Medado v. People of the Philippines

Case Title and Citation

Michael A. Medado, petitioner, In re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys.
B.M. No. 2540, September 24, 2013
Supreme Court - En Banc
Ponente: Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno

---

Facts

• Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with a Bachelor of Laws in 1979 and passed the 1979 bar examinations with a general weighted average of 82.7. He took the Attorney’s Oath on May 7, 1980, at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC) with the successful bar examinees.
• He was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on May 13, 1980, but did not do so, allegedly because he misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll while on vacation in his province.
• Years later, while reviewing old college files, Medado found the Notice to Sign the Roll and realized the signing may not have occurred; he believed the oath and the Roll signing were the same event.
• By the time he discovered the omission, he was already working and primarily engaged in corporate and taxation work, not actively involved in litigation. He believed that since he had already taken the oath, signing the Roll was not urgent.
• In 2005, during Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars, he was required to provide his roll number for credit, but he could not provide it due to not signing the Roll.
• On February 6, 2012, Medado filed the Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys. The Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) held a clarificatory conference on September 21, 2012, and submitted a Report and Recommendation on February 4, 2013, recommending denial for gross negligence and lack of merit.
• The Supreme Court ultimately granted the petition, imposing a penalty: a fine of ₱32,000 and a suspension-like measure allowing him to sign the Roll one year after receipt of the Resolution, during which he would not practice law.

---

Issues

1. Did Medado’s failure to sign in the Roll for over thirty years warrant disbarment or denial of admission?
2. May the Court grant the petition to sign in the Roll despite such inaction, given Medado’s good faith and lack of prior disciplinary actions?
3. Was Medado’s prior conduct amounting to unauthorized practice of law, and is he subject to penalties for that conduct?

---

Ruling

1. No — The petition was not denied or disbarment imposed; instead, the Court granted the petition to sign in the Roll with conditions.
2. Yes — The Court found that, under the circumstances, it was appropriate to allow signing with remedial penalties rather than disbarment, given good faith and lack of prior disqualification.
3. Yes — The Court held that Medado’s continued practice without signing the Roll constituted unauthorized practice of law, justifying sanctions.

---

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

• The practice of law is a privilege, not a right; denying the petition to sign could amount to an extreme penalty such as disbarment, which is reserved for grave ethical transgressions. The Court noted Medado demonstrated good faith and good moral character, acknowledged his lapse, and had no prior disciplinary action, which distinguished him from other disbarred or disqualified practitioners.
• An honest mistake of fact may be excusable, but a mistake of law cannot be, given the presumption that one knows the law and its consequences. Once Medado realized the discrepancy (that the PICC signing was not the Roll signing), he should have completed the admission process; nonetheless, the Court did not treat the lapse as an irreparable bar to admission.
• The Court recognized that Medado had been engaged in various professional roles for decades and had not previously faced disqualification or actions that would undermine his fitness to practice.
• While the unauthorized practice of law was acknowledged (Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility), the Court refrained from indirect contempt findings due to the absence of formal charges but imposed sanctions consistent with Canon 9 and prior disciplinary decisions (e.g., suspension-like period and a monetary fine).
• The penalties imposed were crafted to balance the public interest in ethical admission to the Bar with the need to avoid the excessive punishment of disbarment for an extended period of non-compliance.

---

Doctrine / Legal Principle

• Signing in the Roll of Attorneys is a prerequisite to practicing law; failure to sign can bar admission and implicate ethical duties.
• The unauthorized practice of law by a person not yet admitted to the Bar is a breach of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Ignorantia legis neminem exit: a mistaken belief about the consequences of one’s actions does not excuse legal noncompliance once the individual becomes aware of the relevant requirements.
• Courts may grant petitions to sign in the Roll under remedial, proportionate penalties when there is good faith, no prior disciplinary record, and other mitigating factors.
• Indirect contempt may apply to unauthorized practice, but a formal charge is required to sustain such a finding.

---

Disposition

• The Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys is GRANTED.
• Medado is allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of this Resolution.
• He must pay a fine of ₱32,000 for unauthorized practice of law prior to signing.
• During the one-year interim, Medado is not allowed to practice law, and any act constituting the practice of law before signing in the Roll will be dealt with severely by the Court.
• The petition is upheld with the stated conditions.

---

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

• None stated.

---

Significance / Notes

• This decision illustrates the Supreme Court’s willingness to grant admission to the Bar under strict conditions when there is good faith and minimal prior disciplinary history, rather than defaulting to disbarment for extended noncompliance with roll-signing requirements.
• It underscores the importance of timely Roll signing and the potential consequences of unauthorized practice before admission.
• The ruling clarifies that while an honest mistake of fact may be excusable, a mistake of law cannot justify continued practice without proper admission.
• The case demonstrates the Court’s balancing approach between enforcing ethical standards and recognizing the practical realities of long-term professional activity.