Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
Manangan v. CFI
- Petitioner counsel for himself was charged in CFI with violation of RPC (Execution of Deeds by Intimidation). On the
same date an order of arrest was released.
- He then filed a petition for CPM with TRO assailing the jurisdiction of the lower court. However the same was dismissed
for non-payment of legal fees.
- During prelim invest. he did not show up and disappeared for 1 year.
- When he surfaced an alias writ was issued. And he challenged this Alias Writ. He contested the Alias writ in CFI but the
latter said that the said warrant of arrest was still in force after the lapsed of time.
SC: Contrary to petitioner's pretensions, the Alias Warrant of Arrest is valid. Petitioner had evaded arrest by disappearing
from the jurisdiction of respondent Court. Neither is there any indication in the records that the property bond, filed by
petitioner-accused in the Municipal Circuit Court of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur, had been accepted by respondent
Court and petitioner discharged on the basis thereof. The Alias Warrant is not "stale or functus officio," as alleged. Unlike a
warrant, which is valid for only ten (10) days from date (Rule 126, Sec. 9), a Warrant of Arrest remains valid until arrest is
effected or the Warrant lifted. Respondent Court, therefore, cannot be faulted with grave abuse of discretion for holding
that said Warrant is in full force and effect.
Page 1
Page 3