Cayetano vs.

Monsod 201 SCRA 210 September 1991

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.
Stonehill v Diokno

Facts:

Forty-two (42) search warrants were issued at different dates against petitioners and the
corporations of which they were officers. Peace officers were directed to search the persons of the
petitioners and/or their premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences. Books of accounts,
financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals,
typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions including
disbursements receipts, balance sheets, and profit and loss statements and Bobbins were to be
seized.

Petitioner contends that the issued search warrants were null and void as having contravened the
Constitution and the Rules of Court for, among others, it did not describe the documents, books and
things to be seized PARTICULARLY.

Issue:

Whether or not the search warrant has been validly issued.

Whether or not the seized articles may be admitted in court.

Held:

The authority of the warrants in question may be split in two major groups: (a) those found and
seized in the offices of the corporations; and (b) those found and seized in the residences of the
petitioners.

The petitioners have no cause of action against the contested warrants on the first major group. This
is because corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the
personality of their officers, directors and stockholders. The legality of a seizure can be contested
only by the party whose rights have been impaired, the objection to an unlawful search and seizure
purely being personal cannot be availed by third parties.

As to the second major group, two important questions need be settled: (1) whether the search
warrants in question, and the searches and seizures made under authority thereof, are valid or not;
and (2) if the answer is no, whether said documents, papers and things may be used in evidence
against petitioners.

The Constitution protects the rights of the people from unreasonable searches and seizure. Two
points must be stressed in connection to this constitutional mandate: (1) no warrant shall be issued
except if based upon probable cause determined personally by the judge by the manner set in the
provision; and (2) the warrant shall describe the things to be seized with particularly.

In the present case, no specific offense has been alleged in the warrant’s application. The averments
of the offenses committed were abstract and therefore, would make it impossible for judges to
determine the existence of probable cause. Such impossibility of such determination naturally
hinders the issuance of a valid search warrant.

The Constitution also requires the things to be seized described with particularity. This is to
eliminate general warrants.

The Court held that the warrants issued for the search of three residences of petitioners are null and
void.