 2 0 0 1 e n t i t l e d $ o r m a l % & e c t i o n t o t h e ' n c l u s i o n
i n t h e ! an"assing of (otes in some )recincts for the %ffice of (ice*Mayor. 'n thispleading,
respondent represented himself as +counsel for and in ehalf of ( i c e M a y o r a l t y !
a n d i d a t e , e o r g e B u n a n , + a n d s i g n e d t h e p l e a d i n g a s counsel for eorge Bunan.
$urthermore, respondent also signed as counsel for Emily Estipona*-ao on 1# May 2001 in the petition filed
efore the MBE!praying for the proclamation of Estipona*-ao as the winning candidate for mayor of
Mandaon, Masate. %n 21 May 2001, one day efore the scheduledmass oath*taing of successful ar examinees
as memers of the )hilippineBar, complainant /onna Marie guirre filed against respondent a )etition for/enial of
dmission to the Bar. %n 22 May 2001, respondent was allowed totae the lawyers oath ut was disallowed from
signing the Roll of ttorneysuntil he is cleared of the charges against him.
ISSUE:
hether or not respondent shall e denied dmission to the Bar.
RULING:
Respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he
appearedi n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s e f o r e t h e M B E ! a n d f i l e d " a r i o u s p l e a d i n g s , w i t h o u t l i c e n s
e t o d o s o . E " i d e n c e c l e a r l y s u p p o r t s t h e c h a r g e o f u n a u t h o r i 3 e d practice
of law. Respondent called himself +counsel+ nowing fully well thath e w a s n o t a m e m e r o f
t h e B a r . - a " i n g h e l d h i m s e l f o u t a s + c o u n s e l + nowing that he had no authority
t o p r a c t i c e l a w , r e s p o n d e n t h a s s h o w n moral unfitness to e a memer of the )hilippine
Bar. 4he right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right ut is ap r i " i l e g e . ' t i s l i m i t e d t o p e r
s o n s o f g o o d m o r a l c h a r a c t e r w i t h s p e c i a l 5ualifications duly ascertained and certified.
4he exercise of this
pri"ilegep r e s u p p o s e s p o s s e s s i o n o f i n t e g r i t y , l e g a l n o w l e d g e , e d u c a t i
o n a l attainment, and e"en pulic trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. ar candidate does not
ac5uire the right to practice law simply y passing the ar examinations. 4he practice of law is a pri"ilege
that can e withhelde"en from one who has passed the ar examinations, if the person
see ing admission had practiced law without a license. 4rue, respondent here passedthe 2000 Bar
Examinations and too the lawyer s oath. -owe"er, it is thesigning in the Roll of ttorneys that
finally ma es one a full*fledged lawyer. 4he fact that respondent passed the ar examinations is immaterial. )
assingt h e a r i s n o t t h e o n l y 5 u a l i f i c a t i o n t o e c o m e a n a t t o r n e y * a t * l a
w . Respondent should now that two essential re5uisites for ecoming a lawyer

still had to e performed, namely6 his lawyer s oath to e administered y this !ourt and his signature in
the Roll of ttorneys.