Post

Dacanay v. Supreme Court

Posted
By Anonymous
4 min read
Dacanay v. Supreme Court

Case Title and Citation

Benjamin M. Dacanay, petitioner, vs. Honorable Supreme Court, respondent.
B.M. No. 1678, December 17, 2007
Supreme Court - En Banc
Ponente: Justice Corona

Facts

  • Petitioner, Benjamin M. Dacanay, was admitted to the Philippine bar in March 1960.
  • He migrated to Canada in December 1998 to seek medical treatment and subsequently applied for Canadian citizenship to access Canada’s medical program; his application was approved, and he became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.
  • On July 14, 2006, under Republic Act 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), he reacquired Philippine citizenship and took an oath of allegiance as a Filipino before the Philippine Consulate General in Toronto. He then returned to the Philippines and sought to resume the practice of law.
  • A central question arose: whether petitioner lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he relinquished Philippine citizenship in May 2004.
  • The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that petitioner be allowed to resume practice, conditioned on retaking the lawyer’s oath to reaffirm duties and responsibilities. The Bar Confidant’s recommendation was approved with modifications.
  • The Court recognized that the practice of law is a privilege regulated by the State to protect public welfare, requiring adherence to mental fitness standards, high morality, compliance with continuing legal education, and payment of IBP dues.
  • Section 1 and Section 2 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court outline who may practice and the qualifications for admission, including citizenship, age, good moral character, and good standing; the continuing requirement of good standing includes IBP dues, professional tax, mandatory CLE, and disciplinary compliance.
  • The Constitution restricts practice of the professions to Filipino citizens, making loss of Filipino citizenship terminate bar membership and the privilege to practice. An exception exists for reacquisition under RA 9225, which permits re-engagement in practice only after permission from this Court and subject to specified conditions (updating dues, taxes, CLE, and oath).
  • The Court ultimately granted the petition for leave to resume practice, contingent upon petitioner’s compliance with the above conditions and submission of proof to the Bar Confidant.

Issues

  1. Did petitioner lose his membership in the Philippine bar when he acquired Canadian citizenship in May 2004?
  2. May a Filipino lawyer who reacquires Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 automatically resume the practice of law upon reacquisition?
  3. Is petitioner entitled to resume practice only after compliance with the conditions set forth by the Court and RA 9225?

Ruling

  1. Yes — The loss of Filipino citizenship terminates membership in the Philippine bar, thereby terminating the privilege to practice law.
  2. No — There is no automatic right to resume practice upon reacquiring citizenship; the lawyer must obtain authority from this Court and satisfy specified conditions.
  3. Yes — The petition is GRANTED, subject to compliance with the mandated conditions (updating IBP dues, paying professional tax, completing at least 36 hours of mandatory CLE, and retaking the oath).

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • The practice of law is a privilege regulated by the State, essential to public welfare, and thus limited to Filipino citizens. Loss of Filipino citizenship terminates membership in the bar and the corresponding right to practice. This is grounded in the Constitution and Rule 138, especially Sections 1 and 2, which require citizenship, age, good moral character, and ongoing good standing evidenced by IBP dues, professional tax, and continuing legal education (CLE).
  • RA 9225 allows reacquisition of Philippine citizenship for those who had previously naturalized in another country, deeming them not to have lost Philippine citizenship under its conditions. However, this does not confer an automatic right to practice; the individual must apply for permission to engage in the practice of law in the Philippines, with the Court’s approval conditioned on updating and paying IBP dues, paying professional tax, completing 36 CLE hours, and retaking the lawyer’s oath.
  • The need for ongoing compliance with professional standards (morality, education, dues, ethics) is reaffirmed, and the Court’s supervisory role over the legal profession is emphasized to protect public welfare. The cited authorities include Rule 138 (Sections 1 and 2), RA 9225 (Sections 2 and 5(4)), and prior bar discipline and integration decisions.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Citizenship is a prerequisite for admission to the bar; loss of citizenship terminates bar membership and the privilege to practice.
  • Reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under RA 9225 does not automatically restore the right to practice; the individual must obtain court authorization and satisfy conditions to resume practice.
  • The practice of law is a privilege that the State regulates to safeguard public welfare, requiring ongoing compliance with moral standards, continuing legal education, and payment of dues/taxes.

Disposition

  • The petition of Attorney Benjamin M. Dacanay is GRANTED, subject to compliance with the conditions stated for reacquiring good standing, after which he may retake his oath as a member of the Philippine bar.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • The decision notes concurrence by Justices Puno (Chief Justice), Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes, and Leonardo-de Castro, JJ.; Justice Quisumbing, J., on leave.
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.