You are on page 1of 10

G.R. No.

100113

September 3, 1991

RENATO CAYETANO, petitioner,


vs.
CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R. SALONGA, COMMISSION ON
APPOINTMENT, and HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as Secretary of
Budget and Management, respondents.
FACTS:
In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission on
Elections. His appointment was affirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Monsods
appointment was opposed by Renato Cayetano on the ground that he does not qualify
for he failed to meet the Constitutional requirement which provides that the chairman of
the COMELEC should have been engaged in the practice law for at least ten years.
Monsods track record as a lawyer:
Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%. Immediately after passing, worked in his
fathers law firm for one year. Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he had a
degree in economics and held various positions in various foreign corporations. In 1970,
he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for various local corporations until
1986. In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.
ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the COMELEC. What constitutes
practice of law?
HELD: Yes. Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyermanager, 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 ten years.
As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to court appearances.
The members of the bench and bar and the informed laymen such as businessmen, know
that in most developed societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted in law
offices than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do both litigation and nonlitigation work also know that in most cases they find themselves spending more time
doing what is loosely described as business counseling than in trying cases. In the course
of a working day the average general practitioner wig engage in a number of legal tasks,
each involving different legal doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal institutions,
clients, and other interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in
specialized practice wig usually perform at least some legal services outside their
specialty. By no means will most of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is one
of the relatively rare types a litigator who specializes in this work to the exclusion of

much else. Instead, the work will require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of
traditional lawyer skills of client counseling, advice-giving, document drafting, and
negotiation.

Justice Padilla dissenting:


Monsod did not practice law. Justice Padilla emphasized the following criteria in
determining what constitutes practice of law:
1. Habituality. The term practice of law implies customarily or habitually holding
ones self out to the public as a lawyer (People vs. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109 citing
State v. Boyen, 4 S.E. 522, 98 N.C. 644) such as when one sends a circular
announcing the establishment of a law office for the general practice of law (U.S.
v. Ney Bosque, 8 Phil. 146), or when one takes the oath of office as a lawyer before
a notary public, and files a manifestation with the Supreme Court informing it of his
intention to practice law in all courts in the country (People v. De Luna, 102 Phil.
968).
Practice is more than an isolated appearance for it consists in frequent or customary
action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is a habitual exercise
(People v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109 citing State v. Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan, 864).
2. Compensation. Practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to
be in the active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his
professional services are available to the public for compensation, as a service of
his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. (People v. Villanueva, supra).
Hence, charging for services such as preparation of documents involving the use
of legal knowledge and skill is within the term practice of law (Ernani Pao, Bar
Reviewer in Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1988 ed., p. 8 citing People v. Peoples
Stockyards State Bank, 176 N.B. 901) and, one who renders an opinion as to the
proper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is to that extent, practicing
law (Martin, supra, p. 806 citing Mendelaun v. Gilbert and Barket Mfg. Co., 290
N.Y.S. 462) If compensation is expected, all advice to clients and all action taken
for them in matters connected with the law; are practicing law. (Elwood Fitchette
et al., v. Arthur C. Taylor, 94A-L.R. 356-359)
3. Application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure which calls for legal
knowledge, training and experience is within the term practice of law.
(Martin supra)
4. Attorney-client relationship. Engaging in the practice of law presupposes the
existence of lawyer-client relationship. Hence, where a lawyer undertakes an

activity which requires knowledge of law but involves no attorney-client


relationship, such as teaching law or writing law books or articles, he cannot be
said to be engaged in the practice of his profession or a lawyer (Agpalo, Legal
Ethics, 1989 ed., p. 30).
Monsod did not habitually practice law. It may be granted that he performed activities
which are related to the practice of law like drafting legal documents and giving legal
advice, but he only did so as isolated incidents.

Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993


MAURICIO C. ULEP, petitioner,
vs.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC., respondent.
FACTS:
In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to
Nogales was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the
services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal
Clinic because of the latters advertisements which contain the following:
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
8:30am 6:00pm
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic
beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Nonquota Res. & Special Retirees Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina
Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems
in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is
composed of specialists that can take care of a clients problem no matter how
complicated it is even if it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion
situation. He said that he and his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are specialists in
various fields, can take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and
criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are
backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors and attorneys.

As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in
the US which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides,
the advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic
offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such
is allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is
not allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered
include various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services
are undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of
lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the
services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be
performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who
is in good and regular standing, is entitled to practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only
true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards
of the legal profession condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A lawyer
cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a
manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal
Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other
circumventions of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best
advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good
and efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself
and catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service
which is right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to
generate it and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal
by-product of able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme
Court also enumerated the following as allowed forms of advertisement:

Advertisement in a reputable law list


Use of ordinary simple professional card
Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization

G.R. No. L-23815

June 28, 1974

ADELINO H. LEDESMA, petitioner,


vs.
HON. RAFAEL C. CLIMACO, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of
Negros Occidental, Branch I, Silay City, respondent.
FACTS:
Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as counsel de parte for an accused in a case pending
in the sala of the respondent judge. On October 13, 1964, Ledesma was appointed
Election Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz, Negros Occidental. He commenced
discharging his duties, and filed a motion to withdraw from his position as counsel de
parte. The respondent Judge denied him and also appointed him as counsel de oficio for
the two defendants. On November 6, Ledesma filed a motion to be allowed to withdraw
as counsel de oficio, because the Comelec requires full time service which could prevent
him from handling adequately the defense. Judge denied the motion. So Ledesma
instituted this certiorari proceeding.
ISSUE: Whether or not the order of the respondent judged in denying the motion of the
petitioner is a grave abuse of discretion?
HELD: No, Ledesma's withdrawal would be an act showing his lack of fidelity to the duty
rqeuired of the legal profession. He ought to have known that membership in the bar is
burdened with conditions. The legal profession is dedicated to the ideal of service, and is
not a mere trade. A lawyer may be required to act as counsel de oficio to aid in the
performance of the administration of justice. The fact that such services are rendered
without pay should not diminish the lawyer's zeal.
RATIO:
The only attorneys who cannot practice law by reason of their office are Judges, or other
officials or employees of the superior courts or the office of the solicitor General (Section
32 Rule 127 of the Rules of Court [Section 35 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court].
The lawyer involved not being among them, remained as counsel of record since he did
not file a motion to withdraw as defendant-appellants counsel after his appointment as
Register of Deeds. Nor was substitution of attorney asked either by him or by the new
counsel for the defendant-appellant (People vs. Williams CA G.R. Nos. 00375-76,
February 28, 1963)
To avoid any frustration thereof, especially in the case of an indigent defendant, a lawyer
may be required to act as counsel de officio (People v. Daban) Moreover, The right of an
accused in a criminal case to be represented by counsel is a constitutional right of the
highest importance, and there can be no fair hearing with due process of law unless he
is fully informed of his rights in this regard and given opportunity to enjoy them (People
vs. Holgado, L-2809, March 22, 1950)

The trial court in a criminal case has authority to provide the accused with a counsel de
officio for such action as it may deem fit to safeguard the rights of the accused (Provincial
Fiscal of Rizal vs. Judge Muoz Palma, L-15325, August 31, 1930)

A.C. No. 7136

August 1, 2007

JOSELANO GUEVARRA, complainant,


vs.
ATTY. JOSE EMMANUEL EALA, respondent.
FACTS:
On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty. Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. Noli
Eala for grossly immoral conduct and unmitigated violation of the lawyers oath. In the
Complaint, Guevarra first met the respondent in January 2000 when his then fiance
Irene Moje introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne
Tantoco with whom he had three children.
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed that from January to
March 2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent Cellphone calls, as well as
messages some 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 her
whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parents house in Binangonan, Rizal or she
was busy with her work.
In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Respondent together on two
occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them following which Irene abandoned
the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001 complainant went uninvited to Irenes birthday
celebration at which he saw her and the respondent celebrating with her family and
friends. Out of embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately.
Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off all her personal
belongings. Complainant later found a handwritten letter dated October 7, 2007, the day
of his wedding to Irene, Complainant soon saw respondents car and that of Irene
constantly parked at No. 71-B11 Street, New Manila where as he was later learn
sometime in April 2001, Irene was already residing. He also learned still later that when
his friends saw Irene on about January 18, 2002 together with respondent during a
concert, she was pregnant.
ISSUE: Whether Concubinage or Adulterous relationship, be the reason for the
disbarment of Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala.
HELD: Lawyers oath stated that a lawyer should support the Constitution and obey the
laws, Meaning he shall not make use of deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct,
grossly immoral conduct, or be convicted in any crime involving moral turpitude. In the
case at bar Atty. Eala was accused of Concubinage, under ART. 334 of the Revised Penal
Code, Any husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or, shall have
sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife,
or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in
its minimum and medium period. Section 2 of ART. XV states that Marriage, as an

inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the
state. Respondents grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the laws,
that he as a lawyer has sworn to uphold. Hence the court declared Atty. Jose Emmanul
M. Eala DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his oath of office, and
violation of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P

February 24, 1997

SOPHIA ALAWI, complainant,


vs.
ASHARY M. ALAUYA, Clerk of Court VI, Shari'a District Court, Marawi City,
respondent.
FACTS:
Sophia Alawi was a sale representative of E.B. Villarosa & Partner Co., Ltd. of Davao
City. Ashari Alauya is the incumber executive of clerk of court of the 4th Judicial Shari'a
District in Marawi City. It appears that through Alawi's agency, a contract was executed
for the purchase on installments by Alauya of one of the housing units belonging to the
above mentioned firm (hereafter, simply Villarosa & Co.); and in connection therewith, a
housing loan was also granted to Alauya by the National Home Mortgage Finance
Corporation (NHMFC). Not long afterwards, or more precisely on December 15, 1995,
Alauya addressed a letter to the President of Villarosa & Co. advising of the termination
of his contract with the company.
HELD:
1. As regards Alauya's use of the title of "Attorney," this Court has already had occasion
to declare that persons who pass the Shari'a Bar are not full-fledged members of the
Philippine Bar, hence may only practice law before Shari'a courts. The title of "attorney"
is reserved to those who, having obtained the necessary degree in the study of law and
successfully taken the Bar Examinations, have been admitted to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and remain members thereof in good standing; and it is they only who are
authorized to practice law in this jurisdiction.
2. WHEREFORE, respondent Ashari M. Alauya is hereby REPRIMANDED for the use of
excessively intemperate, insulting or virulent language, i.e., language unbecoming a
judicial officer, and for usurping the title of attorney; and he is warned that any similar or
other impropriety or misconduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.

You might also like