RENATO CAYETANO vs.

CHRISTIAN MONSOD
G.R. No. 100113. September 3, 1991.
FACTS:
Monsod was nominated by President Aquino as Chairman of the Comelec. The
Commission on Appointments confirmed the appointment despite Cayetano's
objection, based on Monsod's alleged lack of the required qualification of 10 year
law practice. Cayetano filed this certiorari and prohibition. 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.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Monsod has been engaged in the practice of law for 10 years.
2. Whether or not the Commission on Appointments committed grave abuse of
discretion in confirming Monsods appointment.

HELD:
1. YES. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in
court. It embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions
and special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on
behalf of clients, and other works where the work done involves the determination
of the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions (PLA vs.
Agrava.) The records of the 1986 constitutional commission show that the
interpretation of the term practice of law was liberal as to consider lawyers
employed in the Commission of Audit as engaged in the practice of law provided
that they use their legal knowledge or talent in their respective work. The court also
cited an article in the January 11, 1989 issue of the Business Star, that lawyers
nowadays have their own specialized fields such as tax lawyers, prosecutors, etc.,
that because of the demands of their specialization, lawyers engage in other works
or functions to meet them. These days, for example, most corporation lawyers are
involved in management policy formulation. Therefore, Monsod, who passed the bar
in 1960, worked with the World Bank Group from 1963-1970, then worked for an
investment bank till 1986, became member of the CONCOM in 1986, and also
became a member of the Davide Commission in 1990, can be considered to have
been engaged in the practice of law as lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyerentrepreneur, etc.

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.

People v. Hon. Bonifacio Maceda

January 24, 2000
This case stems from denial by the SC of the Peoples motion seeking
reconsideration of our August 13, 1990 decision holding that respondent Judge
Bonifacio Sanz Maceda committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order
of August 8, 1989 giving custody over private respondent Avelino T. Javellana to the
Clerk of Court of the Antique RTC, Atty. Deogracias del Rosario, during the pendency
of Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355. At that time, sufficient reason was shown why
Javellana should not be detained at the Antique Provincial Jail. The trial courts order
specifically provided for private respondents detention at the residence of Atty. del
Rosario. However, private respondent was not to be allowed liberty to roam around
but was to be held as detention prisoner in said residence. It was howevere found
that the order was not strictly complied with because Javellana was not detained in
the residence of Atty. Del Rosario. He went about his normal activities as if he were
a free man, including engaging in the practice of law.
Held:
Private respondent Javellana has been arrested based on the filing of criminal cases
against him. By such arrest, he is deemed to be under the custody of the law. The
trial court gave Atty. Deogracias del Rosario the custody of private respondent
Javellana with the obligation to hold and detain him in Atty. del Rosarios residence
in his official capacity as the clerk of court of the regional trial court. Hence, when
Atty. del Rosario was appointed judge, he ceased to be the personal custodian of
accused Javellana and the succeeding clerk of court must be deemed the custodian
under the same undertaking.
As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed
placed under the custody of the law. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail
so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. He must be
detained in jail during the pendency of the case against him, unless he is authorized
by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance. Let it be stressed that all
prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence can not
practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation, or hold office,
elective or appointive, while in detention.

In Re: Vicente Almacen

Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. They lost in
said civil case but Almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He notified the
opposing party of said motion but he failed to indicate the time and place of hearing
of said motion. Hence, his motion was denied. He then appealed but the Court of
Appeals denied his appeal as it agreed with the trial court with regard to the motion
for reconsideration. Eventually, Almacen filed an appeal on certiorari before the
Supreme Court which outrightly denied his appeal in a minute resolution.
This earned the ire of Almacen who called such minute resolutions as
unconstitutional. He then filed before the Supreme Court a petition to surrender his
lawyers certificate of title as he claimed that it is useless to continue practicing his
profession when members of the high court are men who are calloused to pleas for
justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit
culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. He further alleged that due to
the minute resolution, his client was made to pay P120k without knowing the
reasons why and that he became one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of
hypocrisy. He also stated that justice as administered by the present members of
the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.
The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacens petition as the Court
wanted to wait for Almacen to ctually surrender his certificate. Almacen did not
surrender his lawyers certificate though as he now argues that he chose not to.
Almacen then asked that he may be permitted to give reasons and cause why no
disciplinary action should be taken against him . . . in an open and public hearing.
He said he preferred this considering that the Supreme Court is the complainant,
prosecutor and Judge. Almacen was however unapologetic.
ISSUE: Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed
because the Supreme Court cannot accept every case or write full opinion for every
petition they reject otherwise the High Court would be unable to effectively carry
out its constitutional duties. The proper role of the Supreme Court is to decide only
those cases which present questions whose resolutions will have immediate
importance beyond the particular facts and parties involved. It should be
remembered that a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a
matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully
explain the courts denial. For one thing, the facts and the law are already
mentioned in the Court of Appeals opinion.
On Almacens attack against the Supreme Court, the High Court regarded said
criticisms as uncalled for; that such is insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful
and derogatory. It is true that a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a
citizen, has the right to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate
channels the acts of courts and judges. His right as a citizen to criticize the
decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner, and the independence of the
bar, as well as of the judiciary, has always been encouraged by the courts. But it is
the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not

spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a
gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.
In the case at bar, Almacens criticism is misplaced. As a veteran lawyer, he should
have known that a motion for reconsideration which failed to notify the opposing
party of the time and place of trial is a mere scrap of paper and will not be
entertained by the court. He has only himself to blame and he is the reason why his
client lost. Almacen was suspended indefinitely.