Bequia vs.

Sabandal, SB 66, February 24, 1992

FACTS: In 1976, Sabandal took and passed the bar. However, he was prevented to take the lawyers
oath because of the oppositions of several persons who alleged that he, while working as Land
Investigator at the Bureau of Lands has secured a free patent and later a certificate of title to a
parcel of land which, upon investigation, turned out to be a swampland and not susceptible of
acquisition under a free patent, and which he later mortgaged to the Rural Bank of Pinan (ZN) Inc.
The mortgage was later foreclosed and the land sold at public auction and respondent has not
redeemed the land until the present. Accordingly, a civil case was filed against him by the Solicitor
General for Cancellation of Title and/or Reversion in RTC of Zambaoanga de Norte. However, in
his application to take the bar, he did not mention of the pendency of this case against him.To the
vehement objectors of his bar application, this was act constitutes dishonesty and does not speak
well of his good moral character.
Main Issue: Should Sabandal’s petition to be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath granted?

Ruling: No In view of the nature of that case and the circumstances attending its termination, the
Court now entertains second thoughts about respondent's fitness to become a member of the
Bar.

It should be recalled that Sabandal worked as Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands. Said
employment facilitated his procurement of the free patent title over property which he could not
but have known was public land. This was manipulative on his part and does not speak well of his
moral character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in the public service, which can not
be erased by the termination of the case filed by the Republic against him where no determination
of his guilt or innocence was made because the suit had been compromised. This is a sad reflection
on his sense of honor and fair dealing. His failure to reveal to this Court the pendency of the civil case
for Reversion filed against him during the period that he was submitting several Motions for
Reconsideration before us also reveal his lack of candor and truthfulness.

ISSUE: Is the practice of law a privilege or a right.

RULING: Time and again. , it has been held that the practice of law is not a matter of right. It is a
privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also known
to possess good moral character:

The Supreme Court and the Philippine Bar have always tried to maintain a high
standard for the legal profession, both in academic preparation and legal training
as well as in honesty and fair dealing. The Court and the licensed lawyers
themselves are vitally interested in keeping this high standard; and one of the ways
of achieving this end is to admit to the practice of this noble profession only those
persons who are known to be honest and to possess good moral character. . . . (In
re Parazo, 82 Phil. 230)

Cayetano vs Monso, GR No. 100113, September 31, 1991

FACTS: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the
position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on
Appointments on April 25, 1991. Petitioner, Cayetano, opposed the nomination because allegedly
Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law
for at least ten years. On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the
nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC. On June 18, 1991, he took his oath of office.
On the same day, he assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC.

Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod's

nomination, petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for certiorari and
Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as
Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void.

The records show however that Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having
passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86-55%. He has been a dues paying member
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his
professional license fees as lawyer for more than ten years
ISSUE: What is the meaning of “Practice of Law”?
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
those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice
or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill." (111 ALR 23)
Other definitions:

Black defines "practice of law" as:

The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal
principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not
limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation,
but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions
and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all
kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients
and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law. An attorney
engages in the practice of law by maintaining an office where he is held out to be-
an attorney, using a letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling clients
in legal matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about pending litigation, and
fixing and collecting fees for services rendered by his associate. (Black's Law
Dictionary, 3rd ed.)

This Court in the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v.Agrava, (105 Phil. 173,176-177)
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 proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf
of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying.

ISSUE: Did Monsod possess the qualification for COMELEC Chairmanship of having been engaged
in the practice of law for at least ten years?
RULING: Yes. Based on the definition of “in the Practice of Law”, he is qualified.
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. CA, GR No. 86100-03, January 23, 1990
Celedonio Javier bought 7 parcels of land owned by Eustaquio Alejandro, et al.,with a total area of
about 10 hectares. Properties were mortgaged by Javier with Metrobank to secure a loan
obligation of one Felix Angelo Bautista and/or International HotelCorporation.

Javier defaulted. Metrobank foreclosed the properties. Alejandro, on the other hand, alleging
deceit, fraud and misrepresentation committed against him by Javier in the sale of the parcels of
land, brought suits against Javier et al., and included Metrobank as defendant therein. Arturo
Alafriz and Associates (AAA’s) legal services were already acquired here. While the case was
pending, Metrobank sold the properties to its sister company, SLC, who, on the other hand, sold
the property to another company and the cycle went on. AAA filed, on August 16, 1983 a verified
motion to enter in the records of the aforesaid civil cases its charging lien, pursuant to Section
37,Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of the actual and
current market values of the litigated properties as its attorney's fees. This was granted by the
Trial Court because of Metrobank’s failure to appear.
The Alejandro case was subsequently dismissed as well. On May 28,1984, AAA filed a motion to
fix its attorney's fees, based on quantum meruit , which motion precipitated an exchange of
arguments between the parties.

ISSUE: Is the practice of law a business?

RULING: NO. Law advocacy, it has been stressed, is not capital that yields profits. The returns it
births are simple rewards for a job done or service rendered. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile
pursuits which enjoy a greater deal of freedom from government interference, is impressed with
public interest, for which it is subject to State regulation.
Credito vs. Atty Sabio, AC 4920, October 19, 2005

FACTS: Complainants were employees/laborers of Binalbagan Isabela Sugar Company (Biscom), a

sugar mill operating in Binalbagan, Negros Occidental. In a Complaint before the Regional Labor
Arbitration Branch in Bacolod City, they charged Biscom of illegal dismissal. Respondent Atty. Sabio
represented them in that case, entitled "WAUP/Godofredo Ledesma, et al. vs. Biscom, et al."

On December 21, 1988, the labor arbiter promulgated a Decision, ordering the reinstatement of
complainants to their former jobs and the payment of back wages amounting to ₱9,679,133.38.
Biscom appealed the case to the NLRC in Cebu City, which reversed the labor arbiter’s Decision
and dismissed the Complaint.

Complainants, led by Leopoldo Credito, asked respondent to elevate the case to the Supreme
Court (SC) by way of a Petition for Certiorari. To defray the expenses incurred in filing the Petition
and other incidental expenses, they allegedly gave respondent money collected from their
members (each of whom had contributed from ₱30 to ₱100). Unfortunately, the Petition was
dismissed on March 2, 1992, for failure to pay the proper docket and filing fees and for lack of the
required certification against forum shopping. Atty. Sabio allegedly kept this dismissal from their
knowledge for more than three years.

ISSUE: Did Atty Sabio violate ethical standards as a lawyer?

RULING: Yes.

We agree with the IBP that Atty. Sabio should be disciplined, but not with a mere warning. Under
the circumstances, a one-year suspension from the practice of law is warranted.

Respondent’s Administrative Liability

Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that lawyers owe fidelity to the cause
of their client and must therefore be always mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them.
Under Canon 18, they are mandated to serve their client with competence and diligence.
Specifically, they are not to "neglect a legal matter entrusted to [them], and [their] negligence in
connection therewith shall render [them] liable." Additionally, they are required to keep their
client informed of the status of the latter’s cases and to respond within a reasonable time to
requests for information. Even before joining the bar, lawyers subscribe to an Oath to conduct
themselves "with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to their clients."

Clearly, Atty. Sabio has not lived up to these Canons and Rules or to his Oath.

First, the dismissal of complainants’ Petition before the Supreme Court was due to the failure of
respondent to pay the total revised docket and other legal fees and to attach the required
certification on forum shopping. He attempted to rectify those procedural lapses by filing a Motion
for Reconsideration. Nonetheless, there is no denying the fact that he overlooked basic procedural
requirements that a normally prudent practitioner could and should not have left unattended,
especially when the rights sought to be protected were those of the underprivileged, like the
present complainants.

Second, his claim that he could not have received contributions from his 200 or so clients in the
labor case, because only 40 had signed the Petition, skirts the issue that he had received money
to defray docket and other legal fees. Whether the contributions came from 40 or 200 people
does not refute the allegation that enough money was entrusted to him for the filing of the
Petition. Yet, he failed to pay the Court the required amount on time.
Third, complainants’ averments that respondent kept them in the dark on the dismissal of the
Petition are supported by the evidence on record. The series of letters sent to him by individual
complainants, inquiring on the status of the Petition, belie his claim that he verbally informed them
of the dismissal. Had they indeed been informed of it, they would not have gone to the trouble of
individually following up the case.

In Garcia v. Atty. Manuel, bad faith was ascribed to a lawyer for failing to inform the client of the
status of a case. In view of their highly fiduciary relationship with their counsel, clients have every
reason to expect from the former periodic and full updates on case developments.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, it is clear from SC Circular No. 58-95 that Atty. Sabio was indeed
suspended from the practice of law for six months in connection with AM No. RTJ-93-1033,
entitled "Maribeth Cordova and Christopher Cordova v. Hon. Emma C. Labayen et al." In that
administrative case, he was disciplined for instigating his clients to file an Administrative Complaint
"to frustrate the enforcement of lawful court orders and consequently obstruct the desirable
norms and course of justice." Accordingly, he was "warned that a more severe sanction shall be
imposed should he commit another administrative offense."