11. Deles vs.

Aragona

Case Digest in PALE: Deles v. Aragona, Jr.

AM No. 598; Mar. 28, 1969; J. Castro

Facts:
Aurora Soriano Deles, complainant , filed a verified letter-complaint
against Atty. Vicente E. Aragona, Jr. , respondent, for having made,
under oath, false and unfounded allegations against Deles in a motion
filed in Court of Agrarian Relations, Iloilo, cases 1254 and 1255, which
allegedly caused hergreat mentaltorture and moral suffering.

The CAR Case -- an intestate court issued an order denying a proposed

lease of 10 hectares of the estate by Deles to one Carlos Fuentes and
sustaining the possession of Enrique Soriano (brother of Deles) as
lessee of said land. In effect, the order likewise sustained the
possession by the brothers Federico and Carlos Aglinao of a portion of
the said land being tenanted by themupon authority of the lessee,
Enrique.
IN DISREGARD OF THE ORDER, Deles attempted to take possession of
the landholdings by placing thereon her own tenants. The Aglinaos
countered by filing against Deles two petitions with the Court of
Agrarian Relations, Iloilo. After a hearing, the men of Deles entered the
land in question and planted rice thereon, this unauthorized entry
prompted Atty. Aragona to file an "Urgent Motion for Issuance of
Interlocutory Order" praying that Deles, her agent, or any person
acting for and in her behalf from interfering with the work of the
Aglinaos in their respective landholdings. Mrs. Soriano (wife of Enrique)
went to see Atty. Aragano - she told him that she was personally
present when one Albert, a tenant of Deles, accompanied by armed
men, went to the land in question and harvested the palay thereon
over the protests f the Aglinaos; and that she was told that they were
acting upon orders of the Deles. POSSESSED OF THE ABOVE
INFORMATION, Atty. Aragona promptly prepared and filed with the CAR
an "Urgent Motion to Declare [Deles] in Contempt of Court."

Issue/s:
Whether Atty. Aragona should be disciplined or disbarred for having
prepared and filed under oath the said motion.

Held:
No.
#1 -- In People vs. Aquino, this Court laid down the decisional authority
that [S]tatement made in the course of judicial proceedings are
absolutely privileged that is, privileged regardless of defamatory
tenor and of the presence of malice if the same are relevant,
pertinent or material to the cause in hand or subject of the inquiry. And
that, in view of this, the person who makes them such as a judge,
lawyer, or witness does not thereby incur the risk of being found
liable thereon in a criminal prosecution or an action for the recovery of
damages. (emphasis supplied)

Since there is no doubt that the allegations made by the respondent in

the questioned motion for contempt are statements made in the
course of a judicial proceeding i.e., in C.A.R. cases 1254 and 1255
besides being relevant, pertinent or material to the subject-matter of
the said cases, they are absolutely privileged, thereby precluding any
liability on the part of the respondent.

#2 -- Even when the statements are found to be false, if there is

probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is made
in good faith, the mantle of privilege may still cover the mistake of the
individual. Xxx. The ultimate test is that of bona fides.

Indeed, the actuations of Atty. Aragano were motivated by the

legitimate desire to serve the interests of his clients -- Mrs. Soriano
informed Atty. Aragano of the incident coupled with Deles' admissions.

12. Blanza vs Arcangel

Sept. 5, 1967

Facts: This involves a complaint by Olgeria Blanza and Maria Paison to

take disciplinary actions against Atty. Agusting Arcangel for
professional non-feasance.
The Respondent Atty. Agusting Arcangel volunteered to help the
complainants to their respective pernsion claims in connection with the
death of their husbands that arre both P.C soldiers and for this purpose
they handed over to him all the necessary documents. But
subsequently, they noticed that the respondent had lost interest in the
progress of their claims and when they asked for the return of their
papers after six months, the respondent refused to surrender them.

The respondent answers the accusations by admitting having received

such documents but explained that it was for photostating purposes
only and his reason for failure to return the documents is that the
complainants refused to reimburse him of the expenses that he
incurred for the photostating of the document, hence, he did not give it
to them.

Fiscal Rana recommended the respondents exoneration of the charges

but the solicitor general feels that the respondent deserves to be
reprimanded for (1) for f his failure to attend to the complainants
pension claims; (2) his failure to immediately return the documents
despite repeated demands on him, and (3) hhis falure to return to
complainant Paison, allegedly, all her documents.

Issue: Whether or no the respondent Atty. Agustin Arcangel should be

reprimanded for such acts.

Held: The Supreme Court found the evidence adduced insufficient to

warrant the taking of disciplinary action against respondent attorney.
There is no clear preponderance of evidence substantiating the
accusations against him.

They admitted that the respondent asked them to shoulder the

photostating expenses bu they did not give him any money,
furthermore, all the documents were returned to them during the
fiscals investigation with him paying for the photostating expenses
himself. The failure of the owners to pay for the expenses and get the
Photostats themselves are partly to blame for the delay in filing their
respective claims.

We cannot but counsel against his actuations as a member of the bar.

A lawyer has a more dynamic and positive role in the community than
merely complying with the minimal technicalities of the statute. As a
man of law, he is necessarily a leader of the community, looked up to
as a model citizen. His conduct must, perforce, be par excellence,
especially so when, as in this case, he volunteers his professional
services. Respondent here has not lived up to that ideal standard.

13. Melanio Zoreta vs. Atty. Heherson Simpliciano

November 18, 2004

Facts: This is a disbarment case filed against Atty. Heheron Simpliciano

for allegedly notatizing several documents during the year 2002 after
his commission as notary public had expired.

Herein complainant Melanio Zoreta filed a complaint for breach of

contract and damagas against Security Pacific Assurance Corporation
(SPAC) on June 2001. Atty. Heherson Simpliciano was Melanios
counsel. In the said case, the respondent was not a duly commissioned
Notary Public in 2002 per certifiations issued by the Clerk of Court of
Quezon City, performed acts of notarization.

The IBP of Pasig required the respondent to file his answere as to the
alleged unauthorized notarization. The respondent filed an extention to
answer but he failed to do so even after he was given by the
commissioner the last chance to answer. With the foregoing, the
Commissioner, after careful exampination and evaluation of the
evidence submitted by the petitioner, showed that the respondent
notarized up to Doc. 590, Page 118, Book No. II Series of 2002 and and
his commission expires Dec. 31, 2002.

However, the Clerk of Court of Quezon City in her certification, stated

that the respondent was not a duly commissioned notary public for and
in Quezon City for the year 2002. Another certification issued by the
Clerk of Court of RTC Q.C shows that the respondent was a
commissioned notary Public from January 14, 2000 to Dec. 31,2001
and for the year 2002 and 2003 he did not apply for Notarial
Commission for Qc.

It is evident from the foregoing that when the respondent notarized the
aforementioned documents, he was not a commissioned notary ublic,
which is in violation of the Notarial Law for having notarized 590
documents after the expiration his commission. IBP board of Governors
revoked his being a commissioned notary public permanently and be
suspended for 6 months from the practice of law.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Heherson Simplician be sanctioned for the

notarization of 590 documents after expiration of his commission of
Notary Pubic.

Held: The Supreme Court concurred with the findings of the

Investigating Commissioner that the respondent did not have a
commission as notary public in 2002. Such is a misconduct as duly
established by the evidence presented. Against the evidence
presented by the complainant, the respondent did not even bother
present any evidence to the contrary. He filed an extension to file an
answer but did not do so in any occasions thereof.

It is worth stressing that the practice of law is not a right but a

privilege bestowed by the state to those who sho to posses and
continue to posses that qualification required by law for the
conferment of such privilege. Membership in the bar is a privilege
burdened with conditions and a lawyer only has the right to practice
law on good behavior and can be deprived of it for misconduct to be
determined by the courts. It must be understood that the purpose of
suspending or disbarring him as an attorney is to remove from the
profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be
entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to an office of
attorney, and thus to protect the public and those charged with the
administration of justice, rather than to punish an attorney

A lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing

his duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this
end a member of the legal fraternity should refrain from doing any act
which might lessen in any degree the confidence and trust reposed by
the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the legal profession.
Towards this end, an attorney may be disbarred, or suspended for any
violation of his oath or of his duties as an attorney and counselor,
which include statutory grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, all of these being broad enough to cover practically
any misconduct of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity.

The Court had occasion to state that where the notarization of a

document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he
has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be
subjected to disciplinary action. Such act is in violation of his solemn
oath to obey the laws, such as the Notarial law and such oath no to do
any falsehood. It is also in violation of the Canon 1, Rule 1.01 which
provided: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral,
or deceitful conduct. He likewise violates Canon 7 which directs a
lawyer to uphald at ll times the integrity and dignity og the legal
profession.

14. A-1 Financial Services, Inc. vs. Atty. Laarni N. Valerio

July 2, 2010

Facts: A-1 Financial Services Inc, a financing corporation, granted the

loan application of the respondent Atty. Laarni Vaerio amounting to
50,000. To secure the payment, she issued a post dated check worth
50,000. However, upon maturity date, the check bounced due to
insufficiency of funds. Thus, the instant complaint.

Complainant filed B.P 22 case against the respondent. At the

arraignment, the respondent failed to appear as scheduled after due
notice. Subsequently, a warrant of arrest was issued against her but
she posted no bail. A letter again was sent by the complainant
regarding the issuance of warrant of arrest, but to no avail.
The complainant then filed an administrative complaint against Atty.
Valerio before the IBP. The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD)
required atty. Vallerio to file an answer, but she did not file any
responsive pleading at all. How ever, in a letter sent by Her mother
Gorgonia N. Valerio (Mrs. Valerio), she explained that her daughter was
diagnosed with schizophrenia; thus could not preoperly respond to the
complaint against Her. The IBP-CBD again, ordered Atty. Valerio to
appear the mandatory conference. Atty. Valerio again failed to do so.
The IBP CBD then required atty. Valerio to submit her position paper,
bu they received no response from her. As a result, the IBP-CBD
recommended Atty. Valerio be suspended from the practice of law for
two years and found her guilty of gross misconduct.

The IPB-CBD gave no credence to the medical certificate submitted by

Mrs. Valerio, in view of Atty. Valerios failure to appear before the IBP-
CBD hearings. The IBP board of governors then adopted and approved
with modifications ordering her suspended from the practice of law for
one year instead of two years. Atty. Valerio was given 10 days to
explain her side and produce a notarized medical certificate by a duly
licensed physicians but to no avail.

Issue: Whether or not Atty. Laarni Valerio be ordered suspended for 1

year from the practice of law for gross misconduct.

Held: The supreme court upheld the findings of IBP-CBD

As to the issuance of worthless checks of atty. Valerio, the court held

that the deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of
worthless checks constitute gross misconduct, for which a lawyer may
be sanctioned with suspension from the practice of law. They are
expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high
standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing so that the
peoples faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured. They
must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar,
the courts and to their clients, which include prompt payment of
financial obligations

Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 explicitly states that:

Canon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.

Rule 1.01A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral

or deceitful conduct.
As to Atty. Valerios failure to appear before IBP-CBD and the court, the
supreme court found it unmeritorious. The supreme court cannot tae
credence the medical certificate on its face, considering Mrs. Valerios
failure to prove the contents of the certificate or present the physician
who issued it. Despit due notice, she failed to attend disciplinary
hearings set by the IBP. She also ignored the proceedings before the
court as she failed to answer the complaint and attend the
arraignment as the court ordered. By that, she violated her oath to
delay no man for monay or malice. Atty. Valerio failed to live up tp the
values and norms of the legal profession ebodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Suspended for two years.

15. RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS

PER CURIAM; February 4, 2004

Facts: On September 22, 2003, the day following the bar examination in
Mercantile Law, Justice Jose C. Vitug, Chairman of the 2003Bar
Examinations Committee, was apprised of a rumored leakage in the
examination on thes ubject. He then reported to Chief Justice Hilario
Davide, Jr. and to the other members of the Court, recommending that
the examination on the subject be nullified and that an investigation be
conducted forthwith.- On September 2003, the Court adopted the
recommendation of Justice Vitug and resolved to nullify the
examination in Mercantile Law and to hold another exam on the said
subject against which petitions were filed. The petitions voiced out the
support to nullifying the exam on the said subject and not to take
another exam due to the emotional, physical and financial burdens it
will cause the barristers. Alternative proposals were submitted to the
Court.

The Court moved to nullify and to spread out the weight of the
Mercantile Law among the remaining seven bar subjects.- The Court
resolved also to create a Committee composed of three retired
members of the Court that would conduct a thorough investigation of
the incident subject of the September23, 2003 resolution.

The Investigating Committee found that the leaked test questions in

Mercantile Law were the questions which the examinee, Atty. Balgos
had prepared and submitted to Justice Jose Vitug. His questions
constituted 82% of the questions asked in the examination in
Mercantile Law in the morning of September 21, 2003, Sunday, in
some cases with slight changes which were not substantial and in
other cases exactly as Atty. Balgos, 71years old, proposed.- The
circumstances that the leaked test questions consisted entirely of test
questions prepared by Atty. Balgos proves conclusively that the
leakage originated from his office, not from the Office of Justice Vitug.

Atty. Balgos claimed that the leaked test questions were prepared by
him on his computer. Without any doubt, the source of the leaked test
questions was Atty. Balgos computer. The culprit who stole or
downloaded them from Atty. Balgoscomputer without the latters
knowledge and consent, and who faxed them to other persons, was
Atty. Balgos legal assistant, Atty. Danilo De Guzman, who voluntarily
confessed the deed to the Investigating Committee.

De Guzman revealed that he faxed the test questions, with the help of
his secretary Villasis to his frat brods in Beta Sigma Lambda Fraternity,
namely, Garvida, Arlan, and Erwin Tan. In turn, Garvida faxed the test
questions to Iigo and Bugain.Iigo passed a copy or copies to other
Betan Guiapal who gave a copy to the MLQU-BetaSigmas Most
Illustrious Brother, Ronald Collado who ordered the printing and
distribution of 30 copies to the MLQUs 30 bar candidates.-

issue: Whether or not Atty. De Guzman be found guilty of the act of

leaking the bar questions and be disbarred from the practice of law

Held: Atty De Guzmans act of downloading Balgos test questions in

mercantile law from the latters computer, without his knowledge and
permission, was a criminal act of larceny. It was theft of intellectual
property.

Besides theft, De Guzman also committed an unlawful infraction of

Balgos right to privacy of communication and to security of his papers
and effects against unauthorized search and seizure, rights zealously
protected by the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. He transgressed the
very first canon of the lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility
which provides that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the
laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes.-

De Guzman also violated rule 1.01 of Canon 1, as well as Canon 7 of

the Code of Professional Responsibility for members of the Bar, which
provide:

Rule 1.01A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral

or deceitful conduct.
Canon 7A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.-

He is guilty of grave misconduct unbecoming a member of the Bar.

Also, the Investigating committee does not believe that he acted alone.
Palma, secretary of Atty. Balgos and Atienza knew of the password.
Certain brods should also be investigated. The committee does not
believe De Guzman did this out of love for the fraternity. There must
have been an ulterior material consideration for his breaking the law
and tearing the shroud of secrecy that, he very well knows, covers the
bar examinations.

He should be disbarred plus he ought to make a public apology and

pay damages to the Supreme Court- Atty. Balgos should be
reprimanded by the Court and make a written apology as a result of his
negligence. He is not entitled to receive any honorarium as examiner
for that subject.-

16. In re: Petition to sign the Roll of Attorneys; Michael A.

Medado

Facts: Michael Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines

with the Bachelors degree of law in 1979. On May 7, 1980. On Myay 7,
1980, he took the Attorneys oath at the PICC and on May 13,1990, he
was scheduled to sign the Roll of Attorneys, but he failed to do so
because he misplaced hi Notice to sign the Roll given by the Bar Office.
Several Years later, while running through his college files, he then
realized that he had not signed the roll of attorney and what he signed
was probably just an attendance record.

By the time that medado found the notice, he was already working,
mainly doing corporate and taxation and that he was not mainly
involved in litigation practice. Thus he operated under mistaken belief
that since he had taken the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys
was not an urgent matter, and subsequently forgotten. In 2005, when
Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) he
was required to provide his roll number, which was not able to for not
signing the roll.

About seven years later, medado filed his instant petition to sign the
roll of attorney. The office of the Bar Confidant conducted a
clarificatory conference on the matter and submitted its report and
recommendation to the court denying such petition for because of his
gross negligence, gross misconduct, and utter lack of merit. It further
said that the petitioner had no valid justification for his negligence.
Issue: whether of not Medado be granted of his petition to sign the Bar.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner demonstrated good
faith and good moral character when he finally filed a petition to sign
the roll of attorneys and that it was not a third party who called their
attention. Another is that the petitioners has not subjected himself to
any disciplinary or disqualification from the practice of law. All these
demonstrate medados worth to become a full fledged member of the
Philippine Bar. The practice of law is not a right, but a privilege, the
court cannot unwarrantedly withhold this privilege from individuals
who have shown the mental fitness and moral fiber to withstand the
rigors of the profession.

However, the court cannot exonerate Medado from liability from

inaction. An honest mistake of fact can excuse a person from legal
consequences, but a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful
justification, because everyone is presumed to know the law and its
consequences. When Medado first operated under the mistake of fact
when he thought what he signed was the roll of attoyneys. However,
from the moment he kew that it was a mere attendance, he should
have known that he was not a full-fledged lawyer because of his failure
to sign the Roll. Inspite the knowledge, he chose to practice law
without taking the necessary steps to complete all the requirements if
the admission to the bar.

Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law transgresses

Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides:
CANON 9 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assis in the
unauthorized practice of law.
As Canon 9 speaks of assisting in the practice of law, it is assumed that
the unauthorized practice of law by himself is also reprehensible. It
also applies to law students and Bar candidates, as aspiring members
if the Bar. They are bound to comport themselves in accordance with
the ethical standards of the legal profession.

17. In Re: Atty. David Briones.

August 15, 2001

Facts: This a case where herein Atty. Briones failure, as counsel, to file
the required appellants brief 30 days from receipt of the notice which
was received by Atty. Briones evidenced by a return card. The court
then ordered Atty. Briones to show cause to why he should not be held
with contempt or be disciplined, giving him 10 days to submit such
brief. However, he still failed to do so.

On August 9, 1999, the court issued stating among others that the
resolution on April 28, 1999 is considered served on Atty Briones by
substituted service. The court also referred the matter of atty. Briones
repeated failure to file appellants brief to the integrated bar of the
Philippines for evaluation, report and recommendation

On a letter dated Sep. 27, 1999 the commissioner of the IBP informed
him of the courts referral to the IBP and required him to file his
comment 5 days from receipt. However, atty. Briones did not file any
comment. Therefore rendering him in violation of Rule 18,.03 of Canon
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: A lawyer
shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable. Likewise, hi failure to file
his brief and his comment o the commission in connection with the
Supreme Court are tantamount to willful disobedience to the lawful
orders o the Honorable Supreme Court, which, could not be tolerated.
Thus, ordering him suspended from the practice of law for 6 months.

After which, atty. Briones filed a motion for reconsideration grounded

on the alleged denia of due process in the course of the investiagion.
Alleging that he did file a comment on the administrative case but the
same was not considered by the Commissioner. But such motion for
reconsideration was denied.

Atty. Briones then filed a manifestation with his comment attached

therewith and explaining that the reason for his failure to file the
appellants brief is because he never received a copy of the resolution
requiring him to file said brief. The copy was received by his secretary
and was not given to him, because he already ceased practicing law.
He further said that he presumed that the relatives of the accused
would engage the services of other counsel or would directly go to the
IBP Legal Aid Office and admitted that he forgot to notify the Legal Aid
office about the case.

Issue: Whether or not it is proper for Atty. Briones be ordered

suspended from the practice of law for the violation of Rule 18.03 of
Canon 18 of the CPR.

Held: The supreme court held that the failure of the counsel to submit
the required brief within the reglamentary period and for almost a yaer
is an offense that entails disciplinary action It is in direct violation of
the accuseds right to a swift and just disposition of his case. The
supreme court also considered it unsatisfactory te explanation made
by atty. Briones that his secretary was not able to forward to him his
mail matters. The Supreme Court said that it is not his secretary to be
blamed because hi is the one responsible for all his own
communications. As a member of the bar, he is expected to exercise
due diligence in the practice of his profession. He should not passively
have waited for his secretary to inform him about the letters and
communications received in his law office, especially those coming
from the courts. Neither is the cessation from the law practice an
excuse for his failure to file the required brief. Unless he has withdrawn
his appearance in the, the Court would still consider him as the
appellants counsel and expected to comply with all its orders and
directives.

It should also be stressed that every case a lawyer accepts deserves

his full attention, diligence, skill and competence, regardless of its
importance and wether he accepts if for a fee or for free. A lawyers
fidelity to the cause of his client requires him to be ever mindful of the
responsibilities that should be expected of him. He is mandated to
exert his best efforts to protect within the bounds of the law the
interest of his client. The Code of Professional Responsibility dictates
that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence and
he should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him.

18. PLA vs. Agrava

Feb. 16, 1959

Facts: FACTS:
On may 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing
that he had scheduled an examination for the purpose of determining
who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines
Patent Office. According to the circular, members of the Philippine Bar,
engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and technical
training are qualified to take the said examination. The petitioner
contends that one who has passed the bar examination sand 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.

19. Cayetan vs. Monsod

September 3, 1991

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
possesrequired qualification of having been engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years. The 1987 constitutionprovides in Section 1,
Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a
Chairman and sixCommissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of
the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, atleast thirty-five
years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been
candidates for any electiveposition in the immediately preceding
elections. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall
bemembers 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 theconduct of cases or litigation in
court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers
incident toactions 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 inmatters connected with the law incorporation
services, assessment and condemnation services, contemplatingan
appearance before judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage,
enforcement of a creditors claim inbankruptcy and insolvency
proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in
matters of estateand 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 posses the
required qualification of having engaged in the practiceof law for at
least ten years is incorrect since Atty. Monsods past work experience
as a lawyer-economist, alawyer-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 COMELECchairman, The respondent has
been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years does In the
view of theforegoing, 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 alawyer-
economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
lawyer negotiator of contracts and alawyer-legislator of both the rich
and the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement
that hehas been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
Again, in the case of Philippine LawyersAssociation vs. Agrava, the
practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases and litigation in
court; itembraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers
incident to actions and social proceedings and othersimilar work which
involves the determination by a legal mind the legal effects of facts
and conditions.

20. Odolfo De Leon vs. Court of Appeals and Avelino and

Estelita
Facts: On the complaint for sum of money filed by petitioner against
respondent spouses Estelita and Avelino Batungbacal, the trial court
issued a partial judgment against Estelita on May 14, 1996 and a final
judgment against Avelino on June 2, 1997. Thereafter, the spouses filed
an appeal from both decisions, which was opposed by petitioner who
thereby did not file an appellees brief. The Court of Appeals denied the
motion to dismiss and admitted the Amended Appellants Brief.

ISSUE:

WON the appellate court erred or committed grave abuse of discretion

when it considered the appeal as submitted for decision without
petitioners brief.

RULING:

No. When a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders

and notices must be made upon said attorney and notice to client and
to any other lawyer, not the counsel of record, is not notice in law. In
this case, the counsel of record for the private respondent is presumed
to be their counsel on appeal and the only one authorized to receive
court processes. Notice of judgment upon such counsel, therefore, was
notice to the clients for all legal intents and purposes.