ZETA vs.

MACALINAO
FACTS: Administrative complaint against Felicisimo Malinao, court interpreter of the CFI of Catbalogan, Samar Felicisimo Macalinao is a lower corurt employee in Zumarraga, Western Samar. He was charged with Illegally appearing in court, grave misconduct in office, crime of falsification and violation of executive order and civil service law. Julio Zeta, private complainant appears to be a fictitious person but nevertheless the court proceeded to investigate the case against him by calling Judge Restituto Duran of Sta. Rita Samar, Judge Juanito Reyes of Zumarraga, Samar and Judge Miguel Avestruz of Daram, Samar. Macalinao contended that his participation for defendants case was gratuitous as they could not engage the services of counsel by reason of poverty and the absence of one in the locality.

ISSUE: HELD: Yes. Macalinao is guilty of Illegally appearing in court, grave misconduct in office, crime of falsification and violation of executive order and civil service law. WHEREFORE, respondent Felicisimo Macalinao is hereby ordered dismissed from his position as interpreter in the CFI, Zumarraga, WS; with prejudice to reemployment in the judicial branch of the government. Whether Macalinao is guilty of all the charges against him.

MEJIA vs. REYES

FACT: This Is a disbarment proceeding s against attorney Francisco S. Reyes for malpractice. Respondent was acting as counsel for the complainants (Mejia) in the civil case against PNB (Baguio branch) that has appointed him as bank attorney and notary public. The civil case against PNB was won by the complainants but the court only considers Php67.34, the Php currency equivalent value of Php2,693.53 under the Balantyne Schedule. Motion for reconsideration was denied by the court. In the administrative proceedings, the complainants prayed for the disbarment of Reyes on the ground of malpractice. The complainants claimed that they did not know the affiliation of Reyes with PNB and that Reyes did not reveal this to them. Reyes answered their accusation and according to him, they have not appealed the case because they would want to avail of RA No. 1286 that condoned interest accruing on govt

debts. He also said that the contrary to the claim of the complainants, they knew his affiliation with PNB and he is not guilty of malpractice as he is not a retainer lawyer of PNB. ISSUE: Whether Reyes is guilty of malpractice. HELD: Reyes is guilty of malpractice but only recommending reprimand. It does not appear satisfactorily proven that during the pendency of their case the complainants did not know of the respondents connection with PNB. It also appears that the respondent was deeply devoted to his duties as counsel for the complainants and collected a very small attorneys fees and the malpractice committed by the respondent is not so serious.

CAYETANO vs. MONSOD

FACTS: Petition to review the decision of the COA on the appointment of Monsod as COMELEC Chairman. MONSODs past professional experience includes: lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer entrepreneur of industry, lawyer-negotiator of contracts and a lawyer legislator or rich and poor. COMELEC shall be composed of a Chairman and 6 Commissioners. o Qualifications: Natural-born citizens of the Philippines and at the time of their appointment, at least 35 yrs old, holders of bachelor degree and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding elections. Majority thereof including the Chairman, shall be members of the Phil. Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. (1987 Const, Sec 1 (1), Art IX-C) o Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the COA for a term of seven years without reappointment. Practice of Law o Black Law = The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and techniques to serve the interest of another with his consent. o Not limited to the conduct of cases in the court. o A person is also considered in the practice of law when he for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms..etc. o 1986 Constitution adopted a liberal interpretation of the term practice of law (Discussion b/w Foz, Ople and Jamir) Appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in which it is vested according to his best lights, the only condition being that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law. If he does, then the appointment cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others better qualified who should have been preferred.

Thus, only where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown the Court interferes with the Commissions judgment.

ISSUE: Whether MONSODs professional experience will qualify in the definition of practice of law for at least 10 years. HELD: AFFIRMATIVE. Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term practice of law particularly the modern concept of law practice, and taking into consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the Constitution, Atty. MONSOD has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
Concurrence: NARVASA: No grave abuse of jurisdiction by COA so as the court to interfere in MONSODs appointment. Dissenting Opinions: PADILLA: Factors determinative whether a particular activity constitutes a practice of law (COA) o Habitually; Compensation; Application of law; Attorney-Client Relationship. CRUZ: I see no reason why we cannot disqualify an appointee simply because he has passed the COA. GUTIERREZ: In fact, it appears that Mr. Monsod has never practices law except for an alleged one year period after passing the bar examinations.

CRUZ vs. MINA

FACTS: Special Civil Action in the SC. Certiorari. Ferdinand Cruz filed before the MeTC (Metropolitan Trial Court) a formal entry of Appearance as private prosecutor in a criminal case (grave threats) where his father Mariano Cruz is the complaining witness on the bases of Sec. 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Ferdinand is a third year law student. His appearance was with prior conformity of the public prosecutor and a written authority if his father appointing him to his agent. MeTC denied permission for the petition to appear as private prosecutor on the ground that Circular 19 governing limited law student practice in conjunction with Rule 138-A. A MOR was filed by the petitioner was denied by the MeTC. Petitioner filed before RTC a petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for preliminary injunction and TRO with MeTC but both was DENIED. MeTC proceeding with criminal case on the ground that the case is one that can be prosecuted de oficio, there being no claim for civil liability and therefore, intervention of a private prosecutor is not legally tenable. MOR and Motion to Hold in Abeyance was filed by the petitioner before the RTC but were denied by the same.

ISSUE: 1. Whether the petitioner may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a party litigant. 2. Whether Law Student Practice Rule encapsulated in Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court prohibits the petitioner from entering his appearance in behalf of his father. 3. Whether the MeTC is correct in proceeding with the criminal case as there is no civil liability instituted in the case at bar. HELD: 1. Yes. A law student may appear before an inferior court, as an agent or frind of a party without the supervision of a member of a bar. 2. No. Conditions for Student Practice: (Rule 138-A, Sec 1) Successfully completed 3rd year of regular 4 year prescribed law curriculum in a recognized law school approved by SC. May appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer to represent indigent clients. Appearance: (Rule 138-A, Sec 2) Shall be under the direct supervision and control of a member of IBP duly accredited by the law school. Resolution dated June 10, 1997 in Bar Matter No. 730, the Court En Banc clarified: o The rule however is different if the law student appears before an inferior court, where the issues and procedure are relatively simple. In inferior courts, a law student may appear in his personal capacity without the supervision of a lawyer. 3. No. The petitioner is right in stating that there being no reservation, waiver nor prior institution of civil aspect in the criminal case; the private prosecutor may rightfully intervene to prosecute the civil aspect. Recovery of Civil Liability: Deemed instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately of institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.

In Re: CUNANAN et al.

FACTS: ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. RA No. 972: AN ACT TO FIX THE PASSING MARKS FOR BAR EXAMINATIONS FROM 1946 TO 1955. o Any bar candidate who obtained a gen ave of 70% in any bar examinations after July 4, 1946 up to August 1951,71% in 1952, 72% in 1953, 73% in 1954, 74% in 1955 w/o a candidate obtaining a grade below 50% in any subject, shall be allowed to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as member of the Phil Bar. (RA No. 972, Sec 1) o Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any subject in any bar examination after July 4, 1946 shall be deemed to have passed in such subject of subjects and such grade/s shall be included in computing the passing gen ave that said candidate may obtain in any subsequent examinations that he may take. (RA No. 972, Sec 2)

ISSUE: Whether RA. No 972 is unconstitutional. HELD: Yes, RA. No 972 is unconstitutional and therefore declared void and without effect for the following reasons to wit: Its declared purpose is to admit 810 candidates who failed in the bar examinations of 1946 1952. This is a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the SC. It is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of this Court on the petitions of these 810 candidates. By the disputed law, Congress has exceeded it legislative power to repeal, alter and supplement the rules on admission to the bar. It is undoubtedly a class legislation. Article 2 of RA No. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law. The entire law is void. Lacking in 8 votes to declare the nullity of that part of Art. 1 of RA No. 972 referring to the examinations of 1953 to 1955, said part insofar as it concerns the examinations in those years, shall continue to be in force.

DOCTRINES: a) RA No. 972 is contrary to public interest bec. It qualifies 1,094 law graduates who confessedly ad an inadequate preparation for the practice of profession. b) Admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys-at-law in the practice of profession are a JUDICIAL FUNCTION. c) The constitution has not conferred on Congress and this Tribunal equal responsibilities governing the admission to the practice of law. d) Title of law must embrace all its provisions.