*In re: Petition to Re-Acquire the Privilege to Practice Law in the Philippines, Epifanio B. Muneses, Petitioner*
**Facts:**
1. Epifanio B. Muneses became a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) on March 21, 1966.
2. Muneses lost his privilege to practice law upon becoming a United States citizen on August 28, 1981.
3. On September 15, 2006, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship through Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 by taking his oath of allegiance before the Philippine Consulate General in Washington, D.C., USA.
4. Muneses filed a petition on June 8, 2009, with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) seeking to resume his law practice in the Philippines.
5. Attached to the petition were several documents, although only in photocopy form:
– Oath of Allegiance dated September 15, 2006.
– Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship.
– Order for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship.
– Letter dated March 13, 2008, for IBP membership dues payment.
– Attendance Forms from Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE).
6. The OBC required the original or certified true copies of further documents.
7. Muneses provided the following compliances:
– Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship.
– Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship).
– Oath of Allegiance and Certificate of Re-Acquisition/Retention.
– Certificate of Good Standing from IBP-Surigao City Chapter.
– Professional Tax Receipt for 2010.
– Certificates of Compliance from the MCLE.
**Issues:**
1. Whether Filipino citizenship as a continuous requirement for the practice of law was re-established by Muneses.
2. Whether Muneses met all necessary qualifications and faced no disqualifications to resume his practice.
**Court’s Decision:**
1. *Re-acquisition of Citizenship:*
– Citing the Dacanay precedent and R.A. No. 9225, the Court confirmed that natural-born Filipino citizens who had lost their citizenship due to foreign naturalization and who later re-acquired it still remained members of the Philippine Bar.
2. *Necessity of License or Permit:*
– The Court emphasized that resumption of the law practice post-re-acquisition of citizenship is not automatic. A proper application for a license or permit to practice is required.
3. *Compliance with Requirements:*
– The OBC verified that Muneses complied with all required submissions, including documents from IBP, proof of MCLE compliance, and updated payments.
4. *Recommendation and Adoption of OBC’s Findings:*
– The Court, upon OBC’s recommendation, granted Muneses’ petition subject to a retaking of the Lawyer’s Oath and the payment of appropriate fees.
**Doctrine:**
1. Filipino citizenship is a continuing requirement for the practice of law in the Philippines.
2. Re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 allows lawyers to resume legal practice, but active practice requires adherence to certain regulatory compliances.
3. The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions such as compliance with MCLE, IBP dues, and requirements of good standing in the Bar.
**Class Notes:**
– **Key Elements:**
– Filipino Citizenship: Continuously required for Bar membership.
– R.A. No. 9225: Provides the legal framework for re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship.
– Legal Practice Resumption: Not automatic; requires compliance with specific legal and professional standards.
– **Statutory Provisions:**
– R.A. No. 9225, Section 3: Natural-born citizens of the Philippines can re-acquire citizenship by oath of allegiance.
– MCLE Compliance: Essential for practice.
– **Application/Interpretation:**
– Citizenship re-acquired: Filipino citizenship and re-admission to the Bar is interconnected but mandates procedural compliance.
– Recognition of previously held rights: Emphasizing both citizenship status and professional qualifications must align to resume practice.
**Historical Background:**
– The case came during a period of increasing globalization, with many Filipinos working and living abroad, necessitating legal mechanisms such as R.A. No. 9225 to retain or re-acquire their citizenship. The increasing fluidity of citizenship amplified the importance of maintaining strict regulatory frameworks for professional practices, especially law. The Supreme Court ensured foreign-acquired citizens could not bypass the professional requirements necessary for the trust and integrity fundamental in the legal profession.
Leave a Reply