RENATO CAYETANO vs.

CHRISTIAN MONSOD
G.R. No. 100113. September 3, 1991.

FACTS:
Monsod was nominated by President Aquino as Chairman of the
Comelec. The Commission on Appointments confirmed the
appointment despite Cayetano's objection, based on Monsod's
alleged lack of the required qualification of 10 year law practice.
Cayetano filed this certiorari and prohibition. 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 thirtyfive 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:
1. Whether or not Monsod has been engaged in the practice of
law for 10 years.

2. Whether or not the Commission on Appointments committed

grave abuse of discretion in confirming Monsods appointment.

HELD:
1. YES. 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,
and other works where the work done involves the determination
of the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions
(PLA vs. Agrava.) The records of the 1986 constitutional
commission show that the interpretation of the term practice of
law was liberal as to consider lawyers employed in the
Commission of Audit as engaged in the practice of law provided
that they use their legal knowledge or talent in their respective
work. The court also cited an article in the January 11, 1989 issue
of the Business Star, that lawyers nowadays have their own
specialized fields such as tax lawyers, prosecutors, etc., that
because of the demands of their specialization, lawyers engage in
other works or functions to meet them. These days, for example,
most corporation lawyers are involved in management policy
formulation. Therefore, Monsod, who passed the bar in 1960,
worked with the World Bank Group from 1963-1970, then worked
for an investment bank till 1986, became member of the CONCOM
in 1986, and also became a member of the Davide Commission in
1990, can be considered to have been engaged in the practice of
law as lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer-entrepreneur,
etc.

2. NO. The power of the COA to give consent to the nomination of

the Comelec Chairman by the president is mandated by the
constitution. The power of appointment is essentially within the
discretion of whom it is so vested subject to the only condition

that the appointee should possess the qualification required by

law. From the evidence, there is no occasion for the SC to exercise
its corrective power since there is no such grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the CA.

Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378 (1993)

FACTS: The petitioner contends that the advertisements
reproduced by the respondents are champertous, unethical,
demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the
confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of
the bar and that, to which as a member of the legal profession, he
is ashamed and offended by the following advertisements:
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE Please call:521-0767,
LEGAL 5217232,5222041
CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am-6:00 pm
7-Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Mla.
Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce
through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during office
hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems,
Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree's Visa.

Declaration of Absence Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption.

Investment in the Phil. US/Force Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.,
LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232; 521-7251;
522-2041; 521-0767
In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of
publication of said advertisements at its instance, but claims that
it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of
"legal support services" through paralegals with the use of
modern computers and electronic machines. Respondent further
argues that assuming that the services advertised are legal
services, the act of advertising these services should be allowed
supposedly in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van
O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, reportedly decided by the United
States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.
ISSUE:Whether or not, the advertised services offered by the
Legal Clinic, Inc., constitutes practice of law and whether the
same are in violation of the Code of Professional responsibility
RULING: The advertisement of the respondent is covered in the
term practice of law as defined in the case of Cayetano vs.
Monsod. There is a restricted concept and limited acceptance of
paralegal services in the Philippines. It is allowed that some
persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have been
permitted with a limited representation in behalf of another or to
render legal services, but such allowable services are limited in
scope and extent by the law, rules or regulations granting
permission therefore. Canon 3 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal
services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective

information or statement of facts. Canon 3.01 adds that he is not

supposed to use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
Nor shall he pay or give something of value to representatives of
the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to
attract legal business (Canon 3.04). The Canons of Professional
Ethics, before the adoption of the CPR, had also warned that
lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements for
professional employment, such as furnishing or inspiring
newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be
published in connection with causes in which the lawyer have
been engaged of concerning the manner of the conduct, the
magnitude of the interest involved, the importance the lawyer's
position, and all other like self-laudation. There are existing
exceptions under the law on the rule prohibiting the
advertisement of a lawyers services.However, taking into
consideration the nature and contents of the advertisements for
which respondent is being taken to task, which even includes a
quotation of the fees charged by said respondent corporation for
services rendered, the court found and held that the same
definitely do not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the
exceptions. The respondents defense with the case of Bates vs.
State Bar applies only when there is an exception to the
prohibition against advertisements by lawyers, to publish a
statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or the
availability upon request of a written schedule of fees or an
estimate of the fee to be charged for the specific services. No
such exception is provided for, expressly or impliedly whether in
our former Canons of Professional Ethics or the present Code of
Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the disciplinary rule in
the Bates case contains a proviso that the exceptions stand
therein are "not applicable in any state unless and until it is
implemented by such authority in that state. The Court Resolved

to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN The Legal Clinic, Inc., from issuing or

causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in
any form which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as
Annexes "A" and "B" of this petition, and from conducting, directly
or indirectly, any activity, operation or transaction proscribed by
law or the Code of Professional Ethics as indicated herein.

Bautista vs Gonzales [A.M. No. 1625. February 12, 1990]

16OCT
[Per Curiam]
FACTS:
In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista, respondent
Ramon A. Gonzales was charged with malpractice, deceit, gross
misconduct and violation of lawyers oath. Required by this Court
to answer the charges against him, respondent filed a motion for
a bill of particulars asking this Court to order complainant to
amend his complaint by making his charges more definite. In a
resolution the Court granted respondents motion and required
complainant to file an amended complaint. Complainant
submitted an amended complaint for disbarment, alleging that
respondent committed the following acts:
1. Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients, namely,
Alfaro Fortunado, Nestor Fortunado and Editha Fortunado
[hereinafter referred to as the Fortunados] to pay all expenses,
including court fees, for a contingent fee of fifty percent (50%) of
the value of the property in litigation.
xxx
4. Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a
contract with him on August 30, 1971 for the development into a

residential subdivision of the land involved in Civil Case No. Q15143, covered by TCT No. T-1929, claiming that he acquired fifty
percent (50%) interest thereof as attorneys fees from the
Fortunados, while knowing fully well that the said property was
already sold at a public auction on June 30, 1971, by the
Provincial Sheriff of Lanao del Norte and registered with the
Register of Deeds of Iligan City;
xxx
Pertinent to No. 4 above, the contract, in No. 1 above, reads:
We the [Fortunados] agree on the 50% contingent fee, provided,
you [respondent Ramon Gonzales] defray all expenses, for the
suit, including court fees.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent committed serious misconduct
involving a champertous contract.
HELD:
YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for six (6)
months.
RATIO:
The Court finds that the agreement between the respondent and
the Fortunados contrary to Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional
Ethics which provides that a lawyer may not properly agree with a
client to pay or bear the expenses of litigation. [See also Rule
16.04, Code of Professional Responsibility]. Although a lawyer
may in good faith, advance the expenses of litigation, the same
should be subject to reimbursement. The agreement between
respondent and the Fortunados, however, does not provide for
reimbursement to respondent of litigation expenses paid by him.
An agreement whereby an attorney agrees to pay expenses of

proceedings to enforce the clients rights is champertous [citation

omitted]. Such agreements are against public policy especially
where, as in this case, the attorney has agreed to carry on the
action at his own expense in consideration of some bargain to
have part of the thing in dispute [citation omitted]. The execution
of these contracts violates the fiduciary relationship between the
lawyer and his client, for which the former must incur
administrative sanctions.