Cayetano v.
Monsod Practice of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires
Facts:
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
posses 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.
the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and
experience.
The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses 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.
In Re: Agrosino
FACTS: This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking of
a successful bar applicant. Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino was
previously involved with hazing which caused the death of Raul
Camaligan a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites but he was
convicted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. He was
sentenced with 2 years and 4 months of imprisonment where he
applied a probation thereafter which was approved and granted by
the court. He took the bar exam and passed but was not allowed to
take the oath. He filed for a petition to allow him to take the
lawyers oath of office and to admit him to the practice of law
averring that his probation was already terminated. The court note
that he spent only 10 months of the probation period before it was
terminated.
ISSUE: Whether or not Al Argosino may take the lawyers oath
office and admit him to the practice of law.
HELD: The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who
possess the STRICT, INTELLECTUAL and MORAL QUALIFICATIONS
required of lawyers who are instruments in the effective and
efficient administration of justice. The court upheld the principle of
maintaining the good moral character of all Bar members, keeping
in mind that such is of greater importance so far as the general
public and the proper administration of justice are concerned.
Hence he was asked by the court to produce evidence that would
certify that he has reformed and has become a responsible
member of the community through sworn statements of individuals
who have a good reputation for truth and who have actually known
Mr. Argosino for a significant period of time to certify that he is
morally fit to the admission of the law profession. The petitioner is
then allowed to take the lawyers oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys
and thereafter to practice the legal profession.
In Re: Arthur Cuevas
FACTS: In 1991, a neophyte died during the initiation rites of Lex
Talionis Fraternitas in the San Beda College of Law. Arthur Cuevas Jr
was one of the persons charged (with murder) for the death of the
neophyte. He pleaded guilty and was later convicted to the lesser
crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. Thereafter,
Cuevas was granted probation and he continued taking up law. In
1995, he was discharged from probation. In 1996, the Supreme
Court allowed Cuevas to take the bar on the condition that in case
he will pass, his oath taking will have to be approved by the
Supreme Court first. Cuevas did pass the 1996 bar exams and in
1997, he filed a petition before the Supreme Court asking the latter
to allow him to take the Lawyers Oath.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cuevas may be allowed to take the
Lawyers Oath.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court is duty bound to prevent the entry
of undeserving aspirants, as well as to exclude those who have
been admitted but have become a disgrace to the profession.
Cuevas participation in the senseless killing of the neophyte is
highly reprehensible however, the Supreme Court is willing to give
him a chance considering that Cuevas has received various
certifications regarding his good behavior while on probation.
The Supreme Court also stressed that the lawyers oath is not a
mere formality recited for a few minutes in the glare of flashing
cameras and before the presence of select witnesses. As a lawyer,
Cuevas shall be expected to abide by the oath strictly and to
conduct himself beyond reproach at all times. As a lawyer he will
now be in a better position to render legal and other services to
the more unfortunate members of society.
TAPUCAR V TAPUCAR
In a letter-complaint dated November 22, 1993, complainant
Remedios Ramirez Tapucar sought the disbarment of her husband,
Atty. Lauro L. Tapucar, on the ground of continuing grossly immoral
conduct for cohabiting with a certain Elena (Helen) Pea under
scandalous circumstances.
Prior to this complaint, respondent was already administratively
charged four times for conduct unbecoming an officer of the court.
in Administrative Matter No. 1740, resolved on April 11, 1980,
respondent, at that time the Judge of Butuan City, was meted the
penalty of six months suspension without pay, while in
Administrative Matter Nos. 1720, 1911 and 2300-CFI, which were
consolidated, this Court on January 31, 1981 ordered the
separation from service of respondent.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent violated canon 1 of the code of
professional responsibility
Ruling:
Yes. The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that:
Rule 1.01. A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in
public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.
A lawyer is expected at all times to uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to
society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. Exacted from
him, as a member of the profession charged with the responsibility
to stand as a shield in the defense of what is right, are such
positive qualities of decency, truthfulness and responsibility that
have been compendiously described as moral character. To
achieve such end, every lawyer needs to strive at all times to
honor and maintain the dignity of his profession, and thus improve
not only the public regard for the Bar but also the administration of
justice.
ARCIGA v. MANIWANG
In 1970, when Maniwang was still a law student, he had a
relationship with Arciga, then a medical technology student. They
started having a sexual relationship in 1971. In 1973, Arciga got
pregnant. The two then went to Arcigas hometown to tell the
latters parent about the pregnancy. They also made Arcigas
parents believe that they were already married but they would
have to have the church wedding in abeyance until Maniwang
passes the bar exams. Maniwang secured a copy of his birth
certificate in preparation of securing a marriage license.
In 1975, Maniwang passed the bar. But after his oath taking, he
stopped communicating with Arciga. Arciga located his
whereabouts and there she found out that Maniwang married
another woman. Arciga confronted Maniwangs wife and this irked
Maniwang so he inflicted physical injuries upon Arciga.
Arciga then filed a disbarment case against Maniwang grounded on
gross immoral conduct. Maniwang admitted that he is the father of
Arcigas child; that he did promise to marry Arciga many times;
that he broke those promises because of Arcigas shady past
because apparently Arciga had an illegitimate child even before
her son with Maniwang was born.
ISSUE: Whether or not Maniwang should be disbarred.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that Maniwangs case is
different from the cases of Mortel vs Aspiras and Almirez vs Lopez,
and other cases therein cited. Maniwangs refusal to marry Arciga
was not so corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment
(though not much discussion was provided by the ponente as to
why). But the Supreme Court did say that it is difficult to state with
precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is grossly
immoral conduct or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity
which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the
bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional
behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct
that warrants disbarment. Immoral conduct has been defined as
that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which
shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and
respectable members of the community.
NARAG v NARAG
FACTS:
Atty. Dominador Narag was alleged to have abandoned his family
for his paramour who was once his student in tertiary level. The
administrative complaint of disbarment was filed by her wife, Mrs.
Julieta Narag. Respondent filed motion to dismiss because
allegedly the complainant fabricated the story as well as the love
letters while under extreme emotional confusion arising from
jealousy. The case took an unexpected turn when another
complaint was filed, the wife as again the complainant but now
together with their seven children as co-signatories. After several
hearings, the facts became clear, that the respondent indeed
abandoned his family as against morals, based on testimonial
evidences. In addition, the assailed relationship bore two children.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of gross immorality and for
having violated and the Code of Ethics for Lawyers culpable for
disbarment.
HELD:
YES. Respondent disbarred.
RATIO:
The complainant was able to establish, by clear and convincing
evidence, that the respondent breached the high and exacting
moral standards set for the members of the law profession.
Good moral character is not only a condition precedent to the
practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all members of
the bar.
CANON 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the
Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely
reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in
public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the
discredit of the legal profession.
Undoubtedly, the canons of law practice were violated.
Atty. Dominador Narag failed to prove his innocence because he
failed to refute the testimony given against him and it was proved
that his actions were of public knowledge and brought disrepute
and suffering to his wife and children. Good moral character is a
continuing qualification required of every member of the bar.
Thus, when a lawyer fails to meet the exacting standard of moral
integrity, the Supreme Court may withdraw his or her privilege to
practice law. (Canons 1&7, Rule 7.03, Code of Ethics for Lawyers)
It is not only a condition precedent to the practice of law, but a
continuing qualification for all members. Hence when a lawyer is
found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or
disbarred. Grossly immoral means it must be so corrupt as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible
to a high degree or committed under such scandalous or revolting
circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. As a
lawyer, one must not only refrain from adulterous relationships but
must not behave in a way that scandalizes the public by creating a
belief that he is flouting those moral standards