Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
CANON 5
A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH
STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW
STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.
Held:
The Court agrees with the foregoing findings and recommendations. It 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
satisfy that expectation. For this reason, he is required to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in court. WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Pablito M. Castillo guilty committing a falsehood in
violation of his lawyer's oath and of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND
him from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a warning that commission of the same or
similar offense in the future will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.
-END-
ISSUE:
Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the COMELEC. What constitutes practice of law?
HELD:
Yes. 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. As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to court appearances.
The members of the bench and bar and the informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in most
developed societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted in law offices than in the courtrooms.
General practitioners of law who do both litigation and non-litigation work also know that in most cases they
find themselves spending more time doing what is loosely described as business counseling than in trying
cases. In the course of a working day the average general practitioner wig engage in a number of legal tasks,
each involving different legal doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other
interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized practice wig usually perform at least
some legal services outside their specialty. By no means will most of this work involve litigation, unless the
lawyer is one of the relatively rare types — a litigator who specializes in this work to the exclusion of much
else. Instead, the work will require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of traditional lawyer skills of
client counseling, advice-giving, document drafting, and negotiation.
Justice Padilla dissenting:
Monsod did not practice law. Justice Padilla emphasized the following criteria in determining what constitutes
practice of law:
Habituality. The term “practice of law” implies customarily or habitually holding one’s self out to the public
as a lawyer (People vs. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109 citing State v. Boyen, 4 S.E. 522, 98 N.C. 644) such as
when one sends a circular announcing the establishment of a law office for the general practice of law (U.S.
v. Ney Bosque, 8 Phil. 146), or when one takes the oath of office as a lawyer before a notary public, and files
a manifestation with the Supreme Court informing it of his intention to practice law in all courts in the country
(People v. De Luna, 102 Phil. 968).Practice is more than an isolated appearance for it consists in frequent or
customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is a habitual exercise (People v.
Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109 citing State v. Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan, 864).
Compensation. Practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the active and continued
practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are available to the public for compensation,
as a service of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. (People v. Villanueva, supra). Hence,
charging for services such as preparation of documents involving the use of legal knowledge and skill is within
the term “practice of law” (Ernani Paño, Bar Reviewer in Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1988 ed., p. 8 citing
People v. People’s Stockyards State Bank, 176 N.B. 901) and, one who renders an opinion as to the proper
interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is to that extent, practicing law (Martin, supra, p. 806 citing
Mendelaun v. Gilbert and Barket Mfg. Co., 290 N.Y.S. 462) If compensation is expected, all advice to clients
and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law; are practicing law. (Elwood Fitchette et al.,
v. Arthur C. Taylor, 94A-L.R. 356-359)
Application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure which calls for legal knowledge, training and
experience is within the term “practice of law”. (Martin supra)
Attorney-client relationship. Engaging in the practice of law presupposes the existence of lawyer-client
relationship. Hence, where a lawyer undertakes an activity which requires knowledge of law but involves no
attorney-client relationship, such as teaching law or writing law books or articles, he cannot be said to be
engaged in the practice of his profession or a lawyer (Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1989 ed., p. 30).
Monsod did not habitually practice law. It may be granted that he performed activities which are related to the
practice of law like drafting legal documents and giving legal advice, but he only did so as isolated incidents.
-END-
Petitioner contended that one who has passed the bar examinations and 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 Agrava is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law for requiring such
examination as condition precedent before members of the bar may be allowed to represent applicants in the
preparation and prosecution of applications for patents. Undaunted, Agrava argued that that the prosecution
of patent cases does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law and that the Rules of Court do not
prohibit the Patent Office from requiring further condition or qualification from those who would wish to
handle cases before the Patent Office.
ISSUE:
Whether appearance before the Patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution of patent
applications, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law
HELD:
Yes. 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 oppositions
thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. Although the transaction of business in the Patent
Office involves the use and application of technical and scientific knowledge and training, still, all such
business has to be rendered in accordance with the Patent Law, as well as other laws, including the Rules and
Regulations promulgated by the Patent Office in accordance with law. All these things involve the applications
of laws, legal principles, practice and procedure. They call for legal knowledge, training and experience for
which a member of the bar has been prepared.
As stated in 5 Am. Jur,
“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 social proceedings, the 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 corporation services, assessment and
condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a 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 as do the
preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained
legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions.”
The Supreme Court ruled that under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by the
Supreme Court to practice law, and in good standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office,
since much of the business in said office involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and
application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well as the presentation of evidence to establish
facts involved; that part of the functions of the Patent director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that
appeals from his orders and decisions are, taken to the Supreme Court.
-END-
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.
-END-
Sps. Williams v. Atty. Enriquez, A.C. No. 6353, 27 February 2006
FACTS:
The respondent is the counsel of record of the plaintiffs in the case pending before the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 33, Dumaguete City where complainants are the defendants. According to the complainant-
spouses, Marisa Williams bought the lot subject of the controversy. In the case at bar, complainant argued that
the counsel of the spouses acted in malicious violation of the rules governing the practice of law, the counsel
cited outdated material in his complaint-affidavit and in his comments to counter-affidavit. He then knowingly
applied this stale law in a perverse fashion to argue that Marisa Batacan Williams automatically lost her
Filipino citizenship when she married an American, and was thus prohibited to own land in the Philippines,
thereby making her guilty of falsification in the Deed she executed to buy property in Negros Oriental. As
such, Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez was charged with "unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful acts in violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics, and with conduct
unbecoming an attorney." On December 1, 2004, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. Forthwith, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
scheduled the case for mandatory conference/hearing. However, only the respondent appeared. The parties
were then directed to submit their verified position papers.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondent is guilt of violation of Canon 5 of the code of professional responsibility
HELD:
Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that a lawyer be updated in the latest laws
and jurisprudence. Indeed, 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. As a retired judge, respondent should have known that it is his duty to
keep himself well-informed of the latest rulings of the Court on the issues and legal problems confronting a
client. In this case, the law he apparently misconstrued is no less than the Constitution, the most basic law of
the land. Implicit in a lawyer’s mandate to protect a client’s interest to the best of his/her ability and with
utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law and legal developments, and participate in continuing
legal education programs. Thus, in championing the interest of clients and defending cases, a lawyer must not
only be guided by the strict standards imposed by the lawyer’s oath, but should likewise espouse legally sound
arguments for clients, lest the latter’s cause be dismissed on a technical ground. As such, for gross ignorance
of the law, Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez is REPRIMANDED and ADVISED to carefully study the opinions he may
give to his clients. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more
severely.