The Practice Of Law Is Not A Business.

It Is A Profession In Which Duty To Public Service, Not Money, Is

The Primary Consideration.

April 7, 2015 by The Lawyer's Post

The Facts:

Spouses Stephan and Virginia filed a complaint against Atty. Ronald (Guaren). According to them, they
engaged his services for the titling of a residential lot they acquired, to which Atty. Ronald asked for
P10,000.00 including the expenses for the titling. He also asked for advance payment of P1,000.00 and
took all the pertinent documents relative to the titling of the lot. Atty. Ronald again asked for advance
payment of P6,000.0 which they gave on March 10, 1997, but from 1997 to 2001, despite several
reminders, Atty. Ronald failed to complete his undertaking and merely alleged that the titling was in
progress. Thus, they demanded the refund of the amount they gave, to which Ronald agreed provided
that the amount of P5,000.00 be deducted as his professional fees. Despite the existence of their
lawyer-client relationship, Atty. Ronald made a special appearance against them in a case pending
before the MCTC of Oslob, Cebu.

Atty. Ronald admitted charging P10,000.00 as acceptance fee from the spouses, as well as receiving
the P1,000.00 and P6,000.00. He denied, however that the acceptance included the expenses relative
to the titling of the lot; that their agreement was that the case would be filed in court after the
spouses paid in full the acceptance fees; that he did not take all the documents pertinent to the titling
of the lot; that the special appearance he made was only made in behalf of Atty Ervin Estandarte, the
counsel on record who failed to attend the said hearing.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Ronald liable for accepting the titling of complainants
lot and receiving payments but failed to perform his obligation after 5 long years, as well as for
appearing in a case against the complainants without securing their written conformity. He also
recommended that he be suspended for six months. The IBP Board of Governors modified the
recommended penalty to three months.

The Court’s ruling:

The Court adopts the findings of the IBP Board of Governors on the unethical conduct of Atty. Guaren,
except as to the penalty.

The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is
the primary consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture, and law
advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of a livelihood should be a
secondary consideration. The duty to public service and to the administration of justice should be the
primary consideration of lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to
themselves[1].

Canons 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:

CANON 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.

CANON 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
In the present case, Atty. Guaren admitted that he accepted the amount of P7,000.00 as partial
payment of his acceptance fee. He, however, failed to perform his obligation to file the case for the
titling of complainants’ lot despite the lapse of 5 years. Atty. Guaren breached his duty to serve his
client with competence and diligence when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him.

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ronald L. Guaren is found GUILTY of having violated Canons 17 and 18
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of SIX (6) MONTHS effective from receipt of this Resolution, with a warning that a similar
infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this resolution be furnished the Bar Confidant to be included in the records of the
respondent; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all its chapters; and the Office of
the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts throughout the country.

SO ORDERED.

THIRD DIVISION, A.C. No. 10164, March 10, 2014, STEPHAN BRUNET AND VIRGINIA ROMANILLOS
BRUNET, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. RONALD L. GUAREN, RESPONDENT.

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 father’s 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 member-countries,
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
Monsod’s 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 court…In 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
creditor’s 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. Monsod’s 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.
ALAWI VS ALAUYA

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.

Ruling:

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.

Spouses OLBES VS. Atty. VICTOR V. DECIEMBRE

AC-5365. April 27, 2005

Facts: Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was given five blank checks by Spouses Olbes for security of a loan.
After the loan was paid and a receipt issued, Atty. Deciembre filled up four of the five checks for P50,
000 with different maturity date. All checks were dishonored. Thus, Atty. Deciembre fled a case for
estafa against the spouses Olbes. This prompted the spouses Olbes to file a disbarment case against
Atty. Deciembre with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court. In the report, Commissioner Dulay
recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years for violating Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Issue: Whether or not the suspension of Atty. Deciembre was in accord with his fault.

Held: Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed
upon individuals who are not only learned in the law, but also known to possess good moral character.
“A lawyer is an oath-bound servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms
of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for
which he has sworn to be a fearless crusader.” By taking the lawyer’s oath, an attorney becomes a
guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial
administration of justice. Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a
manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the public’s faith in the legal profession. It is also
glaringly clear that the Code of Professional Responsibility was seriously transgressed by his malevolent
act of filling up the blank checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed upon at all and despite
respondent’s full knowledge that the loan supposed to be secured by the checks had already been paid.
His was a brazen act of falsification of a commercial document, resorted to for his material gain.
Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and
dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral flaw. The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by
conduct that merely enables one to escape the penalties of criminal laws. Considering the depravity of
the offense committed by respondent, we find the penalty recommended by the IBP of suspension for
two years from the practice of law to be too mild. His propensity for employing deceit and
misrepresentation is reprehensible. His misuse of the filled-up checks that led to the detention of one
petitioner is loathsome. Thus, he is sentenced suspended indefinitely from the practice of law effective
immediately.