Cayetano vs.

Monsod, 201 SCRA 210September 1991Facts:

Respondent 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 possess 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 creditors 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 possess the required
qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years is incorrect since Atty.
Monsods 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.*** The Supreme Court held that the appointment of Monsod is in accordance with the
requirement of law as having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Monsods past
work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
lawyer negotiator of contracts and a lawyer-legislator 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. Again, in the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, the practice of law is not limited
to the conduct of cases and litigation in court; item braces the preparation of pleadings and other papers
incident to actions and social proceedings and other similar work which involves the determination by a
legal mind the legal effects of facts and conditions

PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION VS AGRAVA Case Digest
PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION VS AGRAVA
G. R. No. L-12426 February 16, 1959

FACTS: A petition was filed by the petitioner for prohibition and injunction against Celedonio Agrava,
in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office. On May 27, 1957, respondent Director issued
a circular announcing that he had scheduled for June 27, 1957 an examination for the purpose of
determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office. The
petitioner contends that one who has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme Court to
practice law in the Philippines and who is in good standing, is duly qualified to practice before the
Philippines Patent Office and that the respondent Directors holding an examination for the purpose is in
excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law.The respondent, in reply, maintains the prosecution
of patent cases does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the application of
scientific and technical knowledge and training as a matter of actual practice so as to include engineers
and other individuals who passed the examination can practice before the Patent office. Furthermore, he
stressed that for the long time he is holding tests, this is the first time that his right has been questioned
formally.

ISSUE: Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution
of patent application, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent
Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their
applications for patent, their opposition thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases.
Moreover, the practice before the patent Office involves the interpretation and application of other laws
and legal principles, as well as the existence of facts to be established in accordance with the law of
evidence and procedure. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court but
also embraces all other matters connected with the law and any work involving the determination by the
legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions. Furthermore, the law provides that any party may
appeal to the Supreme Court from any final order or decision of the director. Thus, if the transactions of
business in the Patent Office involved exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge and
training, then logically, the appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial body, but rather to a board of
scientists, engineers or technical men, which is not the case.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. SIMPLICIO VILLANUEVA,

In 1959, Villanueva was charged with Malicious Mischief in the municipality of Alaminos in Laguna. In
said case, the private offended party asked his lawyer friend, Ariston Fule to prosecute said case.
Apparently, Fule was the fiscal in San Pablo, Laguna. Villanueva the opposed the appearance of Fule as
counsel for the offended party as he said that according to the Rules of Court when an attorney had been
appointed to 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 Ariston Fule is engaged in private law practice.
HELD: No. Private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the active and
continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are available to the public for
a compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. In the case at bar,
Fule is not being compensated but rather hes doing it for free for his friend who happened to be the
offended party. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary
actions, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise. Further, the
fact that the Secretary of Justice approved Fules appearance for his friend should be given credence.

Salcedo vs Hernandez

In 1935, Atty. Vicente Francisco was the counsel for Felipe Salcedo in a case entitled Felipe Salcedo vs
Francisco Hernandez. Salcedo lost in that case and Atty. Francisco filed a Motion for Reconsideration.
The trial court however ordered Atty. Francisco to explain why he should not be disciplined. It appears
that in theMotion filed by Atty. Francisco, he expressed his disagreement with the judgment by stating
that the judgment is absolutely erroneous and constitutes an outrage to the right of [Salcedo] and a
mockery of the popular will expressed at the polls in the Municipality of Tiaong, Tayabas (so this
could be an election case); that the court should rectify itself or else the voters in Tiaong might resort to
the press publicly to denounce the judicial outrage and that if uncorrected, the judgment will lead to
the increase [of] the proselytes (new converts) of sakdalism and make the public lose confidence in
the administration of justice.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Francisco should be disciplined.

HELD: Yes. He is guilty of contempt. A lawyer owes respect to the courts. A lawyer is duty bound to
uphold the courts dignity and authority and to defend its integrity. The language used by Atty. Francisco
is uncalled for and unjustified. In order to appeal to reason and justice, it is highly improper and amiss to
make trouble and resort to threats. Even if assuming that the trial court did err in its judgment, Atty.
Francisco should still use temperate and respectful language in advancing the cause of his client.
His insinuations that the voters in Tiaong, Tayabas might resort to sakdalism (a seditious movement) is a
suggestion to the people there of what they should do should his client not get a favorable judgment. This
is a veiled threat to the courts. It promotes distrust to the courts.
It is laudable for Atty. Francisco to defend his client with all fervor and energy but he must do so with
respect to the dignity of the courts. The lawyer was fined and reprimanded.
Note: Justice Malcolm dissented; Atty. Francisco is protected by Freedom of Speech.

CUI V CUI
Facts:
The main concern in this case is the respective qualifications of Jesus Cui and Antonio Cui to the
position of administrator of Hospicio de San Jose de Barii, a charitable institution established by Don
Pedro Cui and Dona Benigna Cui.
Jesus and Antonio are the sons of Mariano Cui, a nephew of the founders of the institution. Antonios
claim to the position is based on a convenio where then administrator Teodoro resigned in favor of him.
Jesus, however, had no prior notice of this.
Jesuss claim is that he should be preferred pursuant to the deed of donation (which recognized their
father Mariano as a legitimate descendant to the position) as he is the older of the two.
The deed, however, gives preference to a descendant who has a titulo de abogado or a doctor, or a
civil engineer, or a pharmacist (in order). Or to the one who pays the highest taxes. Jesus holds the degree
of Bachelor of Laws but is not a member of the Bar, while Antonio is a member of the Bar (he was
formerly disbarred, though, by the SC and was just reinstated weeks before assuming the position)

Issue: Who has a better right to the position of administrator between Jose and Antonio?What does the
term titulo de abogado mean?

Held: Antonio. The term titulo de abogado is not just mere possession of the academic degree of
Bachelor of Laws but membership in the bar after due admission thereto, qualifying one to the practice of
law. Possession of the degree is not indispensable to qualify as a lawyer since completion of the
prescribed courses may be shown in some other way.

It was also argued that Antonio is disqualified for having been previously disbarred since the deed also
provided that an administrator may be removed if found to lack a sound moral character. However,
Antonio was reinstated. This reinstatement is a recognition of his moral rehabilitation after proving what
was required by the Bar. Antonios restoration to the roll of lawyers wiped out restrictions and disabilities
resulting from the previous disbarment.


In Re: Garcia

Facts:

Arturo E. Garcia has applied for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines without submitting to
the required bar examinations. In his verified petition, he avers, among others, that he is a Filipino citizen
bor n i n Bac ol od Ci t y, of Fi l i pi no par e nt age; t hat he ha d t a ken and f i ni s hed i n
Spai n t he cour s e of "Bachillerato Superior"; that he was approved, selected and qualified by the
"Instituto de Cervantes" for admission to the Central University of Madrid where he studied and finished
the law course graduating as"Licenciado en derecho"; and thereafter he was allowed to practice the law
profession in Spain; and that under the provisions of the Treaty on Academic Degrees and the Exercise of
Profession between the RP and Spain, he is entitled to practice the law profession in the Philippines
without submitting to the required bar examinations.

Issue:

Whether or not the treaty can modify regulations governing admission to the Philippine Bar?

Held:

The court resolved to deny the petition.

Ratio Decidendi:

The provision of the treaty on Academic Degrees and Exercise of Profession between the RP and Spain
cannot be invoked by the applicant. Said treaty was intended to govern Filipino citizens
desiring to practice their profession in Spain, and the citizens of Spain desiring to practice
their profession in the Philippines. Applicant is a Filipino citizen desiring to practice profession in
the Philippines. He is therefore subject to the laws of his own country and is not entitled to the privileges
extended to Spanish nationals desiring to practice in the Philippines. The privileges provided in the treaty
invoked by the applicant are made expressly subject to the laws and regulations on the contracting state in
whose territory it is desired to exercise the legal profession.

The aforementioned Treaty, concluded between the RP and Spain could not have been
intended to modify the laws and regulations governing admission to the practice of law in
the Philippines, for the reason that the Executive Department may not encroach upon the
constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of
law in the Philippines, the power to repeal, alter or supplement such rules being reserved only to the
Congress of the Philippines.

IN RE CUEVAS

Facts:

Petitioner Arthur Cuevas Jr., recently passed the 1996 Bar Examinations. His oath taking was held in
abeyance in view of the Court's resolution which permitted him to take the Bar Exams subject to the
condition that should he pass the same he shall not be allowed to take the lawyer's oath pending approval
of the court. This resolution was due to his previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence resulting in
Homicide. The conviction stemmed from Cuevas' participation in the initiation rites of the LEX
TALIONIS FRATERNITAS, a fraternity in the SAN BEDA College of Law, where Raul Camaligan,
aneophyte, died as a result of personal violence inflicted upon him.

Thereafter, petitioner applied for and was granted probation. He was later discharged from probation and
his case considered closed and terminated.

In this petition, Cuevas prays that he be allowed to take the lawyer's oath at the court's most convenient
time.

Issue: W/n Cuevas should be allowed to take the lawyers oath...

Held:
YES.

His deliberate participation in the senseless beatings over a helpless neophyte shich resulted to the latter's
untimely demise indicates absence of that moral fitness required for admission to the bar. The court
nonetheless is willing to give Cuevas a chance in the same manner that it recently allowed Al Caparros
Argosino (case sa legprof), petitioner's co-accused below, to take the lawyer's oath. His discharge from
probation without any infraction of the attendant conditions there for and the various certification
attesting to his righteous peaceful and civic-oriented character prove that he has taken decisive steps to
purge himself of his deficiency in moral character.

COBB-PEREZ v LANTIN
FACTS:

Ricardo Hermoso commenced a civil case against Damaso Perez and Gregorio Sumbong, for recovery of
sum of P17,309.44 representing unpaid purchases of leather materials used in the shoe manufacturing
business of Hermoso. Judgment was rendered in favor of Hermoso, ordering the defendants to be held
jointy and severally liable.

The Sheriff of Manila levied upon the shares of common stock registered in Damaso Perez name with
the Republic Bank.

Petitioners used the rules of procedure to suspend the execution of judgment. (and they managed to have
the
sale suspended 6x)
o
They alleged that levy was highly excessive and unjust
o
Even the wife of Damaso Perez, filed to lift the writ of execution alleging that the shares of stock were
conjugal assets and that the debt was a personal obligation.

ISSUE: Won petitioners restored to tricky, sneaky and maneuvering tactics to thwart the ends of justice?

HELD: YES

RATIO:1. During the protracted litigation, the petitioners resorted to a series of actions and petitions, at
some stages alternatingly, abetted by their counsel, for the sole purpose of thwarting the execution of a
simple money judgment which has long become final and executory. Some of the actions were filed, only
to be abandoned or withdrawn. The petitioners and their counsel, far from viewing courts as sanctuaries
for those who seek justice, have tried to use them to subvert the very ends of justice.