Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

CAYETANO v. MONSOD G.R. No. 100113 Sept.

3, 1991

Facts: Christian Monsod was nominated as COMELEC Chairman by President Corazon Aquino on April 25, 1991. Renato Cayetano opposed the nomination on the ground that Monsod does not possess the required qualification of engaging in the practice of law for at least 10 years.

Issue: Does Monsod meet the requirement of the position of Chairman of COMELEC?

Held: Yes. The Supreme Court held that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar since he passed the bar examinations in 1960 and his past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, lawyermanager, lawyer-entrepeneur, lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and lawyer-legislator is enough to say that he has satisfied the constitutional requirement. PAGUIA v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT G.R. No. 176278 Jun. 25, 2010 Facts: Alan Paguia seeks to invalidate Hilario Davides nomination as Permanent Representative to the United Nations as Davides age at the time disqualifies him from holding such post. He invokes Section 23 of RA 7157 to support his case as the mandatory retirement age of all officers and employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs is at 65.

Issue: Is Davide eligible for nomination?

Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition as the case is academic and moot. Davide resigned his post at the United Nations on April 1, 2010. Paguia also has no legal capacity to bring suit as he is suspend from the practice of law. This suspension bars him from performing any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.

OCA v. LADAGA A.M. No. P-99-1287 Jan. 26, 2001

Facts: Atty. Misael Ladaga is the Branch Clerk of Court of the Makati Regional Trial Court and he appeared as counsel for and in behalf of his cousin. Ladaga was on official leave of absence and his Presiding Judge was aware of the case he was handling. It has been found that Ladaga did not obtain permission from the Court that he can appear as counsel for his cousin.

Issue: Is Ladaga guilty of violating Sec. 7(b)(2) of RA 6713, for engaging in private practice? Held: No. Ladagas appearance as counsel for his cousin, where he does not receive any compensation, does not constitute as private practice as contemplated by law. However, it cannot be denied that his appearance was done without permission from the Court. With that, the Supreme Court reprimands Atty. Ladaga with a stern warning. IN RE: CUNANAN March 18, 1954 Facts: The Bar Flunkers Act of 1953 was enacted into law by Congress and was allowed to be passed into law by the President without his signature. Members of the Supreme Court opposed this as the law had the effect of reducing the passing general average of the bar examinations. Many unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions invoking the provisions of said law to strengthen their cases. Issue: Is the Bar Flunkers Act of 1953 constitutional?

Held: No. A portion of Article 1 and the whole of Article 2 of the law is declared to be unconstitutional. There is an encroachment on the powers of the Supreme Court to grant the license to practice law as admission to the practice of law is an exercise of judicial function.

IN RE: VICENTE ALMACEN G.R. No. L-27654 Feb. 18, 1970

Facts: Atty. Vicente Almacen served as counsel for a civil case that he lost and he then filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the court for failure to indicate time and place of hearing. His appeals reached the Supreme Court but the same court denied it in a minute resolution. Angered, he filed a petition to surrender his lawyers certificate of title with the Supreme Court and at the same time, criticized the Court in a gross manner.

Issue: Should Almacen be disciplined by the Court? Held: Yes. Almacens attack on the Supreme Court is considered to be gross misconduct as the criticisms were uncalled for to the point of disrespecting the Court as a whole. The Court said that it is true that as a lawyer, he has the right to criticize the acts of courts and judges in respectful terms and through legitimate channels. Almacen did none and with that, he was suspended indefinitely. PANGAN v. RAMOS A.M. No. 1053 Sept. 7, 1979

Facts: An administrative case was filed against Atty. Dionisio Ramos but this was delayed because Atty. Ramos allegedly appeared before a court in Manila. The name that he used in Manila is Atty. Pedro D.D. Ramos and he said that he has the right to use the name because what is stated in his birth certificate is Pedro Dionisio Dayaw. Ramos says that D.D. stands for Dionisio Dayaw, Dayaw being his mothers maiden surname. Issue: Can Ramos use the name Atty. Pedro D.D. Ramos when appearing in court?

Held: No. A lawyer is not authorised to use a name other than the one written in the Roll of Attorneys in his practice of law. The Roll of Attorneys is the official record of the names and signatures of those who are authorized to practice law. Ramos resorted to deception when he used Pedro D.D. Ramos in his appearance in court. The Supreme Court severely reprimands and warns Atty. Ramos.