Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
The Court held that the Court of Appeals and Intermediate Appellate Court Cayetano v. Monsod
existing prior to E.O. No. 33 phased out as part of the legal system
abolished by the 1986 Revolution. The Court of Appeals that was
Facts:
established under E.O. No. 33 is considered as an entirely new court.
In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Chairman of the
Commission on Elections. His appointment was affirmed by the
The present Court of Appeals is a new entity, different and distinct from
Commission on Appointments. Monsod’s appointment was opposed by
the courts existing before E.O. No. 33. It was created in the wake of the
Renato Cayetano on the ground that he does not qualify for he failed to
massive reorganization launched by the revolutionary government of
meet the Constitutional requirement which provides that the chairman of
Corazon Aquino in the aftermath of the people power in 1986.
the COMELEC should have been engaged in the practice law for at least
ten years.
Monsod’s track record as a lawyer:
People v. Villanueva 1. Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%.
2. Immediately after passing, worked in his father’s law firm for one
Facts: year.
In 1959, Villanueva was charged with Malicious Mischief in the 3. Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he had a degree in
municipality of Alaminos in Laguna. In said case, the private offended party economics and held various positions in various foreign
asked his lawyer friend, Ariston Fule to prosecute said case. Apparently, corporations.
Fule was the fiscal in San Pablo, Laguna. Villanueva the opposed the 4. In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for
appearance of Fule as counsel for the offended party as he said that various local corporations until 1986.
according to the Rules of Court when an attorney had been appointed to 5. In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.
the position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal and therein
qualified, by operation of law, he ceased to engage in private law practice. Issue:
Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the COMELEC. What
Issue: constitutes practice of law?
Whether or not Ariston Fule is engaged in private law practice?
Held:
Held: Yes. Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a
No. Private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator
to be in the active and continued practice of the legal profession and that of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor —
his professional services are available to the public for a compensation, verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he has
as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. In the been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
case at bar, Fule is not being compensated but rather he’s doing it for As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to court
free for his friend who happened to be the offended party. Practice is appearances. The members of the bench and bar and the informed
more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary laymen such as businessmen, know that in most developed societies
actions, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent today, substantially more legal work is transacted in law offices than in
the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do both litigation and
non-litigation work also know that in most cases they find themselves HELD/RATIO:
spending more time doing what is loosely described as business Yes, it constitutes practice of law.
counseling than in trying cases. In the course of a working day the Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which
average general practitioner wig engage in a number of legal tasks, each requires the application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training
involving different legal doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts
institutions, clients, and other interested parties. Even the increasing which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to
numbers of lawyers in specialized practice wig usually perform at least give advice or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or
some legal services outside their specialty. By no means will most of this skill.
work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is one of the relatively rare types The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court.
— a litigator who specializes in this work to the exclusion of much else. It includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal
Instead, the work will require the lawyer to have mastered the full range instruments and contract by which legal rights are secured, although
of traditional lawyer skills of client counseling, advice-giving, document such matter may or may not be pending in a court.When a person
drafting, and negotiation. participates in a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in the
practice of law. One who confers with clients, advises them as to their
legal rights and then takes the business to an attorney and asks the latter
to look after the case in court, is also practicing law. Giving advice for
compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and the
conduct with respect thereto constitutes a practice of law. The practice of
ULEP V. LEGAL CLINIC, INC
law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court. And
applying the criteria, respondent Legal Clinic Inc. is, as advertised,
FACTS:
engaged in the “practice of law”.
This is a petition praying for an order to the respondent to cease
and desist from issuing certain advertisements pertaining to the exercise of
No, the ads should be enjoined.
the law profession other than those allowed by law.The said advertisement
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out
of the Legal Clinic invites potential clients to inquire about secret marriage
legal information to laymen and lawyers. With its attorneys and so called
and divorce in Guam and annulment, and the like. It also says that they are
paralegals, it will necessarily have to explain to the client the intricacies of
giving free books on Guam Divorce.
the law and advise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken
Ulep claims that such advertisements are unethical and destructive
as may be provided for by said law. That is what its advertisements
of the confidence of the community in the integrity of lawyers. He, being a
represent and for the services it will consequently charge and be paid.
member of the bar, is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements.
That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential definition of
On the other hand, the respondent, while admitting of the fact of the
"practice of law."
publication of the advertisements, claims that it is not engaged in the
The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's
practice of law but is merely rendering legal support services through
advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the
paralegals.It also contends that such advertisements should be allowed
ethics of his profession advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar
based on certain US cases decided.
to a merchant advertising his goods. The only exceptions are when he
appears in a reputable law list and use of an ordinary, simple
ISSUE:
professional card.
Whether or not the Legal Clinic Inc is engaged in the practice of law.
The advertisements do not fall under these exceptions. To allow
Whether or not the same can properly be the subject of the
the publication of advertisements of the kind used by respondent would
advertisements complained of.
only serve to aggravate what is already a deteriorating public opinion of knowledge of the case against him. The commission of his offense itself is
the legal profession whose integrity has consistently been under attack. devoid of honesty. With the practice of law a matter of privilege and not
Hence, it should be enjoined. as a right, they find respondent unfit to be a member of the law profession
“When a person participates in a trial and advertises himself as a therefore it recalled the court resolution of allowing the respondent to
lawyer, he is in the practice of law” take oath.
Facts:
Petitioner files a motion for reconsideration after the court allows
respondent to finally take oath and practice the law profession after
IN RE: EDILLON
considering his plea for forgiveness and showing willingness to reform
along with testimonials attesting to his good moral character among which
Facts:
is a testimonial by the IBP Zamboanga. Petitioners contend that such
The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in
testimonial was only signed by its President, a counsel for the in-laws of
the Philippines. The IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Court
Sabandal, without the authorization of the IBP Board members. The court
the removal of the name of the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for
allowed the IBP to manifest testimony to certify as to the good moral
stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues assailing the provisions of
character of the respondent and asked for a comment from the RTC Judge
the Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section 24, Article III,
in Zamboanga. Members of the IBP manifested that they see no
of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of IBP, payment of
impediments as to the moral character of Sabandal while the RTC Judge
membership fee and suspension for failure to pay the same.
informed the court of the civil case against the respondent concerning the
mortgaged land which he secured for a free patent which turned out to be
Edillon contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his
a swampland and not susceptible for acquisition for a free patent. The civil
constitutional rights in the sense that he is being compelled as a pre-
case however was settled amicably and the respondent was not charged
condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in good standing, to be a
of any crime. Subsequently, Tan already forgave the respondent and
member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a
withdrew her opposition for the taking of oath of office of the respondent
consequence of this compelled financial support of the said organization
while the other 2 petitioners leave upon the court to decide.
to which he is admitted personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the
rights to liberty and properly guaranteed to him by the Constitution.
Issue:
Hence, the respondent concludes the above provisions of the Court Rule
WON Sabandal should be allowed to take oath of office
and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.
Ruling:
Issue:
The court ruled that in the development of the case, they find Sabandal to
Whether or not the court may compel Atty. Edillion to pay his
have concealed the civil case brought against him in the course of his
membership fee to the IBP?
series of petitions to be allowed to take oath together with the
testimonies attesting to his good moral character without any mention of
Held:
the pending case against him. The court finds this as manipulative and
The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which every lawyer must be a
gross dishonesty on the part of the respondent. Although there were
member of as distinguished from bar associations in which membership is
testimonials on his good moral characters those were made without any
merely optional and voluntary. All lawyers are subject to comply with the
rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar including payment a Binangonan, Rizal or she was busy with her work.
reasonable annual fees as one of the requirements. The Rules of Court
only compels him to pay his annual dues and it is not in violation of his In February or March 2001, complainant saw Irene and Respondent
constitutional freedom to associate. Bar integration does not compel the together on two occasions. On the second occasion, he confronted them
lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not the meeting of following which Irene abandoned the conjugal house. On April 22, 2001
his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its election as he complainant went uninvited to Irene’s birthday celebration at which he
chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of saw her and the respondent celebrating with her family and friends. Out of
annual dues. The Supreme Court in order to further the State’s legitimate embarrassment, anger and humiliation, he left the venue immediately.
interest in elevating the quality of professional legal services, may require Following that incident, Irene went to the conjugal house and hauled off
that the cost of the regulatory program – the lawyers. all her personal belongings. Complainant later found a handwritten letter
dated October 7, 2007, the day of his wedding to Irene, Complainant soon
Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the State. saw respondent’s car and that of Irene constantly parked at No. 71-B11
The right to practice law before the courts of this country should be and is Street, New Manila where as he was later learn sometime in April 2001,
a matter subject to regulation and inquiry. And if the power to impose the Irene was already residing. He also learned still later that when his friends
fee as a regulatory measure is recognize then a penalty designed to saw Irene on about January 18, 2002 together with respondent during a
enforce its payment is not void as unreasonable as arbitrary. Furthermore, concert, she was pregnant.
the Court has jurisdiction over matters of admission, suspension,
disbarment, and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation as part of Issue:
its inherent judicial functions and responsibilities thus the court may
compel all members of the Integrated Bar to pay their annual dues. Would an illicit affair between a married lawyer and a married woman
constitute gross immoral conduct?
JoselanoGuevarra vs. Atty. Jose Emmanuel Eala
Ruling:
Facts: Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without
On March 4, 2002 a complaint of disbarment was filed before the the benefit of marriage should be characterized as 'grossly immoral
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar Discipline against Atty. conduct' depends on the surrounding circumstances." The case at bar
Jose Emmanuel M. Eala a.k.a. NoliEala for grossly immoral conduct and involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman
unmitigated violation of the lawyer’s oath. In the Complaint, Guevarra first who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out
met the respondent in January 2000 when his then fiancée Irene Moje discreetly.
introduced respondent to him as her friend who was married to Marianne
Tantoco with whom he had three children. Sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as
it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the
After his marriage to Irene on October 7, 2000, Complainant noticed that marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.
from January to March 2001, Irene had been receiving from respondent (Vitug v. Rongcal)
Cellphone calls, as well as messages some which read “I love you,” “I miss
you,” or “Meet you at Megamall.” He also noticed that Irene habitually Respondent has been carrying on an illicit affair with a married woman, a
went home very late at night or early in the morning of the following day, grossly immoral conduct and indicative of an extremely low regard for the
and sometimes did not go home from work. When he asked her fundamental ethics of his profession. This detestable behavior renders him
whereabouts, she replied that she slept at her parent’s house in regrettably unfit and undeserving of the treasured honor and privileges
which his license confers upon him. (Tucay v. Atty. Tucay) oath of office, and violation of canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Respondent in fact also violated the lawyer's oath he took before
admission to practice law.
In this connection, the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209), which
echoes this constitutional provision, obligates the husband and the wife
"to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render
mutual help and support."
Held: Lawyer’s oath stated that a lawyer should support the Constitution
and obey the laws, Meaning he shall not make use of deceit, malpractice,
or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or be convicted in
any crime involving moral turpitude. In the case at bar Atty. Eala was
accused of Concubinage, under ART. 334 of the Revised Penal Code, “ Any
husband who shall keep a mistress in a conjugal dwelling, or, shall have
sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is
not his wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be punished
by prisioncorreccional in its minimum and medium period. Section 2 of
ART. XV states that “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
foundation of the family and shall be protected by the state. Respondent’s
grossly immoral conduct runs afoul of the constitution and the laws, that
he as a lawyer has sworn to uphold. Hence the court declared Atty. Jose
Emmanul M. Eala DISBARRED for grossly immoral conduct, violation of his