Cases
Cayetano v. Monsod
What Constitute Practice of Law
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 possessed 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 possessed 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 actions and special proceeding, 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
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 possess
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
Sibal v. People
Trial may be recalled If the incompetence, ignorance
or inexperience of counsel is so great and the error
committed as a result thereof is so serious that the
client, is prejudiced and denied his day in court.
Facts:
Petitioner, was charged with two counts of Murder in
the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76, Quezon
City to which petitioner, assisted by counsel de parte,
pleaded not guilty
During trial, Atty. Raul Rivera of the Public
Attorney's Office (PAO), counsel of Alijid, took over
representing petitioner in view of the death of the
latter's counsel
the RTC rendered its Decision finding petitioner
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
homicide and sentencing them to suffer
imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor to fourteen (14) years and eight (8)
months of reclusion t emporal in each count
petitioner, this time unassisted by counsel, filed with
the RTC a Petition for Relief from the Decision In his
petition, petitioner contended that at the time of the
promulgation of the judgment, he was already
confined. that he had no way of personally filing the
notice of appeal thus he instructed his lawyer to file it
on his behalf; that he had no choice but to repose his
full trust and confidence to his lawyer; that he had
instructed his lawyer to file the necessary motion for
reconsideration or notice of appeal
that believing that the notice of appeal filed by his
counsel prevented the Decision dated December 5,
2001 from becoming final to warrant his transfer,
however his relief was dismissed due to petitioner's
claim that his counsel did not heed his instruction to
file an appeal to be unsubstantiated and self serving;
and that if there was indeed such omission committed
by the counsel, such negligence is binding on the
client.

Petitioner contends that the negligence of his

counsel de oficio cannot be binding on him for the
latter's defiance of his instruction to appeal
automatically breaks the fiduciary relationship
between counsel-client and cannot be against the
client who was prejudiced

Issue:

Whether or not the delay in appealing the instant case

due to the defiance of the petitioner's counsel de
oficio to seasonably file a Notice of Appeal,
constitutes excusable negligence to entitle the
undersigned detention prisoner/ petitioner to pursue
his appeal

Ruling:

Yes, we find that the RTC committed grave abuse of

discretion in dismissing petitioner's petition for relief
from judgment. While as a general rule, negligence
of counsel may not be condoned and should bind the
client, the exception is when the negligence of
counsel is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the
client is deprived of his day in court.

Jurisprudence held that the function of the rule that

negligence or mistake of counsel in procedure is
imputed to and binding upon the client, as any other
procedural rule, is to serve as an instrument to
advance the ends of justice.

However, the court has the power to except a

particular case from the operation of the rule
whenever the purposes of justice require it. If the
incompetence, ignorance or inexperience of counsel
is so great and the error committed as a result thereof
is so serious that the client, who otherwise has a good
cause, is prejudiced and denied his day in court, the
litigation may be reopened to give the client another
chance to present his case.