Cayetano v Monsod

GR 100113; September 3, 1991; Justice Paras

Facts:

Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of
Chairman of the COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on
April 25, 1991. Petitioner 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. On June 5,
1901 Comission on appointments confirmed the nomination of Monsod as COMELEC Chairman.
Cayetano then challenged the validity of confirmation.

Atty Monsod is member of IBP since 1960 with grade of 86.55%. After graduating from UP and passing
the bar, he worked in the law office of his father. He also worked in World Bank Group (1963-1970) then
returned in the philippines in 1970 where he worked with Meralco Group, served as a CEO of an
investment bank, and since 1986, rendered services to various companies as a legal and economic
consultant.

Issue: Whether Monsod was practicing law

Held:

Blacks law defines practice of law as “The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the
application of legal principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not
limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the
preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing,
the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces
all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law. An attorney
engage in the practice of law by maintaining an office where he is held out to be an attorney, using a
letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling clients in legal matters. negotiating with
opposing counsel about pending litigation, and fixing and collecting fees for services rendered by his
associate.” Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. The business lawyer has been described as the
planner, the diagnostician and the trial lawyer, the surgeon. I[t] need not [be] stress[ed] that in law, as in
medicine, surgery should be avoided where internal medicine can be effective.”

“We must interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by the spirit that giveth life/'

Dissent Teodoro: practice of law is the stereotyped notion which is far from constitutional intent
In Re : Dacanay Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law

BM 1678, December 17, 2007

Facts:

Petitioner was admitted to the Philippine bar in March1960. He practiced law until he migrated to
Canada in December 1998 to seek medical attention for his ailments. He subsequently applied for
Canadian citizenship to avail of Canada’s free medical aid program. His application was approved and he
became a Canadian citizen in May 2004. On July 14, 2006, petitioner reaquired his citizenship and
returned to the Philippines to resume his law practice. A question was raised when Benjamin Dacanay
lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his Philippine Citizenship in May 2004.

Section 2 rule 138 provies that every applicant for admission as a member of the bar must be a citizen of
the Philippines. Office of the bar ruled to allow him to resume practice of law conditioned on his
retaking of lawyer’s oath since petitioner has met again the qualifications and no disqualifications for
the membership.

Issue:

Whether or not Benjamin Dacanay can resume practice of law

Held:

Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates membership
in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other words,
the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The
practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners. The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by
reason of naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA
9225. This is because “all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed
not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA 9225].” Therefore, a Filipino
lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship
if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225 (which he did on Toronto, Canada).

the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP; the payment of professional
tax; the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is specially
significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal
developments and the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind him of his duties and
responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
In re: Muneses

BM 2112; July 24, 2012

Facts:

On June 8, 2009, a petition was filed by Epifanio Munses with the office of the bar confidant praying that
he be granted the privellege to practice law in the Philippines.

Muneses became a member of the bar on March 21, 1966 and he lost his privellege to practice law
when he became a citizen of the USA on August 28, 2981. He reaquired his filipino citizenship on
September 15, 2006 under RA 9225.

The right to resume practice of law is not automatic./ must apply with the proper authority for a license
or permit to engage in such practice

“The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is so delicately affected with public
interest that it is both the power and duty of the State (through this Court) to control and regulate it in
order to protect and promote the public welfare. Adherence to rigid standards of mental fitness,
maintenance of the highest degree of morality, faithful observance of the legal profession compliance
with the mandatory continuing legal education requirement and payment of membership fees to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) are the conditions required for membership in good standing in
the bar and for enjoying the privilege to practice law. Any breach by a lawyer of any of these conditions
makes him unworthy of the trust and confidence which the courts and clients repose in him for the
continued exercise of his professional privilege.”

Requirements:

1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;

2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);

3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;

4. Identification Certificate (IC) issued by the

Bureau of Immigration;

5. Certificate of Good Standing issued by the IBP;

6. Certification from the IBP indicating updated

payments of annual membership dues;

7. Proof of payment of professional tax; and

8. Certificate of compliance issued by the MCLE Office.

Director of Religious Affairs vs Bayot

Adm Case 1117; March 20, 1944

Facts:

Estanislao Bayot, an attorney-at-law, is charged with malpractice for having published an advertisement
in the Sunday Tribune of June 13, 1943, which reads as follows:

Marriage License promptly secured thru our assistance & the annoyance of delay or publicity avoided if
desired, and marriage arranged to wishes of parties. Consultaion on any matter free for the poor.
Everything confidential. Legal Assistance service 12 Escolta Manila Room 105 Tel 2-41-60

Appearing in his own behalf, respondent at first denied having published the said advertisement; but
subsequently, thru his attorney, he admitted having caused its publication and prayed for "the
indulgence and mercy" of the Court, promising "not to repeat such professional misconduct in the
future and to abide himself to the strict ethical rules of the law profession." In further mitigation he
alleged that the said advertisement was published only once in the Tribune and that he never had any
case at law by reason thereof. It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant
violation by the respondent of the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation of business from
the public. Section 2§ of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting
cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice." It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant
advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession
who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to
the public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with mercenary activities as the
money-changers of old de filed the temple of Jehovah. "The most worthy and effective advertisement
possible, even for a young lawyer, * * * is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for profes-
sional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the outcome of character and
conduct." (Canon27, Code of Ethics.)

In In Re Tagorda, the respondent attorney got suspended from the practice of law for the period of one
month for advertising his services and soliciting work from the public by writing circular letters. That
case was more serious as the solicitations was done repeteadly

Considering his plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat the misconduct, the Court is of the
opinion and so decides that the respondent should be, as he hereby is, reprimanded.
Linsangan vs Tolentino

AC 6672; September 4, 2009; Corona

Facts:

Pedro Linsangan filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of
clients and encroachment of professional services.

Tolentino, together with the help of paralegal fe marie Labiano convinced his clients to transfer legal
representation. Respondent promised financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claims. He
persistently called them and sent them text messages. Pedro presented James Gregorio attesting that
Labiano tried to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer client relations with Linsangan in exchange of 50k
loan. Calling card: SERVICES OFFERED: CONSULTATION AND ASSISTANCE TO OVERSEAS SEAMEN
REPATRIATED DUE TO ACCIDENT, INJURY, ILLNESS, SICKNESS, DEATH AND INSURANCE BENEFIT CLAIMS
ABROAD. Respondent denied knowing the paralegal and authorizing the printing and circulation of the
calling card. The case was referred to commission on bar discipline and found that he violated rule 8.02
on encroaching upon the professional employment of another and other canons of CPR.

To allow a lawyer to advertise his talent or skill is to commercialize the practice of law, degrade the
profession in the public’s estimation and impair its ability to efficiently render that high character of
service to which every member of the bar is called.

RULE 2.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT DO OR PERMIT TO BE DONE ANY ACT DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO
SOLICIT LEGAL BUSINESS. -such actuation constitutes malpractice which is a ground for disbarment

RULE 1.03. A LAWYER SHALL NOT, FOR ANY CORRUPT MOTIVE OR INTEREST, ENCOURAGE ANY SUIT OR
PROCEEDING OR DELAY ANY MAN’S CAUSE. – this rule proscribes ambulance chasing

Tolentino later on admitted on knowing labiano. Moreover strengthened by Rule 16.04 regarding money
lending.

Calling cards may only contain lawyers name, law firm, address, phone number, special branch of law
practiced. Labiano’s card contained “with financial assistance”

Held: suspended for 1 year

Bongalonta vs Castillo

CBD Case 176; Jan 20, 1995

Facts:

Sally Bongalonta charged Pablito Castillo and Alfonso Martija with unjust and unethical conduct:
representing conflicting interests and abbeting a scheme to frustrate the execution of a judgement
which complaint might obtain.

Bongalonta filed with RTC Pasig a criminal case 7653-55 for estafa against SPS Luisa and Solomer Abuel.
She also filed a separate civil action where she was able to obtain a writ of preliminary attachment. Atty
Castillo was the counsel of SPS abuel. During the pendency of the cases, Gregorio Lantin filed Civil Case
58650 for collection of sum of money based on promissory note against sps abuel. Lantin was
represented by Attt. Martija. SPS Abuel were declared in default for their failure to file the necessary
responsive pleading and evidence ex-parte was received against them followed by a judgement in
default in favor of Lantin.

All the pleadings filed in these 3 cases placed the same address, same ptr, and same IBP Receipt
number. Complainant then concluded that Lantin’s case was a part of a scheme to frustrate the
satisfaction of the money judgement which the complainant might obtain.

The two respondents placed in their appearance and pleasdings the same IBP no. Atty. Pablito deserves
to be suspended for using the IBP no of Alfonso Martija. It was due to cashier error but it is the duty of
every lawyer to see to it that her pays his IBP membership fees on time

Castillo was suspended 6 months; Martilja case dismissed The Court agrees with the foregoing findings
and recommendations. lt is well to stress again that the practice of law is not a right but a privilege
bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications
required by law for the conferment of such privilege. One of these requirements is the observance of
honesty and candor. Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers
appearing and pleading before them. A lawyer, on the other hand, has the fundamental duty to satis fy
that expectation.
Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente Ching

Bar Matter 914; October 1, 1999

Facts:

Vicente Ching, legitimate son of spouses Tat Ching (Chinese) and Prescila Dulay (Filipino) was born on La
Union, 11 April 1964. Since Birth, Ching has resided to Philippines. Ching applied in July 17, 1998 to take
the bar examination subject to the condition that he must submit to court his proof of Philippine
citizenship. He submitted PRC documents claiming he is CPA, Vote Certification, and certification
showing that he was a member of Sanguniang bayan. On April 5, 1999. The exam results were released
and Ching was one of the successful examinees but was not permitted to take the lawyers oath due to
question regarding his citizenship. OSG commented that being the legitimate son of a Chinese father
and a filipino mother who was born under the 1935 constitution, he will be a Chinese citizen and will
continue to be upon reaching the age of majority. Act 625 – An Act Providing for the manner in which
the option to elect Philippine citizenship shall be declared by a person whose mother is a filipino citizen.
Two requisites – mother must be a filipino citizen, said election must be made in the age of majority but
was beyond the reasonable time allowed. OSG recommends for the relaxation of the rule “reasonable
period” Chin filed a manifestation that he always considered himself as a filipino, practicing CPA for
filipino citizens, participated in election.

Court Denies application. 1935 consti and CA 625 did not prescribe a time period within which the
election of the Philippine citizenship should be made. The 1935 Charter only provides that the election
should be made upon the age of majority. US government interpreted the reasonable time to be 3 years
upon reaching the age of majority

Ching relied on Mallare case which was married to an alien since the facts are very different. Ching’s
unreasonable and unexplained delay in making his election cannot be simply glossed over. Moreover,
Ching has offered no reason why he delayed his election of Philippine citizenship. Election is not a
tedious process
Villanueva vs Sta Ana

CBD 251; July 11, 1995

Facts:

Villanueva sought disbarment of Sta. Ana. Villanueva first met Sta Ana some time in April 1992 when
Villanueva bought documents for Sta. Ana’s notarization. Sta Ana then learned that the complainant
planned to borrow a sum from a bank or lending institution. Sta ana then represented that she could
facilitate the loan if complainant could put up a land collateral and provide 150k guaranty deposit.
Convinced that Sta Ana could help, Villanueva handed over 144k as well as various documents required
for the loan application. Sta ana then asked for additional 109k for withholding and documentary stamp
tax plus surcharges. Villanueva now decided to forego the loan application. She demanded to return the
money but Sta Ana was not able to return and began to avoid the complainant. She was then being
investigated by nbi and was subpoenated twice but was not able to appear. NBI recommended to file a
criminal case of estafa against sta ana and disbarment proceedings be taken against her.

Well-settled is the rule that good moral character is not only a condition precedent to an admission to
the legal profession but it must also remain extant in order to maintain one’s good standing in that
exclusive and honored fraternity.

“Rule 1.01—A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,immoral or deceitful conduct.

“CANON 16—A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys andproperties of his client that may come into his
possession.

“Rule 16.01—A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the
client.”

Despite all the opportunities accorded to her, respondent has failed to present her defense and to
refute the charges or, at the very least, to explain herself. The Court is thus left with hardly any choice
other than to accept the findings and recommendations of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and the
Commission on Bar Discipline.
In re: Saturnino Parcasio

Adm Case 1000; February 18, 1976

Facts:

Atty. Saturnino Parcasio, together with Mariano Regis, was charged with robbery with intimidation.

The robbery was that in collaboration with Ong Pin they extorted from Sepulveda 200 pesos so that it
would not be necessary for him to appear in manila for investigation. OSG now prayed for his
disbarment by having committed a crimne.

Parcasio said that he disagreed to the factual and legal findings and alleged to reopen the case on the
basis of newly discovered evidence (affidavit of patrolman stating that Sepulveda admitted to him that
Parcasio never extorted money from him) .

Issue:

Whether or not pardon granted will cause dismissal of his disbarment.

Held:

This Court in the Lontok case applied the rule that “a pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed
for the offense and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and
blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had
never committed the offense.” “If granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and\ disabilities,
and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit
and capacity.”