under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an
Read/Study:
1. Rule 138 Sections 1-37 (Revised Rules of Court)
2. Bar Matter 2265
3. Bar Matter 1161
4. Bar Matter 730
5. Bar Matter 2502
Cases:
Cayetano vs Monsod 201 SCRA 210
FACTS: Monsod was nominated by President Aquino to the position
of Chairman of the COMELEC on April 25, 1991. Cayetano opposed
the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess the
required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law
for at least ten years. Challenging the validity of the confirmation by
the Commission on Appointments of Monsods nomination,
petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying that
said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as
Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void
because Monsod did not meet the requirement of having practiced
law for the last ten years.
ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod satisfies the requirement of the
position of Chairman of the COMELEC.
HELD: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in
court. A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when
he: . . . for valuable consideration engages in the business of
advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights
advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before any court,
commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission
constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies. Otherwise
stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the
business of advising clients as to their rights under the law, or while
so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of
court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law.
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having
passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86.55%. He has
been a dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
since its inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his
professional license fees as lawyer for more than ten years. Atty.
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.
In Re: Almacen 31 SCRA 562
Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil
case. They lost in said civil case but Almacen filed a Motion for
Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party of said motion but
he failed to indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion.
Hence, his motion was denied. He then appealed but the Court of
Appeals denied his appeal as it agreed with the trial court with
regard to the motion for reconsideration. Eventually, Almacen filed
an appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court which outrightly
denied his appeal in a minute resolution.
This earned the ire of Almacen who called such minute resolutions
as unconstitutional. He then filed before the Supreme Court a
petition to surrender his lawyers certificate of title as he claimed
that it is useless to continue practicing his profession when
members of the high court are 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.
He further alleged that due to the minute resolution, his client was
made to pay P120k without knowing the reasons why and that he
became one of the sacrificial victims before the altar of hypocrisy.
He also stated that justice as administered by the present
members of the Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and
dumb.
The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacens petition
as the Court wanted to wait for Almacen to ctually surrender his
certificate. Almacen did not surrender his lawyers certificate
though as he now argues that he chose not to. Almacen then asked
that he may be permitted to give reasons and cause why no
disciplinary action should be taken against him . . . in an open and
public hearing. He said he preferred this considering that the
Supreme Court is the complainant, prosecutor and Judge.
Almacen was however unapologetic.
ISSUE: Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions
are needed because the Supreme Court cannot accept every case or
write full opinion for every petition they reject otherwise the High
Court would be unable to effectively carry out its constitutional
duties. The proper role of the Supreme Court is to decide only
those cases which present questions whose resolutions will have
immediate importance beyond the particular facts and parties
involved. It should be remembered that a petition to review the
decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right, but of
sound judicial discretion; and so there is no need to fully explain the
courts denial. For one thing, the facts and the law are already
mentioned in the Court of Appeals opinion.
On Almacens attack against the Supreme Court, the High Court
regarded said criticisms as uncalled for; that such is insolent,
contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory. It is true that a
lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, has the right
to criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate
channels the acts of courts and judges. His right as a citizen to
criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful manner,
and the independence of the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has
always been encouraged by the courts. But it is the cardinal
condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide, and shall not
spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate and
unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.
In the case at bar, Almacens criticism is misplaced. As a veteran
lawyer, he should have known that a motion for reconsideration
which failed to notify the opposing party of the time and place of
trial is a mere scrap of paper and will not be entertained by the
court. He has only himself to blame and he is the reason why his
client lost. Almacen was suspended indefinitely.
In Re: Cunanan 94 PHIL 534
FACTS: In the manner of the petitions for Admission to the Bar of
unsuccessful candidates of 1946 to 1953; Albino Cunanan et. al
petitioners.
In recent years few controversial issues have aroused so much
public interest and concern as R.A. 972 popularly known as the Bar
Flunkers Act of 1953. Generally a candidate is deemed passed if he
obtains a general ave of 75% in all subjects w/o falling below 50% in
any subject, although for the past few exams the passing grades
were changed depending on the strictness of the correcting of the
bar examinations (1946- 72%, 1947- 69%, 1948- 70% 1949-74%,
1950-1953 75%).
Believing themselves to be fully qualified to practice law as those
reconsidered and passed by the S.C., and feeling that they have
been discriminated against, unsuccessful candidates who obtained
averages of a few percentages lower than those admitted to the bar
went to congress for, and secured in 1951 Senate Bill no. 12, but
was vetoed by the president after he was given advise adverse to it.
Not overriding the veto, the senate then approved senate bill no.
372 embodying substantially the provisions of the vetoed bill. The
bill then became law on June 21, 1953
Republic Act 972 has for its object, according to its author, to admit
to the Bar those candidates who suffered from insufficiency of
reading materials and inadequate preparations. By and large, the
law is contrary to public interest since it qualifies 1,094 law
graduates who had inadequate preparation for the practice of law
profession, as evidenced by their failure in the exams.
ISSUES: Due to the far reaching effects that this law would have on
the legal profession and the administration of justice, the S.C. would
seek to know if it is CONSTITUTIONAL.
An adequate legal preparation is one of the vital requisites for the
practice of the law that should be developed constantly and
maintained firmly.
The Judicial system from which ours has been derived, the act of
admitting, suspending, disbarring, and reinstating attorneys at law
in the practice of the profession is concededly judicial.
The Constitution, has not conferred on Congress and the S.C.
equal responsibilities concerning the admission to the practice of
law. The primary power and responsibility which the constitution
recognizes continue to reside in this court.
Its retroactivity is invalid in such a way, that what the law seeks to
cure are not the rules set in place by the S.C. but the lack of will or
the defect in judgment of the court, and this power is not included
in the power granted by the Const. to Congress, it lies exclusively
w/in the judiciary.
Reasons for Unconstitutionality:
1. There was a manifest encroachment on the constitutional
responsibility of the Supreme Court.
2. It is in effect a judgment revoking the resolution of the court, and
only the S.C. may revise or alter them, in attempting to do so R.A.
972 violated the Constitution.
3. That congress has exceeded its power to repeal, alter, and
supplement the rules on admission to the bar (since the rules made
by congress must elevate the profession, and those rules
promulgated are considered the bare minimum.)
4. It is a class legislation
5. Art. 2 of R.A. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law, contrary
to what the constitution enjoins, and being inseparable from the
provisions of art. 1, the entire law is void.
HELD: Under the authority of the court:
1. That the portion of art. 1 of R.A. 972 referring to the
examinations of 1946 to 1952 and all of art. 2 of the said law are
unconstitutional and therefore void and w/o force and effect.
2. The part of ART 1 that refers to the examinations subsequent to
the approval of the law (1953- 1955) is valid and shall continue in
force. (those petitions by the candidates who failed the bar from
1946 to 1952 are denied, and all the candidates who in the
examination of 1953 obtained a GEN Ave. of 71.5% w/o getting a
grade of below 50% in any subject are considered as having passed
whether they have filed petitions for admissions or not.) 7. In Re: Law Student Practice Rule June 10, 1987

In Re: Ladreda January 29, 1987 Philippine National Construction Corp. vs Mandagan 559 SCRA 121

In Re: Argosino July 13, 1995 9. Binalay vs Lelina Jr. 594 SCRA 547
FACTS: This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking of a
successful bar applicant. Argosino was previously involved with 10. Municipality of Pililla, Rizal vs Court of Appeals June 28, 1994
hazing that caused the death of Raul Camaligan but was sentenced
with homicide through reckless imprudence after he pleaded guilty. 11. Citibank vs Hon. Chua GR No. 102300, March 17, 1993
He was sentenced with 2 years imprisonment where he applied for
a probation thereafter which was granted by the court with a 2 12. Borcena vs IAC GR No. 70099, January 7, 1987
yr probation. He took the bar exam and passed but was not allowed
to take oath. He filed a petition to allow him to take the attorneys Ulanday vs Manila RailRoad December 20, 1923
oath of office averring that his probation was already terminated.
The court note that he spent only 10 months of the probation 14. Research and Services Realty Inc. vs Fonacier GR No. 124074,
period before it was terminated. Janaury 27, 1997
ISSUE: WON Argosino may take oath of office.
15. Arambulo vs CA GR No. 105818, September 17, 1993
RULING: The court upheld the principle of maintaining the good
morals of all Bar members, keeping in mind that such is of greater 16. Metrobank vs CA- January 23, 1990
importance so far as the general public and the proper
administration of justice are concerned, than the possession of legal 17. Armovit vs CA- September 27, 1991
learning. Hence he was asked by the court to produce evidence that
would certify that he has reformed and have 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 he is morally
fit to the admission of the law profession. The court also ordered
that said a copy of the proceeding be furnished to
thefamily/relatives of Raul Camaligan.

In Re: Quisumbing February 11, 1989