PRACTICE OF LAW who have been engaged in the practice of law for at

Case 1: Cayetano v. Monsod least ten years.

5. Cayetano anchors his claim on the following facts:
FACTS: a. Monsod, after graduating from the College of
1. This case is about Atty. Monsod’s appointment as Law and passing the bar, worked in his
COMELEC Chairman which was contested by father’s law office.
Cayetano. Petitioner claims that Atty. Monsod does b. After, he then worked as operations officer in
not meet the 10-year practice of law requirement. the World Bank Group for about 2 years
SC, in this case, defines what truly constitutes as the c. Upon returning to the Philippines, he worked
“practice of law.” with the Meralco Group as a Chief Executive
2. Atty. Christian Monsod was nominated by Pres. Cory Officer
Aquino as Chairman of the COMELEC. The COA d. Then continued to render services to various
confirmed the said nomination. companies either as legal and economic
3. Renato Cayetano opposed the nomination because consultant or CEO.
allegedly Monsod does not possess the e. He also served as former Secretary-General
Constitutional qualification requirement: (1986) and National Chairman (1987) of
4. The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1(1), NAMFREL, as a member of the Constitutional
Article IX-C: Commission (1986-1987) and Davide
(1) There shall be a Commission on Elections Commission (1990), and as Chairman of
composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners Committee on Accountability of Public
who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines Officers.
and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-
five years of age, holders of a college degree, and Issue:
must not have been candidates for any elective 1. W/N Monsod possess the required qualification for
position in the immediately preceding elections. the position of Chairman of the COMELEC
However, a majority thereof, including the
Chairman, shall be Members of the Philippine Bar Ruling:
 1. Yes. In Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava: 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 before
judges and courts, and in addition, conveying.
2. Atty. Monsod’s 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.
Case 4: Aguirre v. Rana
Facts:
1. This case centers on how Rana engaged in
unauthorized practice of law which led to the denial
of his admission to the Philippine Bar.
2. A day before Rana’s scheduled oath taking for new
lawyers in 2001, Aguirre filed a Petition for Denial of
Admission to the Bar against respondent.
3. Complainant charged respondent with unauthorized
practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law,
and grave misrepresentation.
4. Court allowed Rana to take oath but did not allow
him to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
5. Complainant alleges that Rana, while not yet a
lawyer, appeared as counsel for Bunan, Vice-Mayor
candidate in Masbate. Aside from that, petitioner
claims that Rana is a secretary of the Sangguniang
Bayan and therefore is not allowed by law to act as
counsel for a client in any court or administrative
body.
6. Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) eventually found
that respondent indeed appeared before the MBEC
as counsel for Bunan in the May 2001 elections.
7. The OBC likewise found that respondent appeared
in the MBEC proceedings even before he took the
lawyers oath.
Issue:
1. W/N Rana engaged in the unauthorized practice of
law and should be denied admission to the
Philippine Bar
Ruling:
1. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to
practice law simply by passing the bar examinations.
The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld
even from bar passers, if he has practiced law
without a license.
 2. It is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally Issue:
makes one a full-fledged lawyer. 1. W/N Muneses, after reacquiring Philippine
3. 2 essential requisites to become a lawyer: 1) his citizenship, can practice law in the Philippines
lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and
2) his signature in the Roll of Attorneys. Ruling:
4. While there is no misrepresentation as Bunan truly 1. Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to
did accept Rana as his counsel, this does not change the bar and is, in fact, a continuing requirement for
the fact that respondent practiced law even before the practice of law. Loss thereof means termination
taking oath. This shows Rana is bereft of the moral of the petitioner’s membership in the bar; ipso jure
integrity needed to be admitted in into the bar. the privilege to engage in the practice of law.
5. As for his employment in the SB, Rana has already 2. A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another
resigned before entering himself as Bunan’s legal country and later re-acquires his Philippine
counsel. citizenship under RA 9225, remains to be a member
Case 7: In re: Petition to re-acquire the privilege to of the Philippine Bar. However, right to resume the
practice law in the Philippines, Epifanio Muneses practice of law is not automatic.
Facts: 3. Court ordered Muneses to submit the following
1. This case is about a Filipino lawyer, Atty. Muneses, requirements:
who lost his license to practice law in the country a. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine
when he became a US citizen. He now petitions to Citizenship;
re-acquire his license to practice law in the b. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine
Philippines after having re-acquired his citizenship citizenship);
through RA 9225. c. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
2. Muneses became a member of the IBP in 1966 Philippines;
3. He lost his privilege to practice law when he became d. Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the
a citizen of the US in 1981 but re-acquired the same Bureau of Immigration;
pursuant to RA 9225 in 2006 e. Certificate of Good Standing issued by the
IBP;
 f. Certification from the IBP indicating updated
payments of annual membership dues;
g. Proof of payment of professional tax; and
h. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE
Office.
4. After having complied with the above requirement,
Muneses was allowed to resume his practice of law
in the country.
Case 10: Magno v. Velasco-Jacoba
Facts:
1. N
2. Atty. Evelyn J. Magno, President of the IBP, Nueva
Ecija Chapter had a disagreement with her uncle,
Lorenzo Inos, over a landscaping contract they had
entered into.
3. During the conciliation/confrontation proceeding in
the Barangay, Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba appeared
on the strength of a Special Power of Attorney
signed by Lorenzo Inos.
4. Atty. Magno objected to Atty. Jacoba’s appearance in
the conciliation but Jacoba claimed Inos is entitled to
be represented by a lawyer just as how Magno is
herself a lawyer.
5. Parties to a conciliation proceedings must not be
represented by lawyers. Magno claims that her
being a lawyer is coincidental and Inos should not
bring a lawyer during such proceedings.
6. Kacoba claims she is merely appearing as an
attorney-in-fact but was refuted by Magno by
enumerating instances, with supporting
documentation to prove that Jacoba, in the course of
the conciliation proceedings before the Punong
Barangay, acted as Inos’ counsel, not merely as an
attorney-in-fact.
7. Magno know filed a petition for willful violation of
Sec. 415, LGC of 1991 and Canon 4 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
8. Jacoba claims that the provision in the LGC cannot
be applied as the complaint was filed with the Office
of the Punong Barangay, instead of Lupong
Tagapamayapa, and heard by Punong Barangay
Alcantara alone, instead of the conciliation panel.
Issue:
1. W/N Atty. Jacoba violated Sec. 415, LGC of 1991 and
Canon 4 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
Ruling:
1. Yes, Atty. Jacoba cannot represent Inos in a
concilation proceeding.
2. Section 415. Appearance of Parties in Person. - In
all katarungang pambarangay proceedings, the
 parties must appear in person without the
assistance of the counsel or representative, except
for minors and incompetents who may be assisted
by their next of kin who are not lawyers.
3. It does not matter if the complaint was filed to the
punong barangay along as he is still the chairman of
the conciliation panel. The same provision applies to
all katarungan barangay proceedings
4. Rationale of the prohibition: Presence of attorneys
in conciliation proceedings tend to over complicate
the issues and may hinder peaceful reconciliation
between parties.