Alawi vs. Alauya, 268 SCRA 628 (1997), A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P, February 24, 1997
Subject: Basic Legal Ethics
FACTS
Alawi
was a sales representative of a real estate company. Alauya (clerk of court of
shaira district) entered a contract with her to buy a housing unit through
installment. However, due to some issues involving trust and confidence in
Alawi, Alauya wrote letters to the real estate company for the termination of
the contract.
According
to him, the contract was based on deceit, fraud and the like, making the
contract ab initio. Upon hearing the
letters sent to the company, Alawi filed a complaint against Alauya regarding
the libelous charges without even a solid ground. She also manifested that
Alauya used the title of “ATTORNEY” which only regular members of the bar may
use. Alauya justified the use of the
title attorney by asserting that it was “lexically synonymous” with
“Counsellors-at-law”, which Sharia lawyers shall use. He does not want to use
counsellor because people mistakenly understood it as “konsehal/councilor”, who
are members of the local legislature.
ISSUE
Whether
or not, Alauya, being a member of Shaira Bar, may use the title Attorney?
RULING
No.
The court held that only those who have passed the Philippine Bar and have been
admitted to the practice of law in the Philippines may use the title
"attorney."
In
this case, the Court also held that Alauya's use of the title
"attorney" was misleading and could have caused harm to Alawi's
business. Those who passed Sharia Bar are not full-pledged lawyers and shall
practice law before Shaira Courts. “Counsellors-at-law” does not allow him to
use the title of “Attorney”. Title of atty is reserved only to those who passed
the bar exams and were admitted to the IBP.
No comments:
Post a Comment