CAYETANO V.

MONSOD
FACTS: In the case at bar, petitioner questions the validity of respondents nomination and appointment as Chairman of
the Commission on elections (COMELEC) using Sec. 1(1), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution as legal basis. Petitioner
contends that under the aforementioned provision in the Constitution, the respondent is disqualified from nomination and
appointment as Chairman of the COMELEC as he has not satisfied the constitutional requirement and qualification as
chairman to be engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
ISSUE: Whether or not herein respondent has satisfied the constitutional requirement of being nominated and appointed
as Chairman of the COMELEC under Sec. 1(1), Article IX-C which requires the engagement in the practice of law for at least
ten years.
RULING: Respondent is a member of the Philippine Bar and has engaged in the practice of law for more than ten years as a
lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and lawyer-legislator.
As defined in the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava, 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 social proceedings,
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 corporation services,
assessment and condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a
mortgage, enforcement of a creditor's 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 as do the preparation and
drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect
of facts and conditions. (5 Am. Jur. p. 262, 263)

PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION V. AGRAVA

FACTS: Respondent, the Director of the Philippines Patent Office, issued a circular announcing an examination which would
determine who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office. According to said circular,
members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons with scientific and technical training are qualified to take said
examination. Petitioners oppose said circular contending that as members of the Philippine Bar duly licensed by the
Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines and who are under good standing, are duly qualified to practice before the
Philippines Patent Office. Further, petitioners contend that herein respondent was in excess of his jurisdiction and in
violation of law.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners should submit themselves to the examination in order to practice before the Philippines
Patent Office.
RULING: Respondent is hereby prohibited from requiring members of the Philippine Bar to submit to an examination or
test and pass the same before being permitted to appear and practice before the Patent Office. Under the present law,
members of the Philippine Bar authorized by this Tribunal to practice law, and in good standing, may practice their
profession before the Patent Office, for the reason that much of the business in said office involves the interpretation and
determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well as the presentation of
evidence to establish facts involved.

PEOPLE V. VILLANUEVA
FACTS: In the criminal case at bar, plaintiff was represented by counsel Attorney Ariston Fule who happens to be a relative
of the offended party and at the same time the City Attorney of San Pablo City. Said counsel appeared as an agent or friend
of the plaintiff and entered his appearance as private prosecutor after having obtained permission from his superior, the
Solicitor-General, with further condition that during appearance, he would be considered on leave from his post and that
he would receive no payment for his services. Counsel for the accused assailed the appearance of the counsel for the
plaintiff invoking the ruling in the case of Aquino et al. v. Blanco et al and further invoking Section 32, Rule 27 (now Sec. 35,
Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court) which bars judges, other officials and employees of the Supreme Court or of the SolicitorGeneral from engaging in private practice.
ISSUE: Whether or not City Attorney Ariston Fule is legally permitted to appear as private prosecutor for the plaintiff under
Section 32, Rule 27 (now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court).
RULING: Under Sec. 31, Rule 127 of the Rules of Court, Fule is permitted to appear as private prosecutor for the plaintiff as
agent or friend. Under Section 32, Rule 27 (now Sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court), the isolated appearance of City
Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. The appearance as

counsel on one occasion is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private practice of law. The following
observation of the Solicitor General is noteworthy: essentially, the word 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. Moreover, it
has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been given permission by his immediate superior, the Secretary of
Justice, to represent the complainant in the case at bar, who is a relative.

CUI V. CUI
FACTS: The Hospicio de San Jose de Barili is owned by Don Pedro Cui and Dona Benigna Cui, both deceased. Under Sec. 2 of
Act 3239, the legislation which gave corporate existence to the Hospicio, in cases of incapacity or death of the founder,
administration of the Hospicio will be given to such persons as the founders nominate or as designated in the order of
legitime as prescribed by the deed. After the death of Don Pedro Cui, Dona Benigna Cui administered the Hospicio; of
whose death Mauricio Cui and Dionisio Jakoselem administered. Upon the death of both, Dr. Teodoro Cui, only son of
Mauricio Cui, took over the administration of the Hospicio in 1931. Controversy since then arose concerning the position of
the administrator. In 1960, Dr. Teodoro Cui resigned his position in favor of Antonio Ma. Cui, son of Mariano Cui (first in
line legitime), pursuant to an agreement. The brother of Antonio Ma. Cui, Jesus Ma. Cui, without knowledge of the
agreement, now assails the administration of his brother and claims the administration of said Hospicio. Between the two,
Jesus is older, thus, he is the next in line legitime to administer said Hospicio. However, under Sec. 2 of Act 3239, before
age will be considered as to the qualification of the administrant, profession shall be given first consideration. What is now
contested is the phrase titulo de abogado contained in the provision. Both Jesus and Antonio hold law degrees the
former never entering into practice as he failed the bar exams and the latter being disbarred for misconduct but later
reinstated.
ISSUE: Who between Jesus Cui or Antonio Cui is the rightful administrator of the Hospicio based on the term titulo de
abogado?
RULING: The term titulo de abogado refers to someone who has not only acquired a degree in law but one who has also
passed the bar examinations and is in the actual practice of the law profession. Therefore, Antonio Cui is the rightful
administrator of the Hospicio. Although he has been barred from the practice for improper conduct, he was however
reinstated qualifying him to become the next administrator.
IN RE: ALMACEN
Facts: Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen is cited for contempt against the Court. After the dismissal of his motion for
reconsideration relating to the case he was then handling, Atty. Almacen accused the court of grave injustices toward his
client. In his protest, he ridiculed the members of the Supreme Court by claiming that as a tribunal, they are peopled by
men who are calloused to pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own applicable decisions and commit
culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity; that they administer justice that is not only blind, but also deaf and
dumb. Furthermore, he also moved to surrender his Lawyers Certificate of Title in furthering his protest against the Court.
Ruling: The Court of Appeals had fully and correctly considered the dismissal of Atty. Almacens appeal in the light of the
law and applicable decisions of the court. For a motion for reconsideration to stay the running of the period of appeal, the
movant must not only serve a copy of the motion upon the adverse party but also notifying the adverse party of the time
and place of hearing. For this, the court did not err in dismissing Atty. Almacens motion for he has admittedly not notified
the adverse part of the time and place of hearing. Further, the misconduct committed by Atty. Almacen is of considerable
gravity. For this, the court hereby suspends him from the practice of law until further orders, the suspension to take effect
immediately.
IN RE: DE GUZMAN
Facts: Atty. Felizardo M. de Guzman is accused for deceit/fraud. In a case handled by said Attorney as counsel for
respondent, petitioner accused counsel for having deceived her into signing the courts expediente by which counsel
included the phrase confess judgment under her affixed signature without her knowledge. Petitioner argues that what
she signed was for the agreement between her and said counsel to postpone the trial and not a confession of judgment.
Ruling: Atty. De Guzman is exonerated of the charge against him. According to evidence and testimony by the clerk of the
City Court of Manila, the words confessed judgment were entered into the expediente upon affirmation of the petitioner
of her indebtedness alleged in the complaint. An Attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges
against him until contrary is proved, and that charges must be established by convincing proof. In the case at bar, no
evidence was established by the petitioner of the misconduct of said counsel.

IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF TELESFORO DIAO

Facts: Diao is charged of having falsely represented himself in the application for the bar examinations claiming that he had
the requisite academic qualifications. Upon review of his application, it was found out that Diao did not complete his high
school training and that he never acquired his pre-legal education at Quisumbing College, the institution which he claimed
to have finished his Associate in Arts. On the first particular, Diao contended that he got his high school training equivalent
after rendering service under the US Army. On the second particular, Diao claims that he was erroneously certified due to
confusion as a graduate of Quisumbing College in his school records when he really obtained his AA diploma from Arellano
University.
Ruling: Diaos explanation is not acceptable as the error/confusion was of his own making. Had his application disclosed his
having obtained A.A. from Arellano University, it would also have disclosed that he got it in April 1949 showing that he
began his law studies six months before obtaining his Associate in Arts degree. Then he would not have been permitted to
take the bar tests, because our Rules provide, and the applicant for the Bar examination must affirm under oath, "That
previous to the study of law, he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the required pre-legal education(A.A.) as
prescribed by the Department of Private Education,"
Therefore, Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the bar examinations. Passing such examinations is not the only
qualification to become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally
essential. The Clerk is ordered to strike out Diaos name from the roll of attorneys and that his lawyers diploma be
returned within thirty days.
KHAN V. SIMBILLO

CANOY V. ORTIZ
Facts: Herein petitioner filed a complaint against respondent who happens to be petitioners legal counsel. Petitioner
Canoy accused respondent Atty. Ortiz of misconduct and malpractice. In 1998, respondent appeared as counsel for Canoy
in legal proceedings. Thereafter, they were required to submit their position papers by which Canoy have submitted all the
necessary documents to said counsel. Canoy continuously followed up on his case with said counsel but counsel is of no
appearance. Two years after, it was found out by Canoy that his case has long been dismissed back in 1998 for failure to
submit the needed position paper. In a response to the complaint, herein respondent commented that his failure to submit
said position paper was timely to his election as Councilor of Bacolod City; that he was pre-occupied with his functions
both as a local government official and as a practicing lawyer; that it was his policy that clients are the ones to be following
up their cases; and that he recalls Canoy conveying a message to him that he found a new counsel.
Ruling: Atty. Ortiz failed to exercise the degree of competence and diligence required of him in prosecuting his clients. He
should have filed the position paper on time owing to his duty as counsel of Canoy. If however circumstances have
prevented him to discharge his functions as counsel, he should have informed his client as there could have been other
remedies resorted to. Lawyers who devote their professional practice in representing litigants who could ill afford legal
services deserve commendation. However, this mantle of public service will not deliver the lawyer, no matter how wellmeaning, from the consequences of negligent acts. It is not enough to say that all pauper litigants should be assured of
legal representation. They deserve quality representation as well. Atty. Ortiz is hence suspended from the practice of law
for one month from notice with the warning that a repetition of the same negligence will be dealt with more severely.

BORJA V. SULYAP

SCHULZ V. FLORES

LEDESMA V. CLIMACO

REYES V. VITAN

OLBES V. DECIEMBRE

COBB-PEREZ V. LANTIN
Facts:
Ruling: It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the
merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the
latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of
his client, and temper his client's propensity to litigate. A lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty
to his client; its primacy is indisputable.
A counsel's assertiveness in espousing with candour and honesty his client's cause must be encouraged and is to be
commended; what we do not and cannot countenance is a lawyer's insistence despite the patent futility of his client's
position, as in the case at bar.

OCCENA V. MARQUEZ

PEOPLE V. DE LUNA

UI V. BONIFACIO
Petitioner: Leslie Ui
Respondent: Atty. Iris Bonifacio
Facts of the case:
NARIDO V. LINSANGAN
Petitioner: Flora Narido
Respondent: Atty. Jaime Linsangan
Facts of the case:
LAPUT V. REMOTIGUE
Adm. Case 291
Facts:
Adm. Case 434
Facts: In sequel to A.C 291, herein petitioner charged respondent with malice, bad faith, and misrepresentation when the
latter allegedly filed motions in court without notice to complainant. Petitioner contends that respondent committed
unfair and unethical practices bordering on dishonesty all to his prejudice. According to petitioner, by virtue of a duly
recorded Attorneys Lien, he has in his lawful possession records and papers of the estate under administration; and that
respondent, without notice to petitioner, filed two motions, (1) to direct petitioner to surrender said certificates of title
and (2) to issue to respondent owners duplicate copies of the certificates of title on the ground that the same were lost,
respondent knowing all along that petitioner has the lawful possession of said certificates. Further, petitioner contends
that with the duplicate titles, respondent and former client sold without notice lots covered thereby. Respondent on the
other hand denied any knowledge of the recorded lien of complainant and his retention of records and transfer certificates
of title; and that had he known such, he could have taken an easier procedure by merely asking petitioner to produce
them.
Ruling: Where a new counsel for a party filed a motion in court praying for an order directing the latters former counsel to
turn over to him (the new counsel) certain certificates of title in the possession of such former counsel, and no notice of
said motion was given the latter, it cannot be said that the new counsel is guilty of unethical conduct, considering that the
former counsel has stubbornly refused to turn over to his client such certificates despite a court order to that effect.
BLANZA V. ARCANGEL
Petitioners: Olegaria Blanza and Maria Pasion
Respondent: Atty. Agustin Arcangel
Facts of the case: Petitioners ask the court to take disciplinary action against respondent for professional non-feasance.
Petitioners argument: Respondent voluntarily rendered his service to assist petitioners in their pension claims for the
death of their husbands. For this purpose, they handed over pertinent documents to said respondent and even affixed

their signatures in blank documents. However, said respondent seemed to have lost his interest in the case that when
petitioners asked for their documents to be returned six years after, respondent refused to surrender them.
Respondents argument: Respondent admits to have received the documents from the petitioners but for photostating
purposes only. His failure to immediately return the said documents was due to the petitioners refusal to hand him money
to pay for the photostating costs, preventing him to claim said documents from the photostat service. Upon order of the
fiscal, he immediately claimed the said documents at his own expense and surrendered them. Further, respondent also
submits that he was not obliged to follow-up on petitioners pension claims since there was no agreement for his
compensation as the formers counsel.
Ruling: The evidence presented by petitioners is found insufficient to sanction discipline upon respondent. It is admitted by
said petitioners that they refused to hand over money to the respondent to cover the cost of the photostat. The condition
of the said documents also support respondents allegation that they were left in the hands of the photostat service. Thus,
the petitioners are partly to blame for the delay in the return of their documents and in the filing of their respective claims.
As to his conduct in not representing said petitioners, he is reminded that a lawyers conduct must be of par excellence
especially that he rendered his services voluntarily. He should have terminated his professional relationship instead of
keeping the petitioners hang on indefinitely. A lawyer is looked up to as a leader in the community. Thus, Atty. Arcangel is
reminded of the high standards of his chosen profession.
OPAREL V. ABARIA
Petitioner: Pedro Oparel, Sr.
Respondent: Atty. Dominador Abaria
Facts of the case: Petitioner filed an administrative case against respondent for alleged dishonesty in his practice and
service to said petitioner.
Petitioners argument: In his pursuit of recovering damages from his employer for injuries he suffered, petitioner contends
that he received a settlement sum of only P500.00, of which P55.00 was rendered as attorneys fees, when in truth
according to him, said respondent is said to have received P5, 000.00 from the employer as settlement pay.
Respondents argument: Respondent counter-claims that the complaint is irresponsible and baseless. According to
respondent, he was even able to ask a settlement amount of P500.00 in favor of the petitioner when the latter only asked
for P200.00. Respondent accounted the P5, 000.00 as follows: P3, 500.00 for petitioners operation and medical bills, P1,
000.00 given to the family of the petitioner during confinement, and P500.00 given in cash to petitioner by way of
additional settlement.
Ruling: The case is dismissed for the desistance of petitioner for the investigation of said complaint. According to
petitioner, he is no longer interested in pushing through with the complaint which arose merely from a misunderstanding
between him and his counsel. There was no deception on the part of the respondent.
A lawyer-client relationship is a relationship of confidence. Utmost care must be taken to minimize occasions of
misunderstanding. A lawyer is duty bound to adequately and fully inform his client of the mode and manner in which their
interest is being defended; and this must be done in the simplest and most understandable language so as to communicate
matters with precision and clarity.