Cayetano vs.
Monsod 201 SCRA 210 September actions and special proceeding, the
1991
Cayetano vs. Monsod
201 SCRA 210
September 1991
Facts: Respondent Christian Monsod was
nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to
the position of chairman of the COMELEC.
Petitioner opposed the nomination because
allegedly Monsod does not posses required
qualification of having been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years. The 1987
constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C:
There shall be a Commission on Elections
composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners
who shall be natural-born citizens of the
Philippines and, at the time of their
appointment, at least thirty-five years of age,
holders of a college degree, and must not have
been candidates for any elective position in the
immediately preceding elections. However, a
majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall
be members of the Philippine Bar who have
been engaged in the practice of law for at least
ten years.
Issue: Whether the respondent does not posses
the required qualification of having engaged in
the practice of law for at least ten years.
Held: In the case of Philippine Lawyers
Association vs. Agrava, stated: 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
management of such actions and proceedings
on behalf of clients before judges and courts,
and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice
to clients, and all action taken for them in
matters connected with the law incorporation
services, assessment and condemnation
services, contemplating an appearance before
judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage,
enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy
and insolvency proceedings, and conducting
proceedings in attachment, and in matters of
estate and guardianship have been held to
constitute law practice. Practice of law means
any activity, in or out court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experience.
The contention that Atty. Monsod does not
posses the required qualification of having
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years is incorrect since Atty. Monsod’s past
work experience as a lawyer-economist, a
lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of
industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a
lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor –
verily more than satisfy the constitutional
requirement for the position of COMELEC
chairman, The respondent has been engaged in
the practice of law for at least ten years does In
the view of the foregoing, the petition is
DISMISSED.
PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION vs.
CELEDONIO AGRAVA
G.R. No. L-12426. February 16, 1959.
FACTS:
On may 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a
circular announcing that he had scheduled an
examination for the purpose of determining
who are qualified to practice as patent
attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office.
According to the circular, members of the
Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons
with sufficient scientific and technical training
are qualified to take the said examination. The
petitioner contends that one who has passed
the bar examination sand is licensed by the
Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines
and who is in good standing is duly qualified to
practice before the Philippines Patent Office
and that the respondent Director’s holding an
examination for the purpose is in excess of his
jurisdiction and is in violation of the law.The
respondent, in reply, maintains the prosecution
of patent cases “ does not involve entirely or
purely the practice of law but includes the
application of scientific and technical
knowledge and training as a matter of actual
practice so as to include engineers and other
individuals who passed the examination can
practice before the Patent office. Furthermore,
he stressed that for the long time he is holding
tests, this is the first time that his right has been
questioned formally.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appearance before the
patent Office and the preparation and the
prosecution of patent application, etc.,
constitutes or is included in the practice of law.
HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the practice of law
includes such appearance before the Patent
Office, the representation of applicants,
oppositors, and other persons, and the
prosecution of their applications for patent,
their opposition thereto, or the enforcement of
their rights in patent cases. Moreover, the
practice before the patent Office involves the
interpretation and application of other laws and
legal principles, as well as the existence of facts
to be established in accordance with the law of
evidence and procedure. The practice of law is
not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation
in court but also embraces all other matters
connected with the law and any work involving
the determination by the legal mind of the legal
effects of facts and conditions. Furthermore,
the law provides that any party may appeal to
the Supreme Court from any final order or
decision of the director. Thus, if the
transactions of business in the Patent Office
involved exclusively or mostly technical and
scientific knowledge and training, then logically,
the appeal should be taken not to a court or
judicial body, but rather to a board of scientists,
engineers or technical men, which is not the
case.
Hernandez vs. Atty. Padilla
A.C. No. 9387, June 20, 2012
Re: Disbarment case filed by Emilia
Hernandez (complainant) against her
lawyer, Atty. Venancio B. Padilla (respondent)
of Padilla Padilla Bautista Law Offices, for his
alleged negligence in the handling of her case.
Facts:
Complainant and her husband were the
respondents in an ejectment case filed
against them. The RTC ordered that the Deed of
Sale executed in favor of complainant be
cancelled; and that the latter pay the
complainant therein, Elisa Duigan, attorney’s
fees and moral damages. Complainant and
her husband filed their Notice of Appeal
with the RTC.T hereafter, the Court of
Appeals (CA) ordered them to file their
Appellants’ Brief. But the respondent instead of
an Appellants’ Brief filed a Memorandum on
Appeal instead of an Appellants’ Brief. Thus,
Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal.
The CA granted the Motion in a Resolution.
Complainant and her husband failed to file an
appeal on the Resolution, because
respondent never informed them of the
adverse decision. Complainant further claims
that she asked respondent “several times”
about the status of the appeal, but “despite
inquiries he deliberately withheld response,” to
the damage and prejudice of the spouses.
Hence, Complainant filed an Affidavit of
Complaint with the Committee on Bar Discipline
of the IBP seeking the disbarment of
respondent on grounds of deceit,
malpractice, and grave misconduct.
Complainant prays for moral damages in the
amount of 350,000.₱The Director of Bar
Discipline ordered respondent to submit
an answer to the Complaint. In his Counter-
Affidavit/Answer respondent prayed for the
outright dismissal of the Complaint. He
explained that he was not the lawyer of
complainant. He averred that prior to the
mandatory conference set by the IBP he had
never met complainant, because it was her
husband who had personally transacted
with him. According to respondent, the
husband “despondently pleaded to me to
prepare a Memorandum on Appeal because
according to him the period given by the CA was
to lapse within two or three days.” Thus,
respondent claims that he filed a Memorandum
on Appeal because he honestly believed that “it
is this pleading which was required. The IBP
Investigating Commissioner found that
respondent violated Canons 5, 17,and 18 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility
(the Code) and recommended suspension
from practicing law from 3 to 6 months. The IBP
board of governors of the
IBP issued A Resolution adopting and approving
the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner. Upon Motion the
IBP board of governors partly granted by
reducing the penalty imposed to one-month
suspension from the practice of law.
Issue: WON respondent is guilty of malpractice,
deceit and grave misconduct.
Ruling:.
The SC adopted the factual findings of the
board of governors of the IBP but, thesix-month
suspension the Board originally imposed.
Acceptance of money from a client establishes
an attorney-client relationship andgives rise to
the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause. Once a
lawyer agrees to handle acase, it is that
lawyer’s duty to serve the client with
competence and diligence.Respondent has
failed to fulfill this duty. Regardless of the
particular pleading his clientmay have believed
to be necessary, it was respondent’s duty to
know the proper pleading to be filed in appeals
from RTC decisions. Respondent, as a litigator,
was expected to know the procedure and this is
embodied in Canon 5 of the Code. Respondent’s
plea for leniency should not have been granted.
The supposed lack of time given to respondent
to acquaint himself with the facts of the case
does not excuse his negligence. Rule 18.02 of
the Code provides that a lawyer shall not
handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation. Second, respondent, as counsel,
had the duty to inform his clients of the status
of their case. His failure to do so amounted to a
violation of Rule 18.04 of the Code. Lastly, the
failure of respondent to file the proper
pleading and a comment on Duigan’s
Motion to Dismiss is negligence on his part.
Under 18.03 of the Code, a lawyer is liable for
negligence in handling the client’s case. Lawyers
should not neglect legal matters entrusted
to them, otherwise their negligence in
fulfilling their duty would render them liable for
disciplinary action. Respondent has failed to live
up to his duties as a lawyer. When a lawyer
violates his duties to his client, he engages in
unethical and unprofessional conduct for which
he should be held accountable.