10. Is the practice of law a right or a privilege?
the bar, how could it be suspended or remover for the violation of its duty as such
The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State upon those who show
that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the
conferment of such privilege. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions.
A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law only during good behavior and can only
be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the court after
opportunity to be heard has been afforded him. Without invading any constitutional privilege
or right, an attorneys right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend or
disbar him, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties
and responsibilities of an attorney. It must be understood that the purpose of suspending or
disbarring an attorney is to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has
proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to an office of
an attorney, and thus to protect the public and those charged with the administration of
justice, rather than to punish the attorney. (Alcantara v. De Vera, AC No. 5859, November 23,
2010)
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited
to persons of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and
certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge,
educational attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar
candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar examinations.
The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar
examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without a license (Aguirre v.
Rana, BM No. 1036, June 10, 2003)
The practice of law is a privilege. A bar candidate does not have the right to enjoy the
practice of the legal profession simply by passing the bar examinations. It is a privilege that
can be revoked, subject to the mandate of due process, once a lawyer violates his oath and
the dictates of legal ethics. (Ui v. Bonifacio AC No. 3319, June 8, 2000)
11. May a corporation practice law? What about a partnership?
CORPORATIONS - NO
(Yale Law Journal, Vol 20, Feb 4, 1911, James A. Stevenson, Jr.)
The practice of law is not a business open to all, but is a personal right limited to a
few persons of good moral character, with special qualifications ascertained and
certified after a long course of study, both general and professional and a thorough
examination by a State board appointed for that purpose. The right to practice law is
in the nature of a franchise from the State conferred only for merit. It cannot be
assigned or inherited, but must be earned by hard study and good conduct. It is
attested by a certificate of the Supreme Court and is protected by registration. No
one can practice law unless he has taken an oath of office and has become and
officer of the court, subject to its discipline, liable to punishment for contempt in
violating his duties as such, and to suspension and removal. It is not a lawful
business except to members of the bar who have complied with all the conditions
required by the statute and the rules of the courts.
As these conditions cannot be fulfilled by a corporation, it follows that the practice
of law is not a lawful business for a corporation to engage in. As it cannot practice
law directly, it cannot indirectly by employing competent lawyers to practice for it,
as that would be an evasion which the law will not tolerate.
Purity of the bar is at the basis of our great Institution of Justice, and anything that
lowers the ideals of its individual members, strikes at the very foundation of that
institution and therefore is against public policy. If a corporation were admitted to
member?
Under the present state of our law and jurisprudence, a corporation cannot be organized for
or engage in the practice of law in this country (Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc., Bar Matter 553,
June 17, 1993)
Senator Webb: Mr. President, a corporation is not the same as an individual human being for
one thing. A corporation cannot be a doctor or a lawyer. Only a human being may be
permitted to practice medicine or law. Record of Senate, Volume IV, p. 56 (January 31, 1995),
pp. 273-274)
The rule is that the corporate practice of any profession, including optometry, must never be
sanctioned. The public policy behind such rulings is universal, and is based on the notion that
the ethics of any profession is based upon individual responsibility, personal accountability
and independence, which are all lost where one verily acts as a mere agent, or alter ego, of
unlicensed persons or corporations. (Acebedo Optical Co Inc v CA, G.R. No. 100152. March
31, 2000)
Both in the case of the physician and the lawyer, the person seeking his services must break
down the barriers of reserve which otherwise serve to protect him and deliberately reveal to
his professional adviser secrets of physical or mental disability or secrets of business of the
most intimate nature. These necessary disclosures create the personal relationship which
cannot exist between patient or client and a profit-seeking corporation. The universal
recognition of this immediate, unbroken, and confidential association between doctor and
lawyer and those who engage their services early created and still justifies the rule that their
allegiance must be wholeheartedly to the patient or the client, and not to another. (Silver v.
Lansburgh & Bro., 111 F.2d 518 (D.C. Cir. 1940)
PARTNERSHIPS - YES
Article 1767. By the contract of partnership two or more persons bind themselves to
contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund, with the intention of dividing the
profits among themselves.
Two or more persons may also form a partnership for the exercise of a profession.
Strictly speaking, the practice of a profession is not a business or an enterprise for profit.
However, the law allows the joint pursuit thereof by two or more persons as partners. In such
case, it is the individual partners, and not the partnership, who engage in the practice of the
profession and are responsible for their own acts as such. (De Leon, Comments on
Partnership, Agency and Trusts)
The law does not allow individuals to practice a profession as a corporate entity. Personal
qualifications for such practice cannot be possessed by a corporation. (De Leon, Comments
on Partnership, Agency and Trusts)
Article 1783. A particular partnership has for its object determinate things, their use or fruits,
or specific undertaking, or the exercise of a profession or vocation.
A partnership for the practice of law cannot be likened to partnerships formed by other
professionals or for business. It is not a partnership formed for the purpose of carrying on
trade or business or of holding property. (De Leon, Comments on Partnership, Agency and
Trusts)
The practice of law is intimately and peculiarly related to the administration of justice and
should not be considered like an ordinary money-making trade.
The primary characteristics which distinguish the legal profession from business are the etc./Ozaeta, Romulo, etc., 92 SCRA 1 [1979], citing H.S. Drinker, Legal Ethics
following: [1953], pp. 4-5.)
(a) A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a by-product, and in which one
may attain the highest eminence without making much money;
(b) A relation as an officer of court to the administration of justice involving thorough
sincerity, integrity, and reliability;
(c) A relation to clients in the highest fiduciary degree; and
(d) A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by Bcandor, fairness, and
unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and The Canons of Professional Ethics under 33. Partnership names acknowledge
encroachment on their practice, or dealing directly with their clients. (In the Matter partnerships. Hehe wala lang
of the Petition for Authority to Continue Use of Firm Name SyCip, Salazar,