Renato Cayetano vs Christian Monsod

Posted on November 27, 2012

201 SCRA 210
G.R. No. 100113
September 3, 1991
Facts:
Christian Monsod was nominated by then President Corazon C. Aquino as chairman of the
COMELEC. Cayetano questioned the appointment for Monsod allegedly lacked the necessary
qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.
The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on
Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of
the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a
college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately
preceding elections.However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the
Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
It was established that after graduating from the College of Law and hurdling the Bar, respondent
worked in his fathers law office for a short while, then worked as an Operations Officer in the
World Bank Group for about 2 years, which involved getting acquainted with the laws of membercountries, negotiating loans, and coordinating legal, economic and project work of the Bank.
Upon returning to the Philippines, he worked with the Meralco Group, served as Chief Executive
Officer of an investment bank and has subsequently worked either as Chief Executive Officer or
Consultant of various companies.
Issue
1. Whether or not Monsod satisfies the requirement of the position of Chairman of the
COMELEC.
2. Whether or not the Commission on Appointments committed grave abuse of discretion in
confirming Monsods appointment.
Held
1. YES. In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava: The practice of law is not
limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in courtIn general, all advice to clients, and all action
taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and
condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body, the foreclosure of
mortgage, enforcement of a creditors claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and
conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held
to constitute law practice.
Practice of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform
those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice
or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill. In general, a practice of law requires a lawyer and client relationship, it is
whether in or out of court.
A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he: . . . for valuable consideration
engages in the business of advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights
under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or
prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission
constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies. Otherwise stated, one who, in a
representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the
law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court for that
purpose, is engaged in the practice of law.
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations of
1960 with a grade of 86.55%. He has been a dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license fees
as lawyer for more than 10 years. Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a
lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a
lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional
requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.
1

2. NO. The power of the COA to give consent to the nomination of the Comelec Chairman by the
president is mandated by the constitution. The power of appointment is essentially within the
discretion of whom it is so vested subject to the only condition that the appointee should possess
the qualification required by law. From the evidence, there is no occasion for the SC to exercise
its corrective power since there is no such grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA.
ARCIGA v MANIWANG
106 SCRA 591 Legal Ethics Gross Immoral Conduct
In 1970, when Maniwang was still a law student, he had a relationship with Arciga, then a medical
technology student. They started having a sexual relationship in 1971. In 1973, Arciga got
pregnant. The two then went to Arcigas hometown to tell the latters parent about the pregnancy.
They also made Arcigas parents believe that they were already married but they would have to
have the church wedding in abeyance until Maniwang passes the bar exams. Maniwang secured
a copy of his birth certificate in preparation of securing a marriage license.
In 1975, Maniwang passed the bar. But after his oath taking, he stopped communicating with
Arciga. Arciga located his whereabouts and there she found out that Maniwang married another
woman. Arciga confronted Maniwangs wife and this irked Maniwang so he inflicted physical
injuries against Arciga.
Arciga then filed a disbarment case against Maniwang grounded on gross immoral conduct.
Maniwang admitted that he is the father of Arcigas child; that he did promise to marry Arciga
many times; that he broke those promises because of Arcigas shady past because apparently
Arciga had an illegitimate child even before her son with Maniwang was born.
ISSUE: Whether or not Maniwang should be disbarred.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that Maniwangs case is different from the cases of Mortel
vs Aspiras and Almirez vs Lopez, and other cases therein cited. Maniwangs refusal to marry
Arciga was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment (though not much discussion
was provided by the ponente as to why). But the Supreme Court did say that it is difficult to state
with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is grossly immoral conduct or to
specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a
member of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the
straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment. Immoral conduct has
been defined as that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.
Guevarra vs. Eala, A.C. No. 7136 , August 1, 2007
Facts: Joselano Guevarra filed a Complaint for Disbarment before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) Committee on Bar Discipline (CBD) against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a.
Noli Eala (respondent) for "grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyer's
oath."
The complainant first met respondent in January 2000 when his (complainant's) then-fiancee
Irene Moje (Irene) introduced respondent Atty. Eala, a lawyer and a sportscaster, to him as her
friend who was married to Mary Ann Tantoco with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene, complainant noticed that Irene had been receiving from respondent
cellphone calls, as well as messages some of which read "I love you," "I miss you," or "Meet you
at Megamall." He also noticed that Irene habitually went home very late at night or early in the
morning of the following day, and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked about
her whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parents' house in Binangonan, Rizal or she
was busy with her work. More so, complainant has seen Irene and respondent together on two
occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned the
conjugal house.
Moreover, Complainant later found, in the master's bedroom, a folded social card bearing the
words "I Love You" on its face, which card when unfolded contained a handwritten letter dated
October 7, 2000, the day of his wedding to Irene. Also, it was revealed that Irene gave birth to a
girl in 2002 and Irene named respondent in the Certificate of Live Birth as the girl's father.
2

In his answer, Respondent specifically denies having ever flaunted an adulterous relationship
with Irene, the truth of the matter being that their relationship was low profile and known only to
the immediate members of their respective families. He also said that his special relationship with
Irene is neither under scandalous circumstances nor tantamount to grossly immoral conduct as
would be a ground for disbarment.
Issue: Whether the respondent be disbarred from the practice of Law.
Held: YES. The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married
woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly.
While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between two
unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is
not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-marital
relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside marriage is considered
disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the
marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.
Respondent in fact also violated the lawyer's oath he took before admission to practice law.
Furthermore, respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which proscribes a lawyer from engaging in "unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct," and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7 of the same Code which proscribes a lawyer from
engaging in any "conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law."
As a lawyer, respondent should be aware that a man and a woman deporting themselves as
husband and wife are presumed, unless proven otherwise, to have entered into a lawful contract
of marriage. In carrying on an extra-marital affair with Irene prior to the judicial declaration that
her marriage with complainant was null and void, and despite respondent himself being married,
he showed disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law. And he betrayed his unfitness to
be a lawyer.
Soriano vs. Atty. Dizon, AC No. 6792, Jan 25, 2006
FACTS:

Atty. Manuel Dizon was driving his brown Toyota Corolla with his wife. Along Abanao
Street, a taxi driver overtook him so he tailed the taxi driver until the latter stopped to make a turn.
He berated the taxi driver and held him by his shirt. To stop the aggression, the taxi driver forced
open his door causing the accused to fall to the ground. Taking pity on the accused who looked
elderly, the taxi driver got out of his car to help him get up. When he was about to hit the taxi
driver, he hit the accused in the chest then he got up again and was about to box the taxi driver
but the latter caught his fist and turned his arm around. The accused went back to his car and
got his revolver making sure that the handle was wrapped in a handkerchief. The taxi driver was
on his way back to his vehicle when he noticed the eyeglasses of the accused on the ground. He
picked them up intending to return them to the accused. But as he was handing the same to the
accused, he was met by the barrel of the gun held by the accused who fired and shot him hitting
him on the neck. He fell on the thigh of the accused so the latter pushed him out and sped off.

witness, Antonio Billanes, who came to the aid of Soriano and brought the latter to the
hospital.
o sustained a spinal cord injury, which caused paralysis on the left part of his body and disabled
him for his job as a taxi driver.

Despite positive identification and overwhelming evidence, Respondent denied that he had
shot Complainant;

Apart from [his] denial, Respondent also lied when he claimed that he was the one mauled
by Complainant and two unidentified persons

Although he has been placed on probation, Respondent has not yet (for 4 years) satisfied
his civil liabilities to Complainant.

convicted, by final judgment, of frustrated homicide

ISSUE: Whether or not frustrated homicide involves moral turpitude and where ot not guilt
warrants disbarment.
HELD: YES. DISBARRED.

Moral turpitude has been defined as everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty,
or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a
3

man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals.
o Good moral character includes at least common honesty.

Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the crime.
o a question of fact and frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances
act of aggression shown by respondent will not be mitigated by the fact that he was hit once
and his arm twisted by complainant. Under the circumstances, those were reasonable actions
clearly intended to fend off the lawyers assault.
He shot the victim when the latter was not in a position to defend himself.
To make matters worse, respondent wrapped the handle of his gun with a handkerchief so as
not to leave fingerprints.
his illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm and his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities

Where their misconduct outside of their professional dealings is so gross as to show them
morally unfit for their office and unworthy of the privileges conferred upon them by their license
and the law, the court may be justified in suspending or removing them from that office.
Spouses David and Williams vs. Enriquez [A.C. No. 6353 February 27, 2006]
Facts: The respondent is the counsel of record of the plaintiffs in the case pending before the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Dumaguete City where complainants are the defendants.
According to the complainant-spouses, Marisa Williams bought the lot subject of the controversy.
In the case at bar, complainant argued that the counsel of the spouses acted in malicious
violation of the rules governing the practice of law, the counsel cited outdated material in his
complaint-affidavit and in his comments to counter-affidavit. He then knowingly applied this stale
law in a perverse fashion to argue that Marisa Batacan Williams automatically lost her Filipino
citizenship when she married an American, and was thus prohibited to own land in the
Philippines, thereby making her guilty of falsification in the Deed she executed to buy property in
Negros Oriental. As such, Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez was charged with "unlawful, dishonest, immoral
and deceitful acts in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of
Professional Ethics, and with conduct unbecoming an attorney."
On December 1, 2004, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for
investigation, report and recommendation. Forthwith, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
scheduled the case for mandatory conference/hearing. However, only the respondent appeared.
The parties were then directed to submit their verified position papers.
Issue: Whether the respondent is guilt of violation of Canon 5 of the code of professional
responsibility
Held: Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that a lawyer be updated in the
latest laws and jurisprudence. Indeed, when the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if
one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. As a retired judge, respondent
should have known that it is his duty to keep himself well-informed of the latest rulings of the
Court on the issues and legal problems confronting a client.
In this case, the law he apparently misconstrued is no less than the Constitution, the most basic
law of the land. Implicit in a lawyers mandate to protect a clients interest to the best of his/her
ability and with utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law and legal developments,
and participate in continuing legal education programs. Thus, in championing the interest of
clients and defending cases, a lawyer must not only be guided by the strict standards imposed by
the lawyers oath, but should likewise espouse legally sound arguments for clients, lest the
latters cause be dismissed on a technical ground.
As such, for gross ignorance of the law, Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez is REPRIMANDED and ADVISED
to carefully study the opinions he may give to his clients. He is STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.