IN RE: CUNANAN

Facts: In the manner of the petitions

for
Admission
to
the
Bar
of
unsuccessful candidates of 1946 to
1953. In recent years few controversial
issues have aroused so much public
interest and concern as R.A. 972
popularly known as the Bar Flunkers
Act of 1953 Generally a candidate is
deemed passed if he obtains a general
ave of 75% in all subjects w/o falling
below 50% in any subject, although for
the past few exams the passing grades
were changed depending on the
strictness of the correcting of the bar
examinations.
Republic Act 972 has for its object,
according to its author, to admit to the
Bar those candidates who suffered
from insufficiency of reading materials
and inadequate preparations. By and
large, the law is contrary to public
interest since it qualifies 1,094 law
graduates
who
had
inadequate
preparation for the practice of law
profession, as evidenced by their
failure in the exams.
Issues:
Whether
constitutional.

RA

972

is

HELD: NO. Section 2 was declared

unconstitutional due to the fatal defect
of not being embraced in the title of
the Act. As per its title, the Act should
affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to
1955 Bar examinations. Section2
establishes a permanent system for an
indefinite time. It was also struck down
for allowing partial passing, thus failing
to take account of the fact that laws
and jurisprudence are not stationary.
PRINCIPLE:
that
the
ultimate
power to grant license for the
practice of law belongs exclusively
to this Court, and the law passed
by Congress on the matter is of
permissive character, or as other
authorities may say, merely to fix
the minimum conditions for the
license.

Cayetano vs Monsod
In 1991, Christian Monsod was
appointed as the Chairman of the
Commission
on
Elections.
The
Commission on Appointments affirmed
his
appointment.
Monsods
appointment was opposed by
Renato Cayetano on the ground
that he does not qualify for he
failed to meet the Constitutional
requirement which provides that
the chairman of the COMELEC
should have been engaged in the
practice law for at least ten years.
Monsods track record as a lawyer:
1. Passed the bar in 1960 with a
rating of 86.55%.
2. Immediately
after
passing,
worked in his fathers law firm
for one year.
3. Thereafter, until 1970, he went
abroad where he had a degree
in economics and held various
positions in various foreign
corporations.
4. In 1970, he returned to the
Philippines and held executive
jobs
for
various
local
corporations until 1986.
5. In 1986, he became a member
of
the
Constitutional
Commission.
ISSUE: Whether
or
not
Monsod
qualifies as chairman of the COMELEC.
What constitutes practice of law?
HELD: Yes. Atty. Monsods past work
experiences as a lawyer-economist, a
lawyer-manager,
a
lawyer-

entrepreneur of industry, a lawyernegotiator of contracts, and a lawyerlegislator 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 ten years.
As noted by various authorities,
the practice of law is not limited
to court appearances. The members
of the bench and bar and the informed
laymen such as businessmen, know
that in most developed societies
today, substantially more legal work is
transacted in law offices than in the
courtrooms. General practitioners of
law who do both litigation and nonlitigation work also know that in most
cases they find themselves spending
more time doing what is loosely
described as business counseling than
in trying cases. In the course of a
working day the average general
practitioner wig engage in a number of
legal tasks, each involving different
legal doctrines, legal skills, legal
processes, legal institutions, clients,
and other interested parties. Even the
increasing numbers of lawyers in
specialized
practice
wig
usually
perform at least some legal services
outside their specialty. By no means
will most of this work involve litigation,
unless the lawyer is one of the
relatively rare types a litigator who
specializes in this work to the
exclusion of much else. Instead, the
work will require the lawyer to have
mastered the full range of traditional
lawyer skills of client counseling,
advice-giving, document drafting, and
negotiation.

Practice of Law Meaning is the

rendition of service requiring the
knowledge and application of legal
principles and technique to serve
the interest of another with his
consent. (Black laws Dictionary)

Ulep vs Legal Clinic Inc.

DOCTRINE: The services offered by
respondent include various legal
problems wherein a client may
avail of legal services from simple
documentation
to
complex
litigation
and
corporate
undertakings.
Most
of
these
services are exclusive functions of
lawyers engaged in the practice of
law. Only a person duly admitted
as a member of the bar and who is
in good and regular standing is
entitled to practice law

In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed

by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim,
according to Nogales was to move
toward specialization and to cater to
clients who cannot afford the services
of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio
Ulep filed a complaint against The
Legal Clinic because of the latters
advertisements which contain the
following:
Info
on
DIVORCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.

ABSENCE.

An attorney in Guam is giving FREE

BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The
Legal Clinic beginning Monday to

Friday during office hours.

Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage.
Immigration
Problems,
Visa
Ext.
Quota/Non-quota
Res.
&
Special
Retirees Visa. Declaration of Absence.
Remarriage
to
Filipina
Fiancees.
Adoption. Investment in the Phil.
US/Foreign
Visa
for
Filipina
Spouse/Children.
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic
published an article entitled Rx for
Legal Problems in Star Week of
Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated
that they The Legal Clinic is composed
of specialists that can take care of a
clients problem no matter how
complicated it is even if it is as
complicated as the Sharon CunetaGabby Concepcion situation. He said
that he and his staff of lawyers, who,
like doctors, are specialists in various
fields, can take care of it. The Legal
Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation
and
criminal
law,
medico-legal
problems, labor, litigation and family
law.

ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic

is engaged in the practice of law;
whether such is allowed; whether or
not its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is
engaged in the practice of law
however, such practice is not
allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed
mainly of paralegals. The services it
offered include various legal problems
wherein a client may avail of legal
services from simple documentation to
complex litigation and corporate
undertakings.
Most
of
these
services are undoubtedly beyond
the domain of paralegals, but
rather, are exclusive functions of
lawyers engaged in the practice of
law.
Under Philippine jurisdiction
however, the services being offered
by Legal Clinic which constitute
practice
of
law
cannot
be
performed by paralegals. Only a

person duly admitted as a member

of the bar and who is in good and
regular standing, is entitled to
practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the
questioned advertisements, the Code
of
Professional
Responsibility
provides that a lawyer in making
known his legal services shall use
only true, honest, fair, dignified
and
objective
information
or
statement of facts. The standards of
the legal profession condemn the
lawyers advertisement of his talents.
A lawyer cannot, without violating
the ethics of his profession,
advertise his talents or skills as in
a manner similar to a merchant
advertising his goods. Further, the
advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to
promote divorce, secret marriage,
bigamous
marriage,
and
other
circumventions of law which their
experts can facilitate. Such is highly
reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which
forms of advertisement are allowed.
The best advertising possible for a
lawyer
is
a
well-merited
reputation
for
professional
capacity and fidelity to trust,
which must be earned as the
outcome of character and conduct.
Good and efficient service to a client
as well as to the community has a way
of publicizing itself and catching public
attention. That publicity is a normal byproduct of effective service which is
right and proper. A good and reputable
lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to
generate it and to magnify his success.
He easily sees the difference between
a normal by-product of able service
and the unwholesome result of
propaganda. The Supreme Court also
enumerated the following as allowed
forms of advertisement:
1. Advertisement in a reputable
law list
2. Use
of
ordinary
professional card

simple

3. Listing in a phone directory but

without designation as to his
specialization

as counsel de parte. The respondent

Judge denied him and also appointed
him as counsel de oficio for the two
defendants. On November 6, Ledesma
filed a motion to be allowed to
withdraw as counsel de oficio, because
the Comelec requires full time service
which could prevent him from handling
adequately the defense. Judge denied
the motion. So Ledesma instituted this
certiorari proceeding.
Issue: Whether or not the order of
the respondent judged in denying the
motion of the petitioner is a grave
abuse of discretion?
Holding:
No, Ledesma's withdrawal would be
an act showing his lack of fidelity to
the duty rqeuired of the legal
profession. He ought to have known
that membership in the bar is
burdened with conditions. The legal
profession is dedicated to the ideal of
service, and is not a mere trade. A
lawyer may be required to act as
counsel de oficio to aid in the
performance of the administration of
justice. The fact that such services are
rendered without pay should not
diminish the lawyer's zeal.

Ledesma vs Climaco
Facts:
Petitioner Ledesma was assigned as
counsel de parte for an accused in a
case pending in the sala of the
respondent judge. On October 13,
1964, Ledesma was appointed Election
Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz,
Negros Occidental. He commenced
discharging his duties, and filed a
motion to withdraw from his position

Ratio:
The only attorneys who cannot
practice law by reason of their office
are Judges, or other officials or
employees of the superior courts or
the
office
of
the
solicitor
General (Section 32 Rule 127 of the
Rules of Court [Section 35 of Rule 138
of the Revised Rules of Court]. The
lawyer involved not being among
them, remained as counsel of record
since he did not file a motion to
withdraw
as
defendant-appellants
counsel after his appointment as
Register of Deeds. Nor was substitution
of attorney asked either by him or by
the new counsel for the defendantappellant (People vs. Williams CA G.R.
Nos. 00375-76, February 28, 1963)
In Re: Argosino,

FACTS:
Al Caparros Argosino had passed the
bar examinations but was denied of
taking the Lawyers Oath and to sign
the Rolls of Attorneys due to his
conviction of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide from a hazing
incident. Later in his sentence, he was
granted probation by the court. He
filed a petition to the Supreme Court
praying that he be allowed to take the
Lawyers Oath and sign the Rolls of
Attorneys. As a proof of the required
good moral character he now possess,
he presented no less than fifteen (15)
certifications among others from: two
(2) senators, five (5) trial court judges,
and six (6) members of religious order.
In addition, he, together with the
others who were convicted, organized
a scholarship foundation in honor of
their hazing victim.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mr. Argosino
should be allowed to take the Lawyers
Oath, sign the Rolls of Attorneys, and
practice law.
HELD: YES. Petition granted.
RATIO:
Given the fact that Mr. Argosino had
exhibited competent proof that he
possessed the required good moral
character as required before taking the
Lawyers Oath and to sign the Rolls of
Attorneys,
the
Supreme
Court
considered the premises that he is not
inherently in bad moral fiber. In giving
the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Argosino
was finally reminded that the Lawyers
Oath is not merely a ceremony or
formality before the practice of law,
and that the community assistance he
had started is expected to continue in
serving
the
more
unfortunate
members of the society.

In Re Ozaeta
Facts: The surviving parters of Atty.
Herminio Ozaeta filed a petition
praying that they be allowed to
continue using, in the name of their
firm, the names of their partner
who passed
away. One of the
petitioners
arguments stated
that no local custom
prohibits the
continued use of a deceased partners
name in a professional firms name in
so far as Greater Manila Area is
concerned. No custom exists which
recognizes that the name of a law firm
necessarily identifies the individual
members of the firm. They also stated
that the continued use of a deceased
partners name in the firm name of law
partnerships
has been consistently allowed by U.S.
Courts and is an accepted practice in t
he legal profession of most countries in
the world.
Issue: Whether or not the law firm
Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta &
Reyes is allowed tosustain the name
of their deceased partner, Atty.
Herminio Ozaeta, in the name of
theirfirm.Held: NO. Canon 33 of the Ca
nons of Professional Ethics adopted by
the American BarAssociation
stated
the following:The continued use of the
name of a deceased or former partner
when permissible by local custom, is
not unethical but care should be
takenthat no imposition or deception is
practiced through
this
use. No local custom permits or allow
s the continued use of a deceased or f
ormer partnersname
in
the
firm
names of law partnerships. Firm
names,
under
Philippine
custom,identify the more active or
senior partners in a firm. Firm names in
the Philippineschange and evolve
when partners die, leave or a new one
is added. It is questionable toadd the
new name of a partner and sustain the
name of the deceased one since they

havenever been, technically, partners

in the first place. When it comes to the
arguments
of
the petitioners stating that U.S. Courts
grant the continued use of the decease
d partnersname, this is so because in
the U.S., it is a sanctioned custom as
stated in the case of Mendelsohn v.
Equitable Life Assurance Society (33
N.Y.S 2d 733). This does not applyin
the Philippines. The petition filed
herein is denied and petitioner is
advised to drop the name OZAETA

from the firm name