Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-12426 February 16, 1959

of scientific and technical /no led#e than the &ere application of provisions of la 4 . . . that the action ta/en by the respondent is in accordance ith Republic Act No. )6+, other ise /no n as the Patent La of the Philippines, hich si&ilar to the 7nited 1tates Patent La , in accordance ith hich the 7nited 1tates Patent %ffice has also prescribed a si&ilar e-a&ination as that prescribed by respondent. . . . Respondent further contends that "ust as the Patent la of the 7nited 1tates of A&erica authori8es the Co&&issioner of Patents to prescribe e-a&inations to deter&ine as to ho practice before the 7nited 1tates Patent %ffice, the respondent, is si&ilarly authori8ed to do so by our Patent La , Republic Act No. )6+. Althou#h as already stated, the $irector of Patents, in the past, ould appear to have been holdin# tests or e-a&inations the passin# of hich as i&posed as a re.uired .ualification to practice before the Patent %ffice, to our /no led#e, this is the first ti&e that the ri#ht of the $irector of Patents to do so, specially as re#ards &e&bers of the bar, has been .uestioned for&ally, or other ise put in issue. And e have #iven it careful thou#ht and consideration. The 1upre&e Court has the e-clusive and constitutional po er ith respect to ad&ission to the practice of la in the Philippines) and to any &e&ber of the Philippine Bar in #ood standin# &ay practice la any here and before any entity, hether "udicial or .uasi5"udicial or ad&inistrative, in the Philippines. Naturally, the .uestion arises as to hether or not appearance before the patent %ffice and the preparation and the prosecution of patent applications, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of la . The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court 4 it e&braces the preparation of pleadin#s and other papers incident to actions and social proceedin#s, the &ana#e&ent of such actions and proceedin#s on behalf of clients before "ud#es and courts, and in addition, conveyin#. 0n #eneral, alladvice to clients, and all action ta/en for the& in &atters connected with the law corporation services, assess&ent and conde&nation services conte&platin# an appearance before a "udicial body, the foreclosure of a &ort#a#e, enforce&ent of a creditor!s clai& in ban/ruptcy and insolvency proceedin#s, and conductin# proceedin#s in attach&ent, and in &atters of estate and #uardianship have been held to constitute la practice as do the preparation and draftin# of le#al instru&ents, where the work done involves the determination b the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions . 9+ A&. ,ur. p. '6', '6:;. 9E&phasis supplied;. Practice of law under &odern conditions consists in no s&all part of or/ perfor&ed outside of any court and havin# no i&&ediate relation to proceedin#s in court. 0t e&braces conveyancin#, the #ivin# of le#al advice on a lar#e variety of sub"ects, and the preparation and e-ecution of le#al instru&ents coverin# an e-tensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs. Although these transactions ma have no direct connection with court proceedings! the are alwa s sub"ect to become involved in litigation. The re#uire in man aspects a high degree of legal skill, a ide e-perience ith &en and affairs, and #reat capacity for adaptation to difficult and co&ple- situations. These custo&ary functions of an attorney or counselor at la bear an inti&ate relation to the ad&inistration of "ustice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the .uestion set forth in the order, can be dra n bet een that part hich involves

PH L PP NE L!"#ER$S !SSOC !T ON, petitioner, vs. CELE%ON O !GR!&!, '( )'* +a,a+'-y a* %'re+-or o. -)e P)'/',,'(e* Pa-e(O..'+e, respondent. Arturo A. Alafriz for petitioner. Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Pacifico P. de Castro for respondent. MONTEM!#OR, J.0 This is the petition filed by the Philippine La yer!s Association for prohibition and in"unction a#ainst Celedonio A#rava, in his capacity as $irector of the Philippines Patent %ffice. %n &ay '(, )*+(, respondent $irector issued a circular announcin# that he had scheduled for ,une '(, )*+( an e-a&ination for the purpose of deter&inin# ho are .ualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent %ffice, the said e-a&ination to cover patent la and "urisprudence and the rules of practice before said office. Accordin# to the circular, &e&bers of the Philippine Bar, en#ineers and other persons ith sufficient scientific and technical trainin# are .ualified to ta/e the said e-a&ination. 0t ould appear that heretofore, respondent $irector has been holdin# si&ilar e-a&inations. 0t is the contention of the petitioner Philippine La yer!s Association that one ho has passed the bar e-a&inations and is licensed by the 1upre&e Court to practice la in the Philippines and ho is in #ood standin#, is duly .ualified to practice before the Philippines Patent %ffice, and that conse.uently, the cat of the respondent $irector re.uirin# &e&bers of the Philippine Bar in #ood standin# to ta/e and pass an e-a&ination #iven by the Patent %ffice as a condition precedent to their bein# allo ed to practice before said office, such as representin# applicants in the preparation and prosecution of applications for patent, is in e-cess of his "urisdiction and is in violation of the la . 0n his ans er, respondent $irector, throu#h the 1olicitor 2eneral, &aintains that the prosecution of patent cases 3does not involve entirely or purely the practice of la but includes the application of scientific and technical /no led#e and trainin#, so &uch so that, as a &atter of actual practice, the prosecution of patent cases &ay be handled not only by la yers, but also en#ineers and other persons ith sufficient scientific and technical trainin# ho pass the prescribed e-a&inations as #iven by the Patent %ffice4 . . . that the Rules of Court do not prohibit the Patent %ffice, or any other .uasi5"udicial body fro& re.uirin# further condition or .ualification fro& those ho ould ish to handle cases before the Patent %ffice hich, as stated in the precedin# para#raph, re.uires &ore of an application

advice and draftin# of instru&ents in his office. 0t is of i&portance to the elfare of the public that these &anifold custo&ary functions be perfor&ed by persons possessed of ade.uate learnin# and s/ill, of sound &oral character, and actin# at all ti&es under the heavy trust obli#ations to clients hich rests upon all attorneys. 9Moran, Co&&ents on the Rules of Court, <ol. : 9)*+: ed.;, p. 66+5 666, citin# 0n re %pinion of the ,ustices 9Mass.;, )*= N.E. :):, .uoted in $hode %s. &ar Assoc. vs. Automobile Service Assoc . 9R. 0. ; )(* A. ):*, )==;. 9E&phasis ours;. 0n our opinion, the practice of la includes such appearance before the Patent %ffice, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications for patent, their oppositions thereto, or the enforce&ent of their ri#hts in patent cases. 0n the first place, althou#h the transaction of business in the Patent %ffice involves the use and application of technical and scientific /no led#e and trainin#, still, all such business has to be rendered in accordance ith the Patent La , as ell as other la s, includin# the Rules and Re#ulations pro&ul#ated by the Patent %ffice in accordance ith la . Not only this, but practice before the Patent %ffice involves the interpretation and application of other la s and le#al principles, as ell as the e-istence of facts to be established in accordance ith the la of evidence and procedure. >or instance? 1ection @ of our Patent La provides that an invention shall not be patentable if it is contrary to public order or &orals, or to public health or elfare. 1ection * says that an invention shall not be considered ne or patentable if it as /no n or used by others in the Philippines before the invention thereof by the inventor na&ed in any printed publication in the Philippines or any forei#n country &ore than one year before the application for a patent therefor, or if it had been in public use or on sale in the Philippines for &ore than one year before the application for the patent therefor. 1ection )A provides that the ri#ht to patent belon#s to the true and actual inventor, his heirs, le#al representatives or assi#ns. 1ection '+ and '6 refer to connection of any &ista/e in a patent. 1ection '@ enu&erates the #rounds for cancellation of a patent4 that althou#h any person &ay apply for such cancellation, under 1ection '*, the 1olicitor 2eneral is authori8ed to petition for the cancellation of a patent. 1ection :A &entions the re.uire&ents of a petition for cancellation. 1ection :) and :' provide for a notice of hearin# of the petition for cancellation of the patent by the $irector of Patents in case the said cancellation is arranted. 7nder 1ection :=, at any ti&e after the e-piration of three years fro& the day the patent as #ranted, any person patent on several #rounds, such as, if the patented invention is not bein# or/ed in the Philippines on a co&&ercial scale, or if the de&and for the patented article in the Philippines on a co&&ercial scale, or if the de&and for the patented article in the Philippines is not bein# &et to an ade.uate e-tent and reasonable ter&s, or if by reason of the patentee!s refusal to #rant a license on reasonable ter&s or by reason of the condition attached by hi& to the license, purchase or use of the patented article or or/in# of the patented process or &achine of production, the establish&ent of a ne trade or industry in the Philippines is prevented4 or if the patent or invention relates to food or &edicine or is necessary to public health or public safety. All these thin#s involve the applications of la s, le#al principles, practice and procedure. They call for le#al /no led#e, trainin# and e-perience for hich a &e&ber of the bar has been prepared. 0n support of the proposition that &uch of the business and &any of the act, orders and decisions of the Patent $irector involve .uestions of la or a reasonable and correct evaluation of facts, the very Patent La , Republic Act No. )6+, 1ection 6), provides that? . . . . The applicant for a patent or for the re#istration of a desi#n, any party to a proceedin# to cancel a patent or to obtain a co&pulsory license, and any party to

any other proceedin# in the %ffice &ay appeal to the 1upre&e Court fro& any final order or decision of the director. 0n other ords, the appeal is ta/en to this Tribunal. 0f the transaction of business in the Patent %ffice and the acts, orders and decisions of the Patent $irector involved e-clusively or &ostly technical and scientific /no led#e and trainin#, then lo#ically, the appeal should be ta/en not to a court or "udicial body, but rather to a board of scientists, en#ineers or technical &en, hich is not the case. Another aspect of the .uestion involves the consideration of the nature of the functions and acts of the Bead of the Patent %ffice. . . . . The Co&&issioner, in issuin# or ithholdin# patents, in reissues, interferences, and e-tensions, e-ercises .uasi5"udicial functions. Patents are public records, and it is the duty of the Co&&issioner to #ive authenticated copies to any person, on pay&ent of the le#al fees. 9=A A&. ,ur. +:(;. 9E&phasis supplied;. . . . . The Co&&issioner has the only ori#inal initiatory "urisdiction that e-ists up to the #rantin# and deliverin# of a patent, and it is his duty to decide hether the patent is ne and hether it is the proper sub"ect of a patent4 and his action in a ardin# or refusin# a patent is a "udicial function. 0n passin# on an application the co&&issioner should decide not only .uestions of la , but also #uestions of fact, as hether there has been a prior public use or sale of the article invented. . . . 96A C.,.1. =6A;. 9E&phasis supplied;. The $irector of Patents, e-ercisin# as he does "udicial or .uasi5"udicial functions, it is reasonable to hold that a &e&ber of the bar, because of his le#al /no led#e and trainin#, should be allo ed to practice before the Patent %ffice, ithout further e-a&ination or other .ualification. %f course, the $irector of Patents, if he dee&s it advisable or necessary, &ay re.uire that &e&bers of the bar practisin# before hi& enlist the assistance of technical &en and scientist in the preparation of papers and docu&ents, such as, the dra in# or technical description of an invention or &achine sou#ht to be patented, in the sa&e ay that a la yer filin# an application for the re#istration of a parcel of land on behalf of his clients, is re.uired to sub&it a plan and technical description of said land, prepared by a licensed surveyor. But respondent $irector clai&s that he is e-pressly authori8ed by the la to re.uire persons desirin# to practice or to do business before hi& to sub&it an e-a&ination, even if they are already &e&bers of the bar. Be contends that our Patent La , Republic Act No. )6+, is patterned after the 7nited 1tates Patent La 4 and of the 7nited 1tates Patent %ffice in Patent Cases prescribes an e-a&ination si&ilar to that hich he 9respondent; has prescribed and scheduled. Be invites our attention to the follo in# provisions of said Rules of Practice? $egistration of attorne s and agents. C A re#ister of an attorneys and a re#ister a#ents are /ept in the Patent %ffice on hich are entered the na&es of all persons reco#ni8ed as entitled to represent applicants before the Patent %ffice in the preparation and prosecution of applicants for patent. Re#istration in the

Patent %ffice under the provisions of these rules shall only entitle the person re#istered to practice before the Patent %ffice. 9a; Attorne at law. C Any attorney at la in #ood standin# ad&itted to practice before any 7nited 1tates Court or the hi#hest court of any 1tate or Territory of the 7nited 1tates ho fulfills the re.uire&ents and co&plied ith the provisions of these rules &ay be ad&itted to practice before the Patent %ffice and have his na&e entered on the re#ister of attorneys. -------

recorded. The action of the Co&&issioner &ay be revie ed upon the petition of the person so refused reco#nition or so suspended by the district court of the 7nited 1tates for the $istrict of Colu&bia under such conditions and upon such proceedin#s as the said court &ay by its rules deter&ine. 9E&phasis supplied; Respondent $irector concludes that 1ection (@ of Republic Act No. )6+ bein# si&ilar to the provisions of la "ust reproduced, then he is authori8ed to prescribe the rules and re#ulations re.uirin# that persons desirin# to practice before hi& should sub&it to and pass an e-a&ination. De reproduce said 1ection (@, Republic Act No. )6+, for purposes of co&parison? 1EC. (@. $ules and regulations. C The $irector sub"ect to the approval of the 1ecretary of ,ustice, shall pro&ul#ate the necessary rules and re#ulations, not inconsistent ith la , for the conduct of all business in the Patent %ffice. The above provisions of 1ection (@ certainly and by far, are different fro& the provisions of the 7nited 1tates Patent La as re#ards authority to hold e-a&inations to deter&ine the .ualifications of those allo ed to practice before the Patent %ffice. Dhile the 7.1. Patent La authori8es the Co&&issioner of Patents to re.uire attorneys to sho that they possess the necessary .ualifications and co&petence to render valuable service to and advise and assist their clients in patent cases, hich sho in# &ay ta/e the for& of a test or e-a&ination to be held by the Co&&issioner, our Patent La , 1ection (@, is silent on this i&portant point. %ur attention has not been called to any e-press provision of our Patent La , #ivin# such authority to deter&ine the .ualifications of persons allo ed to practice before the Patent %ffice. 1ection ++) of the Revised Ad&inistrative Code authori8es every chief of bureau to prescribe for&s and &a/e re#ulations or #eneral orders not inconsistent ith la , to secure the har&onious and efficient ad&inistration of his branch of the service and to carry into full effect the la s relatin# to &atters ithin the "urisdiction of his bureau. 1ection 6A@ of Republic Act )*:(, /no n as the Tariff and Custo&s Code of the Philippines, provides that the Co&&issioner of Custo&s shall, sub"ect to the approval of the $epart&ent Bead, &a/es all rules and re#ulations necessary to enforce the provisions of said code. 1ection ::@ of the National 0nternal Revenue Code, Co&&on ealth Act No. =66 as a&ended, states that the 1ecretary of >inance, upon reco&&endation of the Collector of 0nternal Revenue, shall pro&ul#ate all needful rules and re#ulations for the effective enforce&ent of the provisions of the code. De understand that rules and re#ulations have been pro&ul#ated not only for the Bureau of Custo&s and 0nternal Revenue, but also for other bureaus of the 2overn&ent, to #overn the transaction of business in and to enforce the la for said bureaus. Dere e to allo the Patent %ffice, in the absence of an e-press and clear provision of la #ivin# the necessary sanction, to re.uire la yers to sub&it to and pass on e-a&ination prescribed by it before they are allo ed to practice before said Patent %ffice, then there ould be no reason hy other bureaus specially the Bureau of 0nternal Revenue and Custo&s, here the business in the sa&e area are &ore or less co&plicated, such as the presentation of boo/s of accounts, balance sheets, etc., assess&ents e-e&ptions, depreciation, these as re#ards the Bureau of 0nternal Revenue, and the classification of #oods, i&position of custo&s duties, sei8ures, confiscation, etc., as re#ards the Bureau of Custo&s, &ay not also re.uire that any la yer practisin# before the& or other ise

9c; $e#uirement for registration. C No person ill be ad&itted to practice and re#ister unless he shall apply to the Co&&issioner of Patents in ritin# on a prescribed for& supplied by the Co&&issioner and furnish all re.uested infor&ation and &aterial4 and shall establish to the satisfaction of the Co&&issioner that he is of #ood &oral character and of #ood repute and possessed of the le#al and scientific and technical .ualifications necessary to enable hi& to render applicants for patent valuable service, and is other ise co&petent to advise and assist hi& in the presentation and prosecution of their application before the Patent %ffice. 0n order that the Co&&issioner &ay deter&ine hether a person see/in# to have his na&e placed upon either of the re#isters has the .ualifications specified, satisfactory proof of #ood &oral character and repute, and of sufficient basic trainin# in scientific and technical &atters &ust be sub&itted and an e-a&ination hich is held fro& ti&e to ti&e &ust be ta/en and passed. The ta/in# of an e-a&ination &ay be aived in the case of any person ho has served for three years in the e-a&inin# corps of the Patent %ffice. Respondent states that the pro&ul#ation of the Rules of Practice of the 7nited 1tates Patent %ffice in Patent Cases is authori8ed by the 7nited 1tates Patent La itself, hich reads as follo s? The Co&&issioner of Patents, sub"ect to the approval of the 1ecretary of Co&&erce &ay prescribe rules and re#ulations #overnin# the recognition of agents! attorne s! or other persons representing applicants or other parties before his office, and ma re#uire of such persons, a#ents, or attorne s, before bein# reco#ni8ed as representatives of applicants or other persons, that they shall sho they are of #ood &oral character and in #ood repute, are possessed of the necessar #ualifications to enable them to render to applicants or other persons valuable service! and are likewise to competent to advise and assist applicants or other persons in the presentation or prosecution of their applications or other business before the %ffice. The Co&&issioner of Patents &ay, after notice and opportunity for a hearin#, suspend or e-clude, either #enerally or in any particular case fro& further practice before his office any person, a#ent or attorney sho n to be inco&petent or disreputable, or #uilty of #ross &isconduct, or ho refuses to co&ply ith the said rules and re#ulations, or ho shall, ith intent to defraud in any &atter, deceive, &islead, or threaten any applicant or prospective applicant, or other person havin# i&&ediate or prospective applicant, or other person havin# i&&ediate or prospective business before the office, by ord, circular, letter, or by advertisin#. The reasons for any such suspension or e-clusion shall be duly

transactin# business .ualify.

ith the& on behalf of clients, shall first pass an e-a&ination to

P!R!S, J.:p De are faced here ith a controversy of far5reachin# proportions. Dhile ostensibly only le#al issues are involved, the Court!s decision in this case ould indubitably have a profound effect on the political aspect of our national e-istence. The )*@( Constitution provides in 1ection ) 9);, Article 0E5C? There shall be a Co&&ission on Elections co&posed of a Chair&an and si- Co&&issioners ho shall be natural5born citi8ens of the Philippines and, at the ti&e of their appoint&ent, at least thirty5five years of a#e, holders of a colle#e de#ree, and &ust not have been candidates for any elective position in the i&&ediately precedin# 5elections. Bo ever, a &a"ority thereof, includin# the Chair&an, shall be &e&bers of the Philippine Bar ho have been en#a#ed in the practice of la for at least ten years. 9E&phasis supplied; The afore.uoted provision is patterned after 1ection l9l;, Article E005C of the )*(: Constitution hich si&ilarly provides? There shall be an independent Co&&ission on Elections co&posed of a Chair&an and ei#ht Co&&issioners ho shall be natural5born citi8ens of the Philippines and, at the ti&e of their appoint&ent, at least thirty5five years of a#e and holders of a colle#e de#ree. Bo ever, a &a"ority thereof, includin# the Chair&an, shall be &e&bers of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten ears. ! 9E&phasis supplied; Re#rettably, ho ever, there see&s to be no "urisprudence as to la as a le#al .ualification to an appointive office. Blac/ defines 3practice of la 3 as? hat constitutes practice of

0n conclusion, e hold that under the present la , &e&bers of the Philippine Bar authori8ed by this Tribunal to practice la , and in #ood standin#, &ay practice their profession before the Patent %ffice, for the reason that &uch of the business in said office involves the interpretation and deter&ination of the scope and application of the Patent La and other la s applicable, as ell as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved4 that part of the functions of the Patent director are "udicial or .uasi5"udicial, so &uch so that appeals fro& his orders and decisions are, under the la , ta/en to the 1upre&e Court. >or the fore#oin# reasons, the petition for prohibition is #ranted and the respondent $irector is hereby prohibited fro& re.uirin# &e&bers of the Philippine Bar to sub&it to an e-a&ination or tests and pass the sa&e before bein# per&itted to appear and practice before the Patent %ffice. No costs. Paras! C.'.! &engzon! Padilla! $e es! A.! &autista Angelo! (abrador! Concepcion! $e es! '.&.(. and )ndencia! ''.! concur.

Foo-(o-e*
)

0n re? Albino Cunanan, +A %ff. 2a8. &, )6)(, pro&. March )@, )*+=. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila 1EC%N$ $0<010%N

G.R. No. 111112 Se,-e3ber 2, 1991 REN!TO C!#ET!NO, petitioner, vs. CHR ST !N MONSO%, HON. 4O& TO R. S!LONG!, COMM SS ON ON !PPO NTMENT, a(5 HON. GU LLERMO C!R!GUE, '( )'* +a,a+'-y a* Se+re-ary o. 6u57e- a(5 Ma(a7e3e(-, respondents. $enato (. Ca etano for and in his own behalf. Sabina ). Acut! 'r. and * lene Garcia+Albano co+counsel for petitioner.

The rendition of services re.uirin# the /no led#e and the application of le#al principles and techni.ue to serve the interest of another ith his consent. 0t is not li&ited to appearin# in court, or advisin# and assistin# in the conduct of liti#ation, but e&braces the preparation of pleadin#s, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedin#s, conveyancin#, the preparation of le#al instru&ents of all /inds, and the #ivin# of all le#al advice to clients. 0t e&braces all advice to clients and all actions ta/en for the& in &atters connected ith the la . An attorney en#a#es in the practice of la by &aintainin# an office here he is held out to be5an attorney, usin# a letterhead describin# hi&self as an attorney, counselin# clients in le#al &atters, ne#otiatin# ith opposin# counsel about pendin# liti#ation, and fi-in# and collectin# fees for services rendered by his associate. 9 &lack,s (aw -ictionar , :rd ed.;

The practice of la is not li&ited to the conduct of cases in court. 9 (and Title Abstract and Trust Co. v. -worken!)'* %hio 1t. ':, )*: N.E. 6+A; A person is also considered to be in the practice of la hen he? ... for valuable consideration en#a#es in the business of advisin# person, fir&s, associations or corporations as to their ri#hts under the la , or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedin#s pendin# or prospective, before any court, co&&issioner, referee, board, body, co&&ittee, or co&&ission constituted by la or authori8ed to settle controversies and there, in such representative capacity perfor&s any act or acts for the purpose of obtainin# or defendin# the ri#hts of their clients under the la . %ther ise stated, one ho, in a representative capacity, en#a#es in the business of advisin# clients as to their ri#hts under the la , or hile so en#a#ed perfor&s any act or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is en#a#ed in the practice of la . 9State e.. rel. *ckittrick v..C.S. -udle and Co.! )A' 1.D. 'd @*+, :=A Mo. @+'; This Court in the case of Philippine (aw ers Association v.Agrava! 9)A+ Phil. )(:,)(65)((; stated? The practice of law is not li&ited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court4 it e&braces the preparation of pleadin#s and other papers incident to actions and special proceedin#s, the &ana#e&ent of such actions and proceedin#s on behalf of clients before "ud#es and courts, and in addition, conveyin#. 0n #eneral, all advice to clients, and all action ta/en for the& in &attersconnected with the law incorporation services, assess&ent and conde&nation services conte&platin# an appearance before a "udicial body, the foreclosure of a &ort#a#e, enforce&ent of a creditor!s clai& in ban/ruptcy and insolvency proceedin#s, and conductin# proceedin#s in attach&ent, and in &atters of estate and #uardianship have been held to constitute la practice, as do the preparation and draftin# of le#al instru&ents, where the work done involves the determination b the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions . 9+ A&. ,r. p. '6', '6:;. 9E&phasis supplied; Practice of law under &ode& conditions consists in no s&all part of or/ perfor&ed outside of any court and havin# no i&&ediate relation to proceedin#s in court. 0t e&braces conveyancin#, the #ivin# of le#al advice on a lar#e variety of sub"ects, and the preparation and e-ecution of le#al instru&ents coverin# an e-tensive field of business and trust relations and other affairs. Although these transactions ma have no direct connection with court proceedings! the are alwa s sub"ect to become involved in litigation. They re.uire in &any aspects a hi#h de#ree of le#al s/ill, a ide e-perience ith &en and affairs, and #reat capacity for adaptation to difficult and co&ple- situations. These custo&ary functions of an attorney or counselor at la bear an inti&ate relation to the ad&inistration of "ustice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the .uestion set forth in the order, can be dra n bet een that part of the or/ of the la yer hich involves

appearance in court and that part hich involves advice and draftin# of instru&ents in his office. 0t is of i&portance to the elfare of the public that these &anifold custo&ary functions be perfor&ed by persons possessed of ade.uate learnin# and s/ill, of sound &oral character, and actin# at all ti&es under the heavy trust obli#ations to clients hich rests upon all attorneys. 9Moran, Comments on the $ules of Court, <ol. : F)*+: ed.G , p. 66+5666, citin# %n re Opinion of the 'ustices FMass.G, )*= N.E. :):, .uoted in $hode %s. &ar Assoc. v. Automobile Service Assoc. FR.0.G )(* A. ):*,)==;. 9E&phasis ours; The 7niversity of the Philippines La Center in conductin# orientation briefin# for ne la yers 9)*(=5)*(+; listed the di&ensions of the practice of la in even broader ter&s as advocacy, counsellin# and public service. %ne &ay be a practicin# attorney in follo in# any line of e&ploy&ent in the profession. 0f hat he does e-acts /no led#e of the la and is of a /ind usual for attorneys en#a#in# in the active practice of their profession, and he follo s so&e one or &ore lines of e&ploy&ent such as this he is a practicin# attorney at la ithin the &eanin# of the statute. 9&arr v. Cardell, )++ ND :)'; Practice of la &eans any activity, in or out of court, hich re.uires the application of la , le#al procedure, /no led#e, trainin# and e-perience. 3To en#a#e in the practice of la is to perfor& those acts hich are characteristics of the profession. 2enerally, to practice la is to #ive notice or render any /ind of service, hich device or service re.uires the use in any de#ree of le#al /no led#e or s/ill.3 9))) ALR ':; The follo in# records of the )*@6 Constitutional Co&&ission sho liberal interpretation of the ter& 3practice of la .3 that it has adopted a

MR. >%H. Before e suspend the session, &ay 0 &a/e a &anifestation hich 0 for#ot to do durin# our revie of the provisions on the Co&&ission on Audit. May 0 be allo ed to &a/e a very brief state&entI TBE PRE10$0N2 %>>0CER 9Mr. ,a&ir;. The Co&&issioner ill please proceed. MR. >%H. This has to do with the #ualifications of the members of the Commission on Audit. Among others! the #ualifications provided for b Section % is that /The must be *embers of the Philippine &ar/ 0 % am #uoting from the provision 0 /who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten ears/.

To avoid any &isunderstandin# hich ould result in e-cludin# &e&bers of the Bar ho are no e&ployed in the C%A or Co&&ission on Audit, we would like to make the clarification that this provision on #ualifications regarding members of the &ar does not necessaril refer or involve actual practice of law outside the COA 1e have to interpret this to mean that as long as the law ers who are emplo ed in the COA are using their legal knowledge or legal talent in their respective work within COA! then the are #ualified to be considered for appointment as members or commissioners! even chairman! of the Commission on Audit. This has been discussed by the Co&&ittee on Constitutional Co&&issions and A#encies and e dee& it i&portant to ta/e it up on the floor so that this interpretation &ay be &ade available henever this provision on the .ualifications as re#ards &e&bers of the Philippine Bar en#a#in# in the practice of la for at least ten years is ta/en up. MR. %PLE. Dill Co&&issioner >o8 yield to "ust one .uestion. MR. >%H. Jes, Mr. Presidin# %fficer. MR. %PLE. %s he! in effect! sa ing that service in the COA b a law er is e#uivalent to the re#uirement of a law practice that is set forth in the Article on the Commission on Audit2 MR. >%H. 1e must consider the fact that the work of COA! although it is auditing! will necessaril involve legal work3 it will involve legal work. And! therefore! law ers who are emplo ed in COA now would have the necessar #ualifications in accordance with the Provision on #ualifications under our provisions on the Commission on Audit. And! therefore! the answer is es. MR. %PLE. Jes. 1o that the construction #iven to this is that this is e.uivalent to the practice of la . MR. >%H. 4es! *r. Presiding Officer. MR. %PLE. Thank ou. ... 9 E&phasis supplied;

1ection )9);, Article 0E5$ of the )*@( Constitution, provides, a&on# others, that the Chair&an and t o Co&&issioners of the Co&&ission on Audit 9C%A; should either be certified public accountants ith not less than ten years of auditin# practice, or &e&bers of the Philippine Bar ho have been en#a#ed in the practice of law for at least ten years. 9e&phasis supplied; Corollary to this is the ter& 3private practitioner3 and hich is in &any ays synony&ous ith the ord 3la yer.3 Today, althou#h &any la yers do not en#a#e in private practice, it is still a fact that the &a"ority of la yers are private practitioners. 92ary Munne/e, Opportunities in (aw Careers F<2M Career Bori8ons? 0llinoisG, F)*@6G, p. )+;. At this point, it &i#ht be helpful to define private practice. The ter&, as co&&only understood, &eans 3an individual or or#ani8ation en#a#ed in the business of deliverin# le#al services.3 9%bid.;. La yers ho practice alone are often called 3sole practitioners.3 2roups of la yers are called 3fir&s.3 The fir& is usually a partnership and &e&bers of the fir& are the partners. 1o&e fir&s &ay be or#ani8ed as professional corporations and the &e&bers called shareholders. 0n either case, the &e&bers of the fir& are the e-perienced attorneys. 0n &ost fir&s, there are youn#er or &ore ine-perienced salaried attorneyscalled 3associates.3 9%bid.;. The test that defines la practice by loo/in# to traditional areas of la practice is essentially tautolo#ous, unhelpful definin# the practice of la as that hich la yers do. 9Charles D. Dolfra&, *odern (egal )thics FDest Publishin# Co.? Minnesota, )*@6G, p. +*:;. The practice of la is defined as the perfor&ance of any acts . . . in or out of court, co&&only understood to be the practice of la . 9State &ar Ass,n v. Connecticut &ank 5 Trust Co ., )=+ Conn. ''', )=A A.'d @6:, @(A F)*+@G F.uotin# Grievance Comm. v. Pa ne, )'@ Conn. :'+, '' A.'d 6':, 6'6 F)*=)G;. Because la yers perfor& al&ost every function /no n in the co&&ercial and #overn&ental real&, such a definition ould obviously be too #lobal to be or/able.9Dolfra&, op. cit.;. The appearance of a la yer in liti#ation in behalf of a client is at once the &ost publicly fa&iliar role for la yers as ell as an unco&&on role for the avera#e la yer. Most la yers spend little ti&e in courtroo&s, and a lar#e percenta#e spend their entire practice ithout liti#atin# a case. 9%bid., p. +*:;. Nonetheless, &any la yers do continue to liti#ate and the liti#atin# la yer!s role colors &uch of both the public i&a#e and the self perception of the le#al profession. 9%bid.;. 0n this re#ard thus, the do&inance of liti#ation in the public &ind reflects history, not reality. 9%bid.;. Dhy is this soI Recall that the late Ale-ander 1yCip, a corporate la yer, once articulated on the i&portance of a la yer as a business counselor in this ise? 3Even today, there are still uninfor&ed lay&en hose concept of an attorney is one ho principally tries cases before the courts. The &e&bers of the bench and bar and the infor&ed lay&en such as business&en, /no that in &ost developed societies today, substantially &ore le#al or/ is transacted in la offices than in the courtroo&s. 2eneral practitioners of la ho do both liti#ation and non5liti#ation or/ also /no that in &ost cases they find the&selves spendin# &ore ti&e doin# hat FisG loosely desccribeFdG as business counselin# than in tryin# cases. The business la yer has been described as the planner, the dia#nostician and the trial la yer, the sur#eon. 0FtG need not FbeG stressFedG that in la , as in &edicine, sur#ery should be avoided here internal &edicine can be effective.3 9 &usiness Star, 3Corporate >inance La ,3 ,an. )), )*@*, p. =;.

0n the course of a or/in# day the avera#e #eneral practitioner i# en#a#e in a nu&ber of le#al tas/s, each involvin# different le#al doctrines, le#al s/ills, le#al processes, le#al institutions, clients, and other interested parties. Even the increasin# nu&bers of la yers in speciali8ed practice i# usually perfor& at least so&e le#al services outside their specialty. And even ithin a narro specialty such as ta- practice, a la yer ill shift fro& one le#al tas/ or role such as advice5#ivin# to an i&portantly different one such as representin# a client before an ad&inistrative a#ency. 9Dolfra&, supra, p. 6@(;. By no &eans ill &ost of this or/ involve liti#ation, unless the la yer is one of the relatively rare types C a liti#ator ho speciali8es in this or/ to the e-clusion of &uch else. 0nstead, the or/ ill re.uire the la yer to have &astered the full ran#e of traditional la yer s/ills of client counsellin#, advice5#ivin#, docu&ent draftin#, and ne#otiation. And increasin#ly la yers find that the ne s/ills of evaluation and &ediation are both effective for &any clients and a source of e&ploy&ent. 9%bid.;. Most la yers ill en#a#e in non5liti#ation le#al or/ or in liti#ation or/ that is constrained in very i&portant ays, at least theoretically, so as to re&ove fro& it so&e of the salient features of adversarial liti#ation. %f these special roles, the &ost pro&inent is that of prosecutor. 0n so&e la yers! or/ the constraints are i&posed both by the nature of the client and by the ay in hich the la yer is or#ani8ed into a social unit to perfor& that or/. The &ost co&&on of these roles are those of corporate practice and #overn&ent le#al service. 9%bid.;. 0n several issues of the &usiness Star, a business daily, herein belo .uoted are e&er#in# trends in corporate la practice, a departure fro& the traditional concept of practice of la . De are e-periencin# today hat truly &ay be called a revolutionary transfor&ation in corporate la practice. La yers and other professional #roups, in particular those &e&bers participatin# in various le#al5policy decisional conte-ts, are findin# that understandin# the &a"or e&er#in# trends in corporation la is indispensable to intelli#ent decision5&a/in#. Constructive ad"ust&ent to &a"or corporate proble&s of today re.uires an accurate understandin# of the nature and i&plications of the corporate la research function acco&panied by an acceleratin# rate of infor&ation accu&ulation. The reco#nition of the need for such i&proved corporate le#al policy for&ulation, particularly 3&odel5 &a/in#3 and 3contin#ency plannin#,3 has i&pressed upon us the inade.uacy of traditional procedures in &any decisional conte-ts. 0n a co&ple- le#al proble& the &ass of infor&ation to be processed, the sortin# and ei#hin# of si#nificant conditional factors, the appraisal of &a"or trends, the necessity of esti&atin# the conse.uences of #iven courses of action, and the need for fast decision and response in situations of acute dan#er have pro&pted the use of sophisticated concepts of infor&ation flo theory, operational analysis, auto&atic data processin#, and electronic co&putin# e.uip&ent. 7nderstandably, an i&proved decisional structure &ust stress the predictive co&ponent of the policy5&a/in#

process, herein a 3&odel3, of the decisional conte-t or a se#&ent thereof is developed to test pro"ected alternative courses of action in ter&s of futuristic effects flo in# therefro&. Althou#h &e&bers of the le#al profession are re#ularly en#a#ed in predictin# and pro"ectin# the trends of the la , the sub"ect of corporate finance la has received relatively little or#ani8ed and for&ali8ed attention in the philosophy of advancin# corporate le#al education. Nonetheless, a cross5disciplinary approach to le#al research has beco&e a vital necessity. Certainly, the #eneral orientation for productive contributions by those trained pri&arily in the la can be i&proved throu#h an early introduction to &ulti5variable decisional conte-t and the various approaches for handlin# such proble&s. La yers, particularly ith either a &aster!s or doctorate de#ree in business ad&inistration or &ana#e&ent, functionin# at the le#al policy level of decision5&a/in# no have so&e appreciation for the concepts and analytical techni.ues of other professions hich are currently en#a#ed in si&ilar types of co&ple- decision5&a/in#. Truth to tell, &any situations involvin# corporate finance proble&s ould re.uire the services of an astute attorney because of the co&ple- le#al i&plications that arise fro& each and every necessary step in securin# and &aintainin# the business issue raised. 9 &usiness Star, 3Corporate >inance La ,3 ,an. )), )*@*, p. =;. 0n our liti#ation5prone country, a corporate la yer is assiduously referred to as the 3abo#ado de ca&panilla.3 Be is the 3bi#5ti&e3 la yer, earnin# bi# &oney and ith a clientele co&posed of the tycoons and &a#nates of business and industry. $espite the #ro in# nu&ber of corporate la yers, &any people could not e-plain hat it is that a corporate la yer does. >or one, the nu&ber of attorneys e&ployed by a sin#le corporation ill vary ith the si8e and type of the corporation. Many s&aller and so&e lar#e corporations far& out all their le#al proble&s to private la fir&s. Many others have in5house counsel only for certain &atters. %ther corporation have a staff lar#e enou#h to handle &ost le#al proble&s in5house. A corporate la yer, for all intents and purposes, is a la yer ho handles the le#al affairs of a corporation. Bis areas of concern or "urisdiction &ay include, inter alia? corporate le#al research, ta- la s research, actin# out as corporate secretary 9in board &eetin#s;, appearances in both courts and other ad"udicatory a#encies 9includin# the 1ecurities and E-chan#e Co&&ission;, and in other capacities hich re.uire an ability to deal ith the la .

At any rate, a corporate la yer &ay assu&e responsibilities other than the le#al affairs of the business of the corporation he is representin#. These include such matters as determining polic and becoming involved in management. 9 E&phasis supplied.; 0n a bi# co&pany, for e-a&ple, one &ay have a feelin# of bein# isolated fro& the action, or not understandin# ho one!s or/ actually fits into the or/ of the or#arni8ation. This can be frustratin# to so&eone ho needs to see the results of his or/ first hand. 0n short, a corporate la yer is so&eti&es offered this fortune to be &ore closely involved in the runnin# of the business. Moreover, a corporate la yer!s services &ay so&eti&es be en#a#ed by a &ultinational corporation 9MNC;. 1o&e lar#e MNCs provide one of the fe opportunities available to corporate la yers to enter the international la field. After all, international la is practiced in a relatively s&all nu&ber of co&panies and la fir&s. Because or/in# in a forei#n country is perceived by &any as #la&orous, tills is an area coveted by corporate la yers. 0n &ost cases, ho ever, the overseas "obs #o to e-perienced attorneys hile the youn#er attorneys do their 3international practice3 in la libraries. 9&usiness Star, 3Corporate La Practice,3 May '+,)**A, p. =;. This brin#s us to the inevitable, i.e., the role of the la yer in the real& of finance. To borro the lines of Barvard5educated la yer Bruce Dassertein, to it? 3A bad la yer is one ho fails to spot proble&s, a #ood la yer is one ho perceives the difficulties, and the e-cellent la yer is one ho sur&ounts the&.3 9&usiness Star, 3Corporate >inance La ,3 ,an. )), )*@*, p. =;. Today, the study of corporate la practice direly needs a 3shot in the ar&,3 so to spea/. No lon#er are e tal/in# of the traditional la teachin# &ethod of confinin# the sub"ect study to the Corporation Code and the 1ecurities Code but an incursion as ell into the intert inin# &odern &ana#e&ent issues. 1uch corporate le#al &ana#e&ent issues deal pri&arily ith three 9:; types of learnin#? 9); ac.uisition of insi#hts into current advances hich are of particular si#nificance to the corporate counsel4 9'; an introduction to usable disciplinary s/ins applicable to a corporate counsel!s &ana#e&ent responsibilities4 and 9:; a devotion to the or#ani8ation and &ana#e&ent of the le#al function itself. These three sub"ect areas &ay be thou#ht of as intersectin# circles, ith a shared area lin/in# the&. %ther ise /no n as 3intersectin# &ana#erial "urisprudence,3 it for&s a unifyin# the&e for the corporate counsel!s total learnin#.

1o&e current advances in behavior and policy sciences affect the counsel!s role. >or that &atter, the corporate la yer revie s the #lobali8ation process, includin# the resultin# strate#ic repositionin# that the fir&s he provides counsel for are re.uired to &a/e, and the need to thin/ about a corporation!s4 strate#y at &ultiple levels. The salience of the nation5state is bein# reduced as fir&s deal both ith #lobal &ultinational entities and si&ultaneously ith sub5national #overn&ental units. >ir&s increasin#ly collaborate not only ith public entities but ith each other C often ith those ho are co&petitors in other arenas. Also! the nature of the law er,s participation in decision+making within the corporation is rapidl changing. The modem corporate law er has gained a new role as a stakeholder 0 in some cases participating in the organization and operations of governance through participation on boards and other decision+making roles . %ften these ne patterns develop alon#side e-istin# le#al institutions and la s are perceived as barriers. These trends are co&plicated as corporations or#ani8e for #lobal operations. 9 E&phasis supplied; The practising law er of toda is familiar as well with governmental policies toward the promotion and management of technolog . 6ew collaborative arrangements for promoting specific technologies or competitiveness more generall re#uire approaches from industr that differ from older! more adversarial relationships and traditional forms of seeking to influence governmental policies . And there are lessons to be learned fro& other countries. 0n Europe, )sprit, )ureka and $ace are e-a&ples of collaborative efforts bet een #overn&ental and business ,apan!s *%T% is orld fa&ous. 9E&phasis supplied; >ollo in# the concept of boundary spannin#, the office of the Corporate Counsel co&prises a distinct #roup ithin the &ana#erial structure of all /inds of or#ani8ations. Effectiveness of both lon#5ter& and te&porary #roups ithin or#ani8ations has been found to be related to indentifiable factors in the #roup5conte-t interaction such as the #roups actively revisin# their /no led#e of the environ&ent coordinatin# or/ ith outsiders, pro&otin# tea& achieve&ents ithin the or#ani8ation. 0n #eneral, such e-ternal activities are better predictors of tea& perfor&ance than internal #roup processes. %n a crisis situation! the legal managerial capabilities of the corporate law er vis+a+vis the managerial mettle of corporations are challenged . Current research is see/in# ays both to anticipate effective &ana#erial procedures and to understand relationships of financial liability and insurance considerations. 9E&phasis supplied; Re#ardin# the s/ills to apply by the corporate counsel, three factors are apropos?

7irst S stem - namics. The field of syste&s dyna&ics has been found an effective tool for ne &ana#erial thin/in# re#ardin# both plannin# and pressin# i&&ediate proble&s. An understandin# of the role of feedbac/ loops, inventory levels, and rates of flo , enable users to si&ulate all sorts of syste&atic proble&s C physical, econo&ic, &ana#erial, social, and psycholo#ical. 6ew programming techni#ues now make the s stem d namics principles more accessible to managers 0 including corporate counsels . 9E&phasis supplied; Second -ecision Anal sis. This enables users to make better decisions involving comple.it and uncertaint . %n the conte.t of a law department! it can be used to appraise the settlement value of litigation! aid in negotiation settlement! and minimize the cost and risk involved in managing a portfolio of cases. 9E&phasis supplied; Third *odeling for 6egotiation *anagement. Co&puter5based &odels can be used directly by parties and &ediators in all lands of ne#otiations. All inte#rated set of such tools provide coherent and effective ne#otiation support, includin# hands5on on instruction in these techni.ues. A si&ulation case of an international "oint venture &ay be used to illustrate the point. FBe this as it &ay,G the or#ani8ation and &ana#e&ent of the le#al function, concern three pointed areas of consideration, thus? Preventive (aw ering. Plannin# by la yers re.uires special s/ills that co&prise a &a"or part of the #eneral counsel!s responsibilities. They differ fro& those of re&edial la . Preventive la yerin# is concerned ith &ini&i8in# the ris/s of le#al trouble and &a-i&i8in# le#al ri#hts for such le#al entities at that ti&e hen transactional or si&ilar facts are bein# considered and &ade. *anagerial 'urisprudence. This is the fra&e or/ ithin hich are underta/en those activities of the fir& to hich le#al conse.uences attach. 0t needs to be directly supportive of this nation!s evolvin# econo&ic and or#ani8ational fabric as fir&s chan#e to stay co&petitive in a #lobal, interdependent environ&ent. The practice and theory of 3la 3 is not ade.uate today to facilitate the relationships needed in tryin# to &a/e a #lobal econo&y or/. Organization and 7unctioning of the Corporate Counsel,s Office . The #eneral counsel has e&er#ed in the last decade as one of the &ost vibrant subsets of the le#al profession. The corporate counsel hear responsibility for /ey aspects of the fir&!s strate#ic issues, includin# structurin# its #lobal operations, &ana#in# i&proved relationships ith an increasin#ly diversified body of e&ployees, &ana#in# e-panded liability e-posure, creatin# ne and varied interactions ith public decision5&a/ers, copin# internally ith &ore co&ple- &a/e or by decisions.

This hole e-ercise drives ho&e the thesis that /no in# corporate la is not enou#h to &a/e one a #ood #eneral corporate counsel nor to #ive hi& a full sense of ho the le#al syste& shapes corporate activities. And even if the corporate la yer!s ai& is not the understand all of the la !s effects on corporate activities, he &ust, at the very least, also #ain a or/in# /no led#e of the &ana#e&ent issues if only to be able to #rasp not only the basic le#al 3constitution! or &a/eup of the &ode& corporation. 3&usiness Star3, 3The Corporate Counsel,3 April )A, )**), p. =;. The challen#e for la yers 9both of the bar and the bench; is to have &ore than a passin# /no led#e of financial la affectin# each aspect of their or/. Jet, &any ould ad&it to i#norance of vast tracts of the financial la territory. Dhat transpires ne-t is a dile&&a of professional security? Dill the la yer ad&it i#norance and ris/ opprobriu&I4 or ill he fei#n understandin# and ris/ e-posureI 9&usiness Star, 3Corporate >inance la ,3 ,an. )), )*@*, p. =;. Respondent Christian Monsod as no&inated by President Cora8on C. A.uino to the position of Chair&an of the C%MELEC in a letter received by the 1ecretariat of the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents on April '+, )**). Petitioner opposed the no&ination because alle#edly Monsod does not possess the re.uired .ualification of havin# been en#a#ed in the practice of la for at least ten years. %n ,une +, )**), the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents confir&ed the no&ination of Monsod as Chair&an of the C%MELEC. %n ,une )@, )**), he too/ his oath of office. %n the sa&e day, he assu&ed office as Chair&an of the C%MELEC. Challen#in# the validity of the confir&ation by the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents of Monsod!s no&ination, petitioner as a citi8en and ta-payer, filed the instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition prayin# that said confir&ation and the conse.uent appoint&ent of Monsod as Chair&an of the Co&&ission on Elections be declared null and void. Atty. Christian Monsod is a &e&ber of the Philippine Bar, havin# passed the bar e-a&inations of )*6A ith a #rade of @65++K. Be has been a dues payin# &e&ber of the 0nte#rated Bar of the Philippines since its inception in )*('5(:. Be has also been payin# his professional license fees as la yer for &ore than ten years. 9p. )'=, Rollo; After #raduatin# fro& the Colle#e of La 97.P.; and havin# hurdled the bar, Att . *onsod worked in the law office of his father. $urin# his stint in the Dorld Ban/ 2roup 9)*6:5 )*(A;, *onsod worked as an operations officer for about two ears in Costa $ica and Panama! which involved getting ac#uainted with the laws of member+countries negotiating loans and coordinating legal! economic! and pro"ect work of the &ank. 8pon returning to the Philippines in 9:;<! he worked with the *eralco Group! served as chief e.ecutive officer of an investment bank and subse#uentl of a business conglomerate! and since 9:=>! has rendered services to various companies as a legal and economic consultant or chief e.ecutive officer. As former Secretar +General ?9:=>@ and 6ational Chairman ?9:=;@ of 6A*7$)(. *onsod,s work involved being knowledgeable in election law. Ae appeared for 6A*7$)( in its accreditation hearings before the Comelec. %n the field of advocac ! *onsod! in his personal capacit and as former Co+Chairman of the &ishops

&usinessmen,s Conference for Auman -evelopment! has worked with the under privileged sectors! such as the farmer and urban poor groups! in initiating! lobb ing for and engaging in affirmative action for the agrarian reform law and latel the urban land reform bill. *onsod also made use of his legal knowledge as a member of the -avide Commission! a #uast "udicial bod ! which conducted numerous hearings ?9::<@ and as a member of the Constitutional Commission ?9:=>+9:=;@! and Chairman of its Committee on Accountabilit of Public Officers! for which he was cited b the President of the Commission! 'ustice Cecilia *uBoz+Palma for /innumerable amendments to reconcile government functions with individual freedoms and public accountabilit and the part +list s stem for the Aouse of $epresentative. ?pp. 9C=+9C: $ollo@ ? )mphasis supplied@ ,ust a ord about the work of a negotiating team of &e&ber. hich Atty. Monsod used to be a

the #uidance of ade.uate technical support personnel. 9 See %nternational (aw Aspects of the Philippine ).ternal -ebts , an unpublished dissertation, 7.1.T. 2raduate 1chool of La , )*@(, p. :');. 9 E&phasis supplied; A critical aspect of soverei#n debt restructurin#Lcontract construction is the set of ter&s and conditions hich deter&ines the contractual re&edies for a failure to perfor& one or &ore ele&ents of the contract. A #ood a#ree&ent &ust not only define the responsibilities of both parties, but &ust also state the recourse open to either party hen the other fails to dischar#e an obli#ation. >or a co&pleat debt restructurin# represents a devotion to that principle hich in the ulti&ate analysis is sine #ua non for forei#n loan a#ree&ents5an adherence to the rule of la in do&estic and international affairs of hose /ind 7.1. 1upre&e Court ,ustice %liver Dendell Bol&es, ,r. once said? 3They carry no banners, they beat no dru&s4 but here they are, &en learn that bustle and bush are not the e.ual of .uiet #enius and serene &astery.3 91ee Ricardo ,. Ro&ulo, 3The Role of La yers in >orei#n 0nvest&ents,3 0nte#rated Bar of the Philippine ,ournal, <ol. )+, Nos. : and =, Third and >ourth Muarters, )*((, p. '6+;. %nterpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term Practice of law/. particularl the modern concept of law practice! and taking into consideration the liberal construction intended b the framers of the Constitution! Att . *onsod,s past work e.periences as a law er+economist! a law er+manager! a law er+entrepreneur of industr ! a law er+negotiator of contracts! and a law er+legislator of both the rich and the poor 0 veril more than satisf the constitutional re#uirement 0 that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten ears. Besides in the leadin# case of (uego v. Civil Service Commission! )=: 1CRA :'(, the Court said? Appointment is an essentiall discretionar power and &ust be perfor&ed by the officer in hich it is vested accordin# to his best li#hts, the only condition bein# that the appointee should possess the .ualifications re.uired by la . 0f he does, then the appoint&ent cannot be faulted on the #round that there are others better .ualified ho should have been preferred. This is a political #uestion involving considerations of wisdom which onl the appointing authorit can decide. 9e&phasis supplied; No less e&phatic as the Court in the case of 9Central &ank v. Civil Service Commission, )() 1CRA (==; here it stated? 0t is ell5settled that hen the appointee is .ualified, as in this case, and all the other le#al re.uire&ents are satisfied, the Co&&ission has no alternative but to attest to the appoint&ent in accordance ith the Civil 1ervice La . The Co&&ission has no authority to revo/e an appoint&ent on the #round that another person is &ore .ualified for a

0n a loan a#ree&ent, for instance, a ne#otiatin# panel acts as a tea&, and hich is ade.uately constituted to &eet the various contin#encies that arise durin# a ne#otiation. Besides top officials of the Borro er concerned, there are the le#al officer 9such as the le#al counsel;, the finance &ana#er, and an operations officer 9such as an official involved in negotiating the contracts; ho co&prise the &e&bers of the tea&. 92uiller&o <. 1oliven, 3Loan Ne#otiatin# 1trate#ies for $evelopin# Country Borro ers,3 1taff Paper No. ', Central Ban/ of the Philippines, Manila, )*@', p. ));. 9E&phasis supplied; After a fashion, the loan a#ree&ent is li/e a country!s Constitution4 it lays do n the la as far as the loan transaction is concerned. Thus, the &eat of any Loan A#ree&ent can be co&part&entali8ed into five 9+; funda&ental parts? 9); business ter&s4 9'; borro er!s representation4 9:; conditions of closin#4 9=; covenants4 and 9+; events of default. 9%bid., p. ):;. 0n the sa&e vein, law ers pla an important role in an debt restructuring program. >or aside fro& perfor&in# the tas/s of le#islative draftin# and le#al advisin#, they score national develop&ent policies as /ey factors in &aintainin# their countries! soverei#nty. 9Condensed fro& the or/ paper, entitled 3Danted? $evelop&ent La yers for $evelopin# Nations,3 sub&itted by L. Michael Ba#er, re#ional le#al adviser of the 7nited 1tates A#ency for 0nternational $evelop&ent, durin# the 1ession on La for the $evelop&ent of Nations at the Abid"an Dorld Conference in 0vory Coast, sponsored by the Dorld Peace Throu#h La Center on Au#ust '65:), )*(:;. 9 E&phasis supplied; (oan concessions and compromises! perhaps even more so than purel renegotiation policies! demand e.pertise in the law of contracts! in legislation and agreement drafting and in renegotiation . Necessarily, a soverei#n la yer &ay or/ ith an international business specialist or an econo&ist in the for&ulation of a &odel loan a#ree&ent. $ebt restructurin# contract a#ree&ents contain such a &i-ture of technical lan#ua#e that they should be carefully drafted and si#ned only ith the advise of co&petent counsel in con"unction ith

particular position. 0t also has no authority to direct the appoint&ent of a substitute of its choice. To do so ould be an encroachment on the discretion vested upon the appointing authorit . An appointment is essentiall within the discretionar power of whomsoever it is vested! sub"ect to the onl condition that the appointee should possess the #ualifications re#uired b law. 9 E&phasis supplied; The appointin# process in a re#ular appoint&ent as in the case at bar, consists of four 9=; sta#es? 9); no&ination4 9'; confir&ation by the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents4 9:; issuance of a co&&ission 9in the Philippines, upon sub&ission by the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents of its certificate of confir&ation, the President issues the per&anent appoint&ent4 and 9=; acceptance e.#., oath5ta/in#, postin# of bond, etc. . . . 9 (acson v. $omero, No. L5:A@), %ctober )=, )*=*4 2on8ales, La on Public %fficers, p. 'AA; The po er of the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents to #ive its consent to the no&ination of Monsod as Chair&an of the Co&&ission on Elections is &andated by 1ection )9'; 1ub5 Article C, Article 0E of the Constitution hich provides? The Chair&an and the Co&&isioners shall be appointed by the President ith the consent of the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents for a ter& of seven years ithout reappoint&ent. %f those first appointed, three Me&bers shall hold office for seven years, t o Me&bers for five years, and the last Me&bers for three years, ithout reappoint&ent. Appoint&ent to any vacancy shall be only for the une-pired ter& of the predecessor. 0n no case shall any Me&ber be appointed or desi#nated in a te&porary or actin# capacity. Anent ,ustice Teodoro Padilla!s separate opinion, suffice it to say that his definition of the practice of la is the traditional or stereotyped notion of la practice, as distin#uished fro& the modern concept of the practice of law, hich &odern connotation is e.actl what was intended b the eminent framers of the 9:=; Constitution. Moreover, ,ustice Padilla!s definition ould re.uire #enerally a habitual la practice, perhaps practised t o or three ti&es a ee/ and would outlaw say, la practice once or t ice a year for ten consecutive years. Clearly, this is far fro& the constitutional intent. 7pon the other hand, the separate opinion of ,ustice 0sa#ani Cru8 states that in &y ritten opinion, 0 &ade use of a definition of la practice hich really &eans nothin# because the definition says that la practice 3 . . . is hat people ordinarily &ean by the practice of la .3 True 0 cited the definition but only by ay of sarcas& as evident fro& &y state&ent that the definition of la practice by 3traditional areas of la practice is essentially tautologous3 or definin# a phrase by &eans of the phrase itself that is bein# defined. ,ustice Cru8 #oes on to say in substance that since the la covers al&ost all situations, &ost individuals, in &a/in# use of the la , or in advisin# others on hat the la &eans, are actually practicin# la . 0n that sense, perhaps, but e should not lose si#ht of the fact that Mr. Monsod is a law er, a member of the Philippine &ar, ho has been practisin# la for over ten years. This is different fro& the acts of persons practisin# la , without first becoming law ers.

,ustice Cru8 also says that the 1upre&e Court can even dis.ualify an elected President of the Philippines, say, on the #round that he lac/s one or &ore .ualifications. This &atter, 0 #reatly doubt. >or one thin#, ho can an action or petition be brou#ht a#ainst the PresidentI And even assu&in# that he is indeed dis.ualified, ho can the action be entertained since he is the incu&bent PresidentI De no proceed?

The Co&&ission on the basis of evidence sub&itted dolin# the public hearin#s on Monsod!s confir&ation, i&plicitly deter&ined that he possessed the necessary .ualifications as re.uired by la . The "ud#&ent rendered by the Co&&ission in the e-ercise of such an ac/no led#ed po er is beyond "udicial interference e-cept only upon a clear sho in# of a #rave abuse of discretion a&ountin# to lac/ or e-cess of "urisdiction. 9Art. <000, 1ec. ) Constitution;. Thus, only here such #rave abuse of discretion is clearly sho n shall the Court interfere ith the Co&&ission!s "ud#&ent. 0n the instant case, there is no occasion for the e-ercise of the Court!s corrective po er, since no abuse, &uch less a #rave abuse of discretion, that ould a&ount to lac/ or e-cess of "urisdiction and ould arrant the issuance of the rits prayed, for has been clearly sho n. Additionally, consider the follo in#? 9); 0f the Co&&ission on Appoint&ents re"ects a no&inee by the President, &ay the 1upre&e Court reverse the Co&&ission, and thus in effect confirm the appoint&entI Clearly, the ans er is in the ne#ative. 9'; 0n the sa&e vein, &ay the Court re"ect the no&inee, ho& the Co&&ission has confirmedI The ans er is li/e ise clear. 9:; 0f the 7nited 1tates 1enate 9 hich is the confir&in# body in the 7.1. Con#ress; decides to confirma Presidential no&inee, it ould be incredible that the 7.1. 1upre&e Court ould still reverse the 7.1. 1enate. >inally, one si#nificant le#al &a-i& is? De &ust interpret not by the letter that /illeth, but by the spirit that #iveth life. Ta/e this hypothetical case of 1a&son and $elilah. %nce, the procurator of ,udea as/ed $elilah 9 ho as 1a&son!s beloved; for help in capturin# 1a&son. $elilah a#reed on condition that C No blade shall touch his s/in4 No blood shall flo fro& his veins.

Dhen 1a&son 9his lon# hair cut by $elilah; as captured, the procurator placed an iron rod burnin# hite5hot t o or three inches a ay fro& in front of 1a&son!s eyes. This blinded the &an. 7pon hearin# of hat had happened to her beloved, $elilah as beside herself ith an#er, and fu&in# ith ri#hteous fury, accused the procurator of rene#in# on his ord. The procurator cal&ly replied? 3$id any blade touch his s/inI $id any blood flo fro& his veinsI3 The procurator as clearly relyin# on the letter, not the spirit of the a#ree&ent. 0n vie of the fore#oin#, this petition is hereby $01M011E$.

Co&plainant Dilfredo M. Catu is a co5o ner of a lot F)G and the buildin# erected thereon located at *+* 1an Andres 1treet, Malate, Manila. Bis &other and brother, Re#ina Catu and Antonio Catu, contested the possession of Eli8abeth C. $ia85Catu F'G and Antonio PastorF:G of one of the units in the buildin#. The latter i#nored de&ands for the& to vacate the pre&ises. Thus, a co&plaint as initiated a#ainst the& in the (upong Tagapama apa of

1% %R$ERE$. 7ernan! C.'.! GriBo+A#uino and *edialdea! ''.! concur. 7eliciano! '.! % certif that he voted to dismiss the petition. ?7ernan! C.'.@ Sarmiento! '.! is on leave.

Baran#ay (':, Hone (* of the +th $istrict of ManilaF=G here the parties reside.

Respondent, as punong baranga of Baran#ay (':, su&&oned the parties to $egalado! and -avide! 'r.! '.! took no p conciliation &eetin#s.F+G Dhen the parties failed to arrive at an a&icable settle&ent, F RST % & S ON " LFRE%O M. C!TU, Co3,/a'(a(-, A.C. No. +(:@ Present? P7N%, C.'., Chairperson, 1AN$%<AL527T0ERREH, C%R%NA, AHC7NA and LE%NAR$%5$E CA1TR%, ''. Thereafter, Re#ina and Antonio filed a co&plaint for e"ect&ent a#ainst Eli8abeth and Pastor in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch )). Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the defendants in that case. Because of this, co&plainant filed the instant ad&inistrative co&plaint,F6G clai&in# that respondent co&&itted an act of Pro&ul#ated? >ebruary )*, 'AA@ 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -9 i&propriety as a la yer and as a public officer hen he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he presided over the conciliation proceedin#s bet een the liti#ants as punong baranga . respondent issued a certification for the filin# of the appropriate action in court.

- 8er*u* -

!TT#. & CENTE G. RELLOS!, Re*,o(5e(-.

RESOLUT ON CORON!, J.0

0n his defense, respondent clai&ed that one of his duties as punong baranga

as to

hear co&plaints referred to the baran#ayNs (upong Tagapama apa. As such, he heard the

co&plaint of Re#ina and Antonio a#ainst Eli8abeth and Pastor. As head of the (upon, he perfor&ed his tas/ ith ut&ost ob"ectivity, ithout bias or partiality to ards any of the

Rule 6.A: O A la yer shall not, after leavin# #overn&ent service, accept en#a#e&ent or e&ploy&ent in connection ith any &atter in hich he intervened hile in said service.

parties. The parties, ho ever,

ere not able to a&icably settle their dispute and Re#ina and as then that Eli8abeth sou#ht his le#al assistance. Be as financially

>urther&ore, as an elective official, respondent contravened the prohibition under 1ection (9b;9'; of RA 6():?F@G 1EC. (. Prohibited Acts and Transactions . O 0n addition to acts and o&issions of public officials and e&ployees no prescribed in the Constitution and e-istin# la s, the follo in# shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official ands e&ployee and are hereby declared to be unla ful? -------

Antonio filed the e"ect&ent case. 0t

acceded to her re.uest. Be handled her case for free because she

distressed and he anted to prevent the co&&ission of a patent in"ustice a#ainst her.

The co&plaint

as referred to the 0nte#rated Bar of the Philippines 90BP; for as no factual issue to thresh out, the

investi#ation, report and reco&&endation. As there

9b; Outside emplo ment and other activities related thereto . O Public officials and e&ployees durin# their incu&bency shall not? -------

0BPNs Co&&ission on Bar $iscipline 9CB$; re.uired the parties to sub&it their respective position papers. After evaluatin# the contentions of the parties, the 0BP5CB$ found sufficient #round to discipline respondent.F(G

9'; E(7a7e '( -)e ,r'8a-e ,ra+-'+e o. ,ro.e**'o( u(/e** au-)or':e5 by -)e Co(*-'-u-'o( or /a; , provided that such practice ill not conflict or tend to conflict ith their official functions4 --- 9e&phasis supplied;

Accordin# to the 0BP5CB$, respondent ad&itted that, as punong baranga , he presided over the conciliation proceedin#s and heard the co&plaint of Re#ina and Antonio a#ainst Eli8abeth and Pastor. 1ubse.uently, ho ever, he represented Eli8abeth and Pastor in the e"ect&ent case filed a#ainst the& by Re#ina and Antonio. 0n the course thereof, he prepared and si#ned pleadin#s includin# the ans er ith counterclai&, pre5trial brief,

Accordin# to the 0BP5CB$, respondentNs violation of this prohibition constituted a breach of Canon ) of the Code of Professional Responsibility? CAN%N ). A LADJER 1BALL 7PB%L$ TBE C%N1T0T7T0%N, O6E# THE L!"S OF THE L!N%, PROMOTE RESPECT FOR L!" AN$ LE2AL PR%CE11E1. 9e&phasis supplied;

>or these infractions, the 0BP5CB$ reco&&ended the respondentNs suspension position paper and notice of appeal. By so doin#, respondent violated Rule 6.A: of the Code fro& the practice of la of Professional Responsibility? for one &onth ith a stern arnin# that the co&&ission of the sa&e

or si&ilar act

ill be dealt

ith &ore severely. This

F*G

as adopted and approved by the 0BP

Board of 2overnors.F)AG

GO&ERNS PR!CT CE PROFESS ON ELECT &E GO&ERNMENT OFF C !LS

THE OF OF LOC!L

De &odify the fore#oin# findin#s re#ardin# the trans#ression of respondent as 1ection (9b;9'; of RA 6(): prohibits public officials and e&ployees, durin# their ell as the reco&&endation on the i&posable penalty. incu&bency, fro& en#a#in# in the private practice of their profession Punless authori8ed by RULE 6.12 OF THE CO%E OF PROFESS ON!L RESPONS 6 L T# !PPL ES ONL# TO FORMER GO&ERNMENT L!"#ERS the Constitution or la , provided that such practice their official functions.Q This is the #eneral la e&ployees. >or elective local #overn&ent officials, 1ection *A of RA ()6A F)'G #overns? Respondent cannot be found liable for violation of Rule 6.A: of the Code of Professional Responsibility. As orded, that Rule applies only to a la yer hich he intervened ho has left hile in said 9b; Sanggunian &e&bers &ay practice their professions, en#a#e in any occupation, or teach in schools e-cept durin# session hours?Provided, That sanggunian &e&bers ho are &e&bers of the Bar shall not? 9); Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case herein a local #overn&ent unit or any office, a#ency, or instru&entality of the #overn&ent is the adverse party4 9'; Appear as counsel in any cri&inal case herein an officer or e&ployee of the national or local #overn&ent is accused of an offense co&&itted in relation to his office4 9:; Collect any fee for their appearance in ad&inistrative proceedin#s involvin# the local #overn&ent unit of hich he is an official4 and 1EC. *A. Practice of Profession. O 9a; All #overnors, city and &unicipal &ayors are prohibited fro& practicin# their profession or en#a#in# in any occupation other than the e-ercise of their functions as local chief e-ecutives. ill not conflict or tend to conflict ith

hich applies to all public officials and

government service and in connection P ith any &atter in

service.Q 0n PCGG v. Sandiganba an ,F))G e ruled that Rule 6.A: ,ro)'b'-* .or3er 7o8er(3e(- /a;yer* fro& acceptin# Pen#a#e&ent or e&ploy&ent in connection &atter in hich FtheyG had intervened hile in said service.Q ith any

Respondent

as an incu&bent punong baranga at the ti&e he co&&itted the

act co&plained of. Therefore, he as not covered by that provision.

SECT ON 91 OF R! <161, NOT SECT ON <=6> =2> OF R! 6<12,

9=; 7se property and personnel of the 2overn&ent e-cept hen the sanggunian &e&ber concerned is defendin# the interest of the 2overn&ent. 9c; $octors of &edicine &ay practice their profession even durin# official hours of or/ only on occasions of e&er#ency? Provided, That the officials concerned do not derive &onetary co&pensation therefro&.

e-ercise of their functions as local chief e-ecutives. This is because they are re.uired to render full ti&e service. They should therefore devote all their ti&e and attention to the perfor&ance of their official duties.

%n the other hand, &e&bers of the sangguniang panlalawigan, sangguniang This is a special provision that applies specifically to the practice of profession by elective local officials. As a special la ith a definite scope 9that is, the practice of panlungsod or sangguniang ba an &ay practice their professions, en#a#e in any

occupation, or teach in schools e-cept durin# session hours. 0n other

ords, they &ay

profession by elective local officials;, it constitutes an e-ception to 1ection (9b;9'; of RA 6():, the #eneral la on en#a#in# in the private practice of profession by public officials

practice their professions, en#a#e in any occupation, or teach in schools outside their session hours. 7nli/e #overnors, city &ayors and &unicipal &ayors, &e&bers of

and e&ployees. (e. specialibus derogat generalibus.F):G

the sangguniang

panlalawigan, sangguniang

panlungsod or sangguniang ee/. F)=G 1ince the la

ba an are itself #rants

7nder RA ()6A, elective local officials of provinces, cities, &unicipalities and baran#ays are the follo in#? the #overnor, the vice #overnor and &e&bers of the sangguniang panlalawigan for provinces4 the city &ayor, the city vice &ayor and the &e&bers of the sangguniang panlungsod for cities4 the &unicipal &ayor, the &unicipal vice &ayor and the &e&bers of the sangguniang ba an for &unicipalities and the punong baranga , the &e&bers of the sangguniang baranga and the &e&bers of thesangguniang kabataan for baran#ays.

re.uired to hold re#ular sessions only at least once a

the& the authority to practice their professions, en#a#e in any occupation or teach in schools outside session hours, there is no lon#er any need for the& to secure prior per&ission or authori8ation fro& any other person or office for any of these purposes.

Dhile, as already discussed, certain local elective officials 9li/e #overnors, &ayors, provincial board &e&bers and councilors; are e-pressly sub"ected to a total or partial proscription to practice their profession or en#a#e in any occupation, no such interdiction is &ade on the punong baranga and the &e&bers of the sangguniang baranga . ).pressio unius est e.clusio alterius.F)+G 1ince they are e-cluded fro& any

%f these elective local officials, #overnors, city &ayors and &unicipal &ayors are prohibited fro& practicin# their profession or en#a#in# in any occupation other than the

prohibition, the presu&ption is that they are allo ed to practice their profession. And this stands to reason because they are not &andated to serve full ti&e. 0n fact, the sangguniang baranga is supposed to hold re#ular sessions only t ice a &onth. F)6G

i&pair in any ay the efficiency of the officer or e&ployee? And provided! finall , that no per&ission is necessary in the case of invest&ents, &ade by an officer or e&ployee, hich do not involve real or apparent conflict bet een his private interests and public duties, or in any ay influence hi& in the dischar#e of his duties, and he shall not ta/e part in the &ana#e&ent of the enterprise or beco&e an officer of the board of directors. 9e&phasis supplied;

Accordin#ly, as punong baranga , respondent

as not forbidden to practice his

As punong baranga , respondent should have therefore obtained the prior ritten per&ission of the 1ecretary of 0nterior and Local 2overn&ent before he entered his appearance as counsel for Eli8abeth and Pastor. This he failed to do.

profession. Bo ever, he should have procured prior per&ission or authori8ation fro& the head of his $epart&ent, as re.uired by civil service re#ulations.

! L!"#ER N GO&ERNMENT SER& CE "HO S NOT PROH 6 TE% TO PR!CT CE L!" MUST SECURE PR OR !UTHOR T# FROM THE HE!% OF HS %EP!RTMENT

The failure of respondent to co&ply

ith 1ection )', Rule E<000 of the Revised Civil

1ervice Rules constitutes a violation of his oath as a la yer? to obey the la s. La yers are servants of the la , vires legis, &en of the la . Their para&ount duty to society is to obey the la and pro&ote respect for it. To underscore the pri&acy and i&portance of this duty, it

is enshrined as the first canon of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A civil service officer or e&ployee hose responsibilities do not re.uire his ti&e to be only ith 0n actin# as counsel for a party ithout first securin# the re.uired ritten per&ission,

fully at the disposal of the #overn&ent can en#a#e in the private practice of la the

ritten per&ission of the head of the depart&ent concerned. F)(G 1ection )', Rule E<000 of

respondent not only en#a#ed in the unauthori8ed practice of la service rules

but also violated civil

the Revised Civil 1ervice Rules provides? 1ec. )'. No o..'+er or e3,/oyee *)a// e(7a7e 5're+-/y '( a(y private business, vocation, or ,ro.e**'o( or be connected ith any co&&ercial, credit, a#ricultural, or industrial underta/in# ;'-)ou- a ;r'--e( ,er3'**'o( .ro3 -)e )ea5 o. -)e %e,ar-3e(-? Provided, That this prohibition ill be absolute in the case of those officers and e&ployees hose duties and responsibilities re.uire that their entire ti&e be at the disposal of the 2overn&ent4 Provided! further, That if an e&ployee is #ranted per&ission to en#a#e in outside activities, ti&e so devoted outside of office hours should be fi-ed by the a#ency to the end that it ill not

hich is a breach of Rule ).A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

Rule ).A) O ! /a;yer *)a// (o- e(7a7e '( u(/a;.u/ , dishonest, i&&oral or deceitful +o(5u+-. 9e&phasis supplied;

>or not livin# up to his oath as

ell as for not co&plyin#

ith the e-actin# ethical

,ra+-'+e o. /a; for a period of si- &onths effective fro& his receipt of this resolution. Be is sternly "!RNE% that any repetition of si&ilar acts shall be dealt ith &ore severely.

standards of the le#al profession, respondent failed to co&ply Professional Responsibility?

ith Canon ( of the Code of

Respondent is stron#ly advised to loo/ up and ta/e to heart the &eanin# of the CAN%N (. ! L!"#ER SH!LL !T !LL T MES UPHOL% THE NTEGR T# !N% THE % GN T# OF THE LEG!L PROFESS ON AN$ 17PP%RT TBE ACT0<0T0E1 %> TBE 0NTE2RATE$ BAR. 9e&phasis supplied; ord delicadeza.

Let a copy of this resolution be furnished the %ffice of the Bar Confidant and entered 0ndeed, a la yer ho disobeys the la disrespects it. 0n so doin#, he disre#ards into the records of respondent Atty. <icente 2. Rellosa. The %ffice of the Court Ad&inistrator shall furnish copies to all the courts of the land for their infor&ation and #uidance. Public confidence in the la and in la yers &ay be eroded by the irresponsible SO OR%ERE%.

le#al ethics and dis#races the di#nity of the le#al profession.

and i&proper conduct of a &e&ber of the bar. F)@G Every la yer should act and co&port hi&self in a &anner that pro&otes public confidence in the inte#rity of the le#al profession.

REN!TO C. CORON!
F)*G

Associate ,ustice

A &e&ber of the bar &ay be disbarred or suspended fro& his office as an attorney for violation of the la yerNs oath F'AGandLor for breach of the ethics of the le#al profession as e&bodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.

DE

C%NC7R?

RE#N!TO S. PUNO Chief ,ustice Chairperson

"HEREFORE, respondent Atty. <icente 2. Rellosa is hereby found GU LT# of professional &isconduct for violatin# his oath as a la yer and Canons ) and ( and Rule ).A) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Be is therefore SUSPEN%E% .ro3 -)e !NGEL N! S!N%O&!L-GUT ERRE? Associate ,ustice !%OLFO S. !?CUN! Associate ,ustice

TERES T! 4. LEON!R%O-%E C!STRO Associate ,ustice