CAYETANO V.

MONSOD  Enriquez claims that the disbarment case is a mere tactic to divert
FACTS:
 Private Practice - an individual or organization engaged in the business
of delivering legal services.
 Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by Pres. Aquino to be
COMELEC Chairman. Petitioner Cayetano opposed the nomination,
contending that Monsod had not been in the practice of law for at least
10 years, as required by the Constitution.
 The Commission on Appointments approved Monsod’s nomination.
Monsod took his oath and assumed office.
 Atty. Christian Monsod
o Member of IBP, passed bar exams in 1960
o Graduated from UPCOL
o Employment History:
 Worked in his father’s law office
 Worked in Costa Rica and Panama as an operations
manager for the World Bank Group, got acquainted with
the laws of member-countries
 Worked at the Meralco Group
 Chief Executive Officer of an investment bank
 Since 1986 has been a legal and economic consultant or
CEO (lawyer-economist)
 Former Secretary-General and National Chairman of
NAMFREL (knowledgeable in election law)
attention from the criminal charges against the sps. and that it was
lacking in facts.
 The IBP Commissioner recommended that Enriquez should be
suspended for 6 months.
ISSUE: W/N Enriquez violated the CPR.
HELD: YES.
 The SC agrees with the IBP findings.
o The cases cited by Enriquez were not applicable as they refer to
aliens acquiring land in the PH.
 Under Canon 5 of the CPR, lawyers must be updated with the latest laws
and jurisprudence.
 When the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not
know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
o Respondent is a retired judge and should have kept himself well-
informed of the latest Court rulings. He misconstrued the
Constitution.
 A lawyer must espouse legally sound arguments for clients.
 Respondent not suspended, merely reprimanded.

SPS. WILLIAMS V. ATTY. ENRIQUEZ

FACTS:
 Respondent Atty. Rudy Enriquez was charged with unlawful, dishonest,
immoral and deceitful acts in violation with the CPR by David and
Marisa Williams.
 Enriquez was Sps. Williams’ counsel in a civil case wherein the
complainants were the defendants.
o Marisa bought the lot subject of the case. She stated in the TCT
that she was a Filipino married to an American. The respondent
charged her with falsification of public documents (for TCT).
 Sps. Williams allege that:
o Enriquez cited outdated material in his complaint-affidavit, then
knowingly applied the outdated law to argue that Marisa
automatically lost her Filipino citizenship when she married an
American, and was prohibited to own land in the PH.
o Marisa cited Art. IV, Sec. 4 of the Consti stating that she did not
lose citizenship. In reply, Enriquez quoted more outdated law
declaring that her marrying David was equivalent to renouncing
her PH citizenship.