Case 1. Cayetano vs.

Monsod (201 SCRA 210) Facts: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination because alle edly Monsod does not posses required qualification of ha!in been en a ed in the practice of law for at least ten years. "he #$%& constitution pro!ides in 'ection #( Article )*+C, "here shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and si- Commissioners who shall be natural+born citizens of the Philippines and( at the time of their appointment( at least thirty+ fi!e years of a e( holders of a colle e de ree( and must not ha!e been candidates for any electi!e position in the immediately precedin elections. .owe!er( a ma/ority thereof( includin the Chairman( shall be members of the Philippine 0ar who ha!e been en a ed in the practice of law for at least ten years. Issue: 1hether the respondent does not possessed the required qualification of ha!in en a ed in the practice of law for at least ten years. Held: )n the case of Philippine Lawyers Association !s. A ra!a( stated, "he practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or liti ation in court2 it embraces the preparation of pleadin s and other papers incident to actions and special proceedin ( the mana ement of such actions and proceedin s on behalf of clients before /ud es and courts( and in addition( con!eyin . )n eneral( all ad!ice to clients( and all action ta3en for them in matters connected with the law incorporation ser!ices( assessment and condemnation ser!ices( contemplatin an appearance before /udicial body( the foreclosure of mort a e( enforcement of a creditor4s claim in ban3ruptcy and insol!ency proceedin s( and conductin proceedin s in attachment( and in matters of estate and uardianship ha!e been held to constitute law practice. Practice of law means any acti!ity( in or out court( which requires the application of law( le al procedure( 3nowled e( trainin and e-perience. "he contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification of ha!in en a ed in the practice of law for at least ten years is incorrect since Atty. Monsod4s past wor3 e-perience as a lawyer+economist( a lawyer+mana er( a lawyer+entrepreneur of industry( a lawyer+ ne otiator of contracts( and a lawyer+le islator of both rich and the poor 5 !erily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement for the position of COMELEC chairman( "he respondent has been en a ed in the practice of law for at least ten years does )n the !iew of the fore oin ( the petition is 6)'M)''E6. 2. BM 2540 In e: Atty. Medado

!. Cu" vs. Cu" II SCRA #5$ (%&S'S MA. C'I vs. A()*(I* MA. C'I) Facts: "he main concern in this case is the respecti!e qualifications of 7esus Cui and Antonio Cui to the position of administrator of .ospicio de 'an 7ose de 0arii( a charitable institution established by 6on Pedro Cui and 6ona0eni na Cui. 7esus and Antonio are the sons of Mariano Cui( a nephew of the founders of the institution. Antonio4s claim to theposition is based on a 8con!enio9 where then administrator "eodoro resi ned in fa!or of him. 7esus( howe!er( hadno prior notice of this. 7esus4s claim is that he should be preferred pursuant to the deed of donation :which reco nized their fatherMariano as a le itimate descendant to the position; as he is the older of the two. "he deed( howe!er( i!es preference to a descendant who has a 8titulo de abo ado9 or a doctor( or a ci!ilen ineer( or a pharmacist :in order;. Or to the one who pays the hi hest ta-es. 7esus holds the de ree of 0achelorof Laws but is not a member of the 0ar( while Antonio is a member of the 0ar :he was formerly disbarred( thou h(by the 'C and was /ust reinstated wee3s before assumin the position;

)ssues, 1ho has a better ri ht to the position of administrator between 7ose and Antonio< 1hat does the term 8titulo de abo ado9 mean< .eld, Antonio. "he term 8titulo de abo ado9 is not /ust mere possession of the academic de ree of 0achelor of Laws but membership in the bar after due admission thereto( qualifyin one to the practice of law. Possession of the de ree is not indispensable to qualify as a lawyer since completion of the prescribed courses may be shown in some other way. )t was also ar ued that Antonio is disqualified for ha!in been pre!iously disbarred since the deed also pro!ided that an administrator may be remo!ed if found to lac3 a sound moral character. .owe!er( Antonio was reinstated. "his reinstatement is a reco nition of his moral rehabilitation after pro!in what was required by the 0ar. Antonio4s restoration to the roll of lawyers wiped out restrictions and disabilities resultin from the pre!ious disbarment.

4. In e: Cunanan $4 +,"l. 5!4 =acts, )n the manner of the petitions for Admission to the 0ar of unsuccessful candidates of #$>? to #$@A2 Albino Cunanan et al( petitioners. )n recent years few contro!ersial issues ha!e aroused so much public interest and concern as R.A. $&B popularly 3nown as theC0ar =lun3ersD Act of #$@A.E Fenerally a candidate is deemed passed if he obtains a eneral a!e of &@G in all sub/ects wHo fallin below @IG in any sub/ect( althou h for the past few e-ams the passin rades were chan ed dependin on the strictness of thecorrectin of the bar e-aminations :#$>?+ &BG( #$>&+ ?$G( #$>%+ &IG #$>$+&>G( #$@I+#$@A J &@G;. 0elie!in themsel!es to be fully qualified to practice law as those reconsidered and passed by the '.C.( and feelin that they ha!ebeen discriminated a ainst( unsuccessful candidates who obtained a!era es of a few percenta es lower than those admitted to thebar went to con ress for( and secured in #$@# 'enate 0ill no. #B( but was !etoed by the president after he was i!en ad!isead!erse to it. Kot o!erridin the !eto( the senate then appro!ed senate bill no. A&B embodyin substantially the pro!isions of the!etoed bill. "he bill then became law on 7une B#( #$@A Republic Act $&B has for its ob/ect( accordin to its author( to admit to the 0ar those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of readin materials and inadequate preparations. 0y and lar e( the law is contrary to public interest since it qualifies #(I$> law raduates who had inadequate preparation for the practice of law profession( as e!idenced by their failure in the e-ams )ssues, 6ue to the far reachin effects that this law would ha!e on the le al profession and the administration of /ustice( the '.C. would see3 to 3now if it is COK'")"L")OKAL. .eld, Lnder the authority of the court, #. "hat the portion of art. # of R.A. $&B referrin to the e-aminations of #$>? to #$@B and all of art. B of the said law are unconstitutional and therefore !oid and wHo force and effect. B. "he part of AR" # that refers to the e-aminations subsequent to the appro!al of the law :#$@A+ #$@@; is !alid and shall continue in force. :those petitions by the candidates who failed the bar from #$>? to #$@B are denied( and all the candidates who in the e-amination of #$@A obtained a FEK A!e. of &#.@G wHo ettin a rade of below @IG in any sub/ect are considered as ha!in passed whether they ha!e filed petitions for admissions or not.

@. )n re, Almacen A# 'CRA @?B : IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST A))-. .I(C&()& RA'/ A/MAC&()

FAC)S :0efore us is Atty. Micente Raul AlmacenNs OPetition to 'urrender LawyerNs Certificate of "itle(O filed on 'eptember B@( #$?&( in protest a ainst what he therein asserts is Oa committed a ainst his client reat in/ustice

by this 'upreme Court.O .e indicts this Court( in his own phrase( as a tribunal Opeopled by men who are calloused to our pleas for /ustice( who i nore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit culpable !iolations of the Constitution with impunity.O .is clientNs he continues( who was deeply a rie!ed by this CourtNs Oun/ust /ud ment(O has become Oone of the sacrificial !ictims before the altar of hypocrisy.O )n the same breath that he alludes to the classic symbol of /ustice( he ridicules the members of this Court( sayin Othat /ustice as administered by the present members of the 'upreme Court is not only blind( but also deaf and dumb.O .e then !ows to ar ue the cause of his client Oin the peopleNs forum(O so that Othe people may 3now of the silent in/usticeNs committed by this Court(O and that Owhate!er mista3es( wron s and in/ustices that were committed must ne!er be repeated.O .e ends his petition with a prayer that ... a resolution issue orderin the Cler3 of Court to recei!e the certificate of the undersi ned attorney and counsellor+at+law )K "RL'" with reser!ation that at any time in the future and in the e!ent we re ain our faith and confidence( we may retrie!e our title to assume the practice of the noblest profession. ISS'&: 1hether Atty. Micente Raul Almacen must surrender his Lawyer4s Certificate of "itle. R'/I(0: ACCOR6)KFLP( )" )' ".E 'EK'E of the Court that Atty. Micente Raul Almacen be( as he is hereby( suspended from the practice of law until further orders( the suspension to ta3e effect immediately. Pes. "he 'upreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed because the 'upreme Court cannot accept e!ery case or write full opinion for e!ery petition they re/ect otherwise the .i h Court would be unable to effecti!ely carry out its constitutional duties. "he proper role of the 'upreme Court is to decide 8only those cases which present questions whose resolutions will ha!e immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties in!ol!ed.9 )t should be remembered that a petition to re!iew the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of ri ht( but of sound /udicial discretion2 and so there is no need to fully e-plain the court4s denial. =or one thin ( the facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeals4 opinion.

On Almacen4s attac3 a ainst the 'upreme Court( the .i h Court re arded said criticisms as uncalled for2 that such is insolent( contemptuous( rossly disrespectful and dero atory. )t is true that a lawyer( both as an officer of the court and as a citizen( has the ri ht to criticize in properly respectful terms and throu h le itimate channels the acts of courts and /ud es. .is ri ht as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner( and the independence of the bar( as well as of the /udiciary( has always been encoura ed by the courts. 0ut it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide( and shall not spill o!er the walls of decency and propriety. )ntemperate and unfair criticism is a ross !iolation of the duty of respect to courts. )n the case at bar( Almacen4s criticism is misplaced. As a !eteran lawyer( he should ha!e 3nown that a motion for reconsideration which failed to notify the opposin party of the time and place of trial is a mere scrap of paper and will not be entertained by the court. .e has only himself to blame and he is the reason why his client lost. Almacen was suspended indefinitely.

?. )n re, Lanue!o ?? 'CRA B>@

4. In e: Cunanan $4 +,"l. 5!4 Facts: