Cayetano vs.

Monsod 201 SCRA 210 September 1991

Cayetano vs. Monsod

201 SCRA 210

September 1991

Facts: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner
opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not posses required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten 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.

Issue: Whether the respondent does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

Held: In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: 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 proceeding, the management of such actions
and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. 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.

The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years is
incorrect since Atty. Monsod’s past work experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-
negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor – verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement for the
position of COMELEC chairman, The respondent has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years does In the view of the foregoing,
the petition is DISMISSED.

PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION vs AGRAVA

NOVEMBER 4, 2014 | KAAARINA

PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION vs AGRAVA

G.R. No. L-12426 February 16, 1959
FACTS:
Herein petitioner filed for prohibition and injunction against respondent Agrava, the Director of Philippines Patent Office due to a circular the
latter issued scheduling an examination for determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office.

Petitioner contended that one who has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines and
who is in good standing, is duly qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office, and that Agrava is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in
violation of the law for requiring such examination as condition precedent before members of the bar may be allowed to represent applicants
in the preparation and prosecution of applications for patents. Undaunted, Agrava argued that that the prosecution of patent cases does not
involve entirely or purely the practice of law and that the Rules of Court do not prohibit the Patent Office from requiring further condition or
qualification from those who would wish to handle cases before the Patent Office.

ISSUE:
Whether appearance before the Patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution of patent applications, etc., constitutes or is included in
the practice of law

HELD:
Yes. The practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons,
and the prosecution of their applications for patent, their oppositions thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. Although the
transaction of business in the Patent Office involves the use and application of technical and scientific knowledge and training, still, all such
business has to be rendered in accordance with the Patent Law, as well as other laws, including the Rules and Regulations promulgated by the
Patent Office in accordance with law. All these things involve the applications of laws, legal principles, practice and procedure. They call for
legal knowledge, training and experience for which a member of the bar has been prepared.
 As stated in 5 Am. Jur,
“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 social proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and
in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law corporation services,
assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a 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 as do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves
the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions.”

The Supreme Court ruled that under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law, and in
good standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office, since much of the business in said office involves the interpretation and
determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well as the presentation of evidence to establish
facts involved; that part of the functions of the Patent director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that appeals from his orders and
decisions are, taken to the Supreme Court.

PEOPLE V. VILLANUEVA- Disbarment

FACTS: On Sept. 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged SImplicio Villanueva with crime of Malicious Mischiedf, before the
Justice of the Peace Court of said Municipality. Said accused was represented by counsel de oficio, but later on replaced by counsel de
parte. The complainant in the same case was representry by City Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City, having entered his appearance as
private-prosecutor, having secuting the permission of the the Secretary of Justice.

Counsel for the accused presented a “Motion in inhibit Fiscal Fule from Acting as Private prosecutor in this case, “this time invoking sec. 32,
Rule 127, now sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules, which bars certain attorneys from practicing.

ISSUE: Whether of not Atty. Fule violate sec. 32 of Rule 127 now Sec. 35, Rule 138, revised Rules of Court, which bars certain attorneys from
practicing.

RULING: The Court holds that the appearance of Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice, within the meaning and contemplation of the
Rules. Practice is more than isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. The
word private 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 source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said
services. It has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been given permission by his immediate supervisor, the Secretary of Justice, to
represent the complainant in the case at bar, who is a relative.

In the matter of the Petition for Disbarment of Telesforo Diao vs. Severino Martinez
In the matter of the Petition for Disbarment of Telesforo Diao vs. Severino Martinez

FACTS:

1. DIAO was admitted to the Bar.

1. 2 years later, Martinez charged him with having falsely represented in his application for the Bar examination, that he had the requisite
academic qualifications.
2. Solicitor General investigated and recommended that Diao's name be erased from the roll of attorneys
i. DIAO did not complete pre-law subjects:

1. Did not complete his high school training

2. Never attended Quisumbing College

3. Never obtained a diploma.

2. DIAO admitting first charge but claims that although he had left high school in his third year, he entered the service of the U.S. Army, passed
the General Classification Test given therein, which (according to him) is equivalent to a high school diploma
 1. Upon return to civilian life, the educational authorities considered his army service as the equivalent of 3rd and 4th year high school.
2. No certification. However, it is unnecessary to dwell on this, since the second charge is clearly meritorious:
i. Never obtained his diploma. from Quisumbing College; and yet his application for examination represented him as an A.A. graduate.

ii. Now, asserting he had obtained his A.A. title from the Arellano University in April, 1949

1. He said erroneously certified, due to confusion, as a graduate of Quisumbing College, in his school records.

ISSUE:

WON DIAO still continue admission to the Bar, for passing the Bar despite not completing pre-law requirements? NO.

HELD:

STRIKE OUT NME OF DIAO IN ROLL OF ATTORNEYS. DIAO REQUIRED TO RETURN HIS LAWYER’S DIPLOMA WITHIN 30 DAYS.

1.
Explanation of error or confusion is not acceptable.
1.
Had his application disclosed his having obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it would also have disclosed that he got it in April, 1949, thereby
showing that he began his law studies (2nd semester of 1948-1949) six months before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree.
2. He would not have been permitted to take the bar tests:
i. Bar applicant must affirm under oath, "That previous to the study of law, he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal
education (A.A.).

ii. Therefore, Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations

iii. Such admission having been obtained under false pretenses must be, and is hereby revoked.

2. Passing such examinations is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular
manner is equally essential.Aug

IN RE: ARGOSINO (270 SCRA 26, 03/19/1997) AGUIRRE VS RANA

EN BANC[ B.M. No. 1036, June 10, 2003 ]

DONNA MARIE S. AGUIRRE, COMPLAINANT,
VS.
EDWIN L. RANA, RESPONDENT

Facts:

Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations. before the scheduled mass oath-taking, complainant Aguirre filed against
respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar.

The Court allowed respondent to take his oath. Respondent took the lawyer’s oath on the scheduled date but has not signed the Roll of
Attorneys up to now.

Complainant alleges that respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in an election.
On the charge of violation of law, complainant claims that respondent is a municipal government employee, being a secretary of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon, Masbate. As such, respondent is not allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or administrative
body.

On the charge of grave misconduct and misrepresentation, complainant accuses respondent of acting as counsel for vice mayoralty candidate
George Bunan without the latter engaging respondent’s services. Complainant claims that respondent filed the pleading as a ploy to prevent
the proclamation of the winning vice mayoralty candidate.

Issue:

Whether or not respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and thus does not deserve admission to the Philippine Bar

Ruling:

the Court held that “practice of law” means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually performed by members of the legal profession.
Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge or skill.

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of good moral character with special
qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational
attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by
passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who has passed the bar examinations, if the
person seeking admission had practiced law without a license.

True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that
finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only
qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be
performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.

FACTS: This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking of a successful bar applicant. Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino was previously
involved with hazing which caused the death of Raul Camaligan a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites but he was convicted for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. He was sentenced with 2 years and 4 months of imprisonment where he applied a probation thereafter
which was approved and granted by the court. He took the bar exam and passed but was not allowed to take the oath. He filed for a petition to
allow him to take the lawyer’s oath of office and to admit him to the practice of law averring that his probation was already terminated. The
court note that he spent only 10 months of the probation period before it was terminated.

ISSUE: Whether or not Al Argosino may take the lawyer’s oath office and admit him to the practice of law.

HELD: The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the STRICT, INTELLECTUAL and MORAL QUALIFICATIONS