RULE 138

Section 21. Authority of attorney to appear. — an attorney is presumed to be

properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears, and no written
power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear in court for his client, but
the presiding judge may, on motion of either party and on reasonable grounds
therefor being shown, require any attorney who assumes the right to appear in a
case to produce or prove the authority under which he appears, and to disclose,
whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of the person who employed him, and
may thereupon make such order as justice requires. An attorney wilfully appear in
court for a person without being employed, unless by leave of the court, may be
punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official
transactions.

DISCUSSION:

Appearance – the coming into the court as party either as a plaintiff or as a

defendant and asking relief therefrom.

Appearance as counsel – is a voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction by a

legal advocate or lawyer professionally engaged to represent and plead the cause of
another.

Appearance is made by:

1. Actual physical appearance;

2. Filing pleadings in court.

Authority to Appear commences only:

1. From the time he is retained by the client or the latter’s agent;

2. When the Judge is made a respondent in a petition challenging the judge’s

ruling, the counsel for the private respondent who is interested in having
the questioned act sustained is obligated to appear for the judge
concerned.

The rule is divided into three parts:

Part I. General Presumption

“an attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which

he appears, and no written power of attorney is required to authorize him to appear
in court for his client”.
  No written authority from the client is necessary to enable a lawyer to
represent him in court.

 However, the orderly conduct of judicial proceedings requires that counsel for
a party should file with the court his formal written appearance in the case.

 Formal method of entering an appearance: Filing with the court a pleading

usually entitled appearance with the signature of client conforming thereto,
asking the clerk of court to enter his name as counsel for a party and
requesting that copies of orders, processes, decision and pleadings be
henceforth sent to him at the address therein clearly indicated, with copy of
his appearance.

 Without such formal appearance, counsel is not generally entitled to notice.

 Judicial administration cannot afford uncertainty as to a client’s counsel

because the said lawyer is to receive important court issuances and orders
which may have ramifications concerning proper service and/or summons
which may affect considerably the outcome of the case.

 However, the fact that he has not entered his appearance does not warrant
that his pleading filed has no legal effect whatsoever.

Part II. Exception

“but the presiding judge may, on motion of either party and on reasonable
grounds therefor being shown, require any attorney who assumes the right to
appear in a case to produce or prove the authority under which he appears, and to
disclose, whenever pertinent to any issue, the name of the person who employed
him, and may thereupon make such order as justice requires”

Part III. Effect of Unauthorized Appearance

“An attorney wilfully appear in court for a person without being employed, unless
by leave of the court, may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court who
has misbehaved in his official transactions.”

SOPHIA ALAWI vs. ASHARY M. ALAUYA, Clerk of Court VI, Shari'a District
Court, Marawi City

A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P February 24, 1997

FACTS:
Ashary Alauya transacted with Sophia Alawi to avail of a contract for the purchase
of one housing unit from EB Villarosa & Partner Co. Ltd., a real estate and housing
company. Shortly thereafter Alauya wrote to the company expressing his intent to
render the contract void ab initio.

Several correspondences ensued, all of which were signed by Alauya as ATTY.

ASHARY M. ALAUYA. Alauya is a member of the Sharia Bar and for that matter he is
a counselor-at-law. Alauya claims that he does not use the title of counselor-at-law
for fear of being mistaken as a local legislator, i.e. councilor. Hence, he affixed the
title of attorney before his name.

Alawi filed a verified complaint against Alauya, alleging, among others, that Alawi
usurped the title of an attorney which is reserved only for the members of the
Philippine Bar.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Alauya's membership in the Sharia Bar endows him the title of an
attorney

HELD:

No. Alauya is hereby reprimanded for usurping the title of an attorney reserved for
those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and had
successfully passed the bar examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing.

Persons who passed the Sharia Bar are not full-fledged members of the Bar and
may only practice law before a Sharia Court, Alauya's disinclination to use the title
of counselor-at-law does not warrant his use of the title of an attorney.

RE: 1999 BAR EXAMINATIONS, MARK ANTHONY A. PURISIMA

B.M. Nos. 979 and 986 December 10, 2002

FACTS:
Petitioner was conditionally admitted to take the 1999 Bar Examinations. Like many
others, he was directed to submit the required certification of completion of the
pre-bar review course within sixty (60) days from the last day of the examinations.

Petitioner passed the 1999 Examinations. But in a Resolution dated 13 April 2000
the Court disqualified him from becoming a member of the Philippine Bar and
declared his examinations null and void on two (2) grounds:

Petitioner failed to submit the required certificate of completion of the pre-

bar review course under oath for this conditional admission to the 1999 Bar
Examinations, and

He committed a serious act of dishonesty which rendered him unfit to

become a member of the Philippine Bar when he made it appear in his
Petition to Take the 1999 Bar Examinations that he took his pre-bar review
course at the Philippine Law School (PLS) when, as certified by Acting
Registrar Rasalie G. Kapuan, PLS had not offered such course since 1967.

Petitioner explained that upon obtaining a ready-made form of the Petition and
affixing his signature on the space provided therefor, he requested his schoolmate/
friend Ms. Lilian A. Felipe to fill up the form, have it notarized and then to file it for
him with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC). He was not able to check the
veracity of the information supplied by Ms. Felipe who erroneously typed Philippine
Law School, instead of UST, on the space provided for the school where the
petitioner attended his pre-bar review course.

ISSUES:

WON the petitioner should be allowed to take the Lawyers Oath and sign in the Roll
of Attorneys.

HELD:

On the first ground, the Court accepted the explanation of the petitioner that in
view of the Certification of Completion dated July 22, 1999 issued by Dean Amado
L. Dimayuga of the UST Faculty of Civil Law which not only attested his enrolment
in UST but also his completion of the pre-bar review course, he thought it was not
anymore necessary to submit the required certification of completion of the pre-bar
review course.

On the second ground, the Court ruled in favour of the petitioner that the
statement in paragraph 8 of his Petition that he enrolled in and passed the regular
review classes at the Philippine Law School was a self-evident clerical error and a
mere result of an oversight which is not tantamount to a deliberate and wilful
declaration of falsehood.

The petitioner also submitted evidences to support his enrolment in UST:

The Official Receipt of his payment of tuition fee for the course
His Identification Card for the course
Car Pass to the UST campus
Individual Affidavits of classmates in the pre-bar review course in UST that
petitioner was their classmate and that he attended the review course
Separate affidavits of Five UST students/ acquaintances of petitioner that
they saw him regularly attending the review course
Affidavit of Professor Abelardo T. Domondon attesting to the attendance of
petitioner in his review classes and lectures in Taxation and Bar Review
Methods at the UST
Affidavit of Ms. Gloria L. Fernandez, maintenance staff at the UST Law
Department that she knew petitioner very well as he was among those who
would arrive early and request her to open the reading area and turn on the
airconditioning before classes started; and
Affidavit of Ms. Melicia Jane Parena, office clerk at the UST Faculty of Civil
Law, that Dean Dimayuga issued the Certification dated 22 July 1999 to the
effect that petitioner was officially enrolled in and had completed the pre-bar
review course in UST which started on April 14 1999 and ended September
24, 1999.

As recommended by the Office of Bar Confidant in its Report and Recommendation

dated November 7, 2002, the examinee MARK ANTHONY A. PURISIMA who passed
the 1999 Bar Examinations is now allowed to take the Lawyers Oath and be
admitted to the Philippine Bar. He is further allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys
upon payment of the required fees.

ALAN F. PAGUIA vs. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY OF FOREIGN

AFFAIRS, and HON. HILARIO DAVIDE, JR. in his capacity as Permanent
Representative of the Philippines to the United Nations

G.R. No. 176278 June 25, 2010

FACTS:

Petitioner, as citizen and taxpayer, filed this original action for the writ of
certiorari to invalidate then Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo’s nomination of former CJ
Hilaro Davide, Jr. as permanent representative to the UN for violation of sec. 23 of
RA No. 7157, the Philippine Foreign Service Act of 1991. At the time of nomination,
Davide was already 70 years old, which covers him for a mandatory retirement of
all officers and employees in the DFA which is at 65 years old.

ISSUE:

WON petitioner has a legal standing to bring suit because of his indefinite
suspension from the practice of law

RULING:

No. Petitioner’s suspension from the practice of law bars him from
performing “any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.” Certainly, preparing a
petition raising carefully crafted arguments on equal protection grounds and
employing highly legalistic rules of statutory construction to parse sec. 23 of RA no.
7157 falls within the proscribed conduct.

RULE 138-A

Law Student Practice Rule

Section 1. Conditions for student practice. — A law student who has successfully
completed his 3rd year of the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is
enrolled in a recognized law school's clinical legal education program approved by
the Supreme Court, may appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or
administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent
indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school.

Section 2. Appearance. — The appearance of the law student authorized by this

rule, shall be under the direct supervision and control of a member of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any and all
pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed
by the supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic.

Section 3. Privileged communications. — The Rules safeguarding privileged

communications between attorney and client shall apply to similar communications
made to or received by the law student, acting for the legal clinic.

Section 4. Standards of conduct and supervision. — The law student shall comply
with the standards of professional conduct governing members of the Bar. Failure of
an attorney to provide adequate supervision of student practice may be a ground
for disciplinary action. (Circular No. 19, dated December 19, 1986).