Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 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 possess 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: It is whether the respondent has the ten year practice of law requirement for him to assume such office HELD: Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill. In general, a practice of law requires a lawyer and client relationship, it is whether in or out of court. 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. Aguirre v Rana B.M. No. 1036 June 10, 2000 FACTS: Respondent is a successful bar passer who was allowed only to take oath but not to sign the roll of attorneys pending the resolution of the complaint of the petitioner who charges respondent with unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law, and grave misrepresentation. Apparently, the respondent appeared as counsel to an election candidate before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers (MBEC) of Masbate before he took his oath and signed the rolls of attorneys. In his comment, respondent alleges he only provide specific assistance and advice not as a lawyer but as a person who knows the law. He contends that he did not sign the pleadings as a lawyer. The Office of the Bar Confidant was tasked to investigate and its findings disclosed that according to the minutes of the meeting of the MBEC, the respondent actively participated in the proceeding and signed in the pleading as counsel for the candidate. I: WON the respondent is fit for admission to the bar. R: The court held that respondent did engaged in unauthorized practice of law. It held that all the activities he participated during that time involves the practice of law despite the fact that he is not yet a member of the Bar. The right to practice law is not a right but a privilege extended to those morally upright and with the proper knowledge and skills. It involves strict regulation, one of which is on the moral character of its members. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyers

oath to be administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys. Because the court finds respondent not morally fit to be admitted in the Bar, notwithstanding the fact that he already took his oath, he was denied admission to the bar. In Re: Argosino, 270 SCRA 26 FACTS: Al Caparros Argosino had passed the bar examinations but was denied of taking the Lawyers Oath and to sign the Rolls of Attorneys due to his conviction of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide from a hazing incident. Later in his sentence, he was granted probation by the court. He filed a petition to the Supreme Court praying that he be allowed to take the Lawyers Oath and sign the Rolls of Attorneys. As a proof of the required good moral character he now possess, he presented no less than fifteen (15) certifications among others from: two (2) senators, five (5) trial court judges, and six (6) members of religious order. In addition, he, together with the others who were convicted, organized a scholarship foundation in honor of their hazing victim. ISSUE: Whether or not Mr. Argosino should be allowed to take the Lawyers Oath, sign the Rolls of Attorneys, and practice law. HELD: YES. Petition granted. RATIO: Given the fact that Mr. Argosino had exhibited competent proof that he possessed the required good moral character as required before taking the Lawyers Oath and to sign the Rolls of Attorneys, the Supreme Court considered the premises that he is not inherently in bad moral fiber. In giving the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Argosino was finally reminded that the Lawyers Oath is not merely a ceremony or formality before the practice of law, and that the community assistance he had started is expected to continue in serving the more unfortunate members of the society. In Re: Edillon, 84 SCRA 568 (AC 1928) FACTS: Atty. Marcial Edillon was dibarred due to non-payment of his IBP dues, hence the petitioner on this case. He claimed that the provisions of Sec. 10 of Rule 139-A of the Rules of Court is unconstitutional as he is being compelled, as a precondition in maintaining his good standing as a lawyer, to pay and settle his dues to the IBP. Petitioner stubbornly insisted his take and refused to admit full competence of the court in this matter. But after some time in realization, his recalcitrance and defiance were gone in his subsequent communication with the court. He appealed that his health, advanced age, and concern to his former clients welfare be considered in his prayer so that he can again practice law. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Edillon should be reinstated as member of the bar. HELD:

YES. RATIO: Admission to the bar is a privilege burdened with condition. Failure to abide entails loss of such privilege. Considered in addition was the two (2) years Atty. Edillon was barred to practice law, and the dictum of Justice Malcolm in Villavicencio v. Lukban that the power to discipline, especially if amounting to disbarment, should be exercised in a preservative and not on the vindictive principle. After contrition on the part of the petitioner, the court finds reinstatement in order. Santuyo vs. Hidalgo (2005) Case of a lawyer who was negligent of his notarial duty by making his secretary use his seal. Facts: Complainants Benjamin and Editha Santuyo retrieved notarization for a deed of sale from respondent lawyer (Atty. Edwin Hidalgo). -A Danilo German contests the ownership of the land. He had an affidavit from respondent lawyer denying the authenticity of his signature on the deed of sale. It was alleged that the Santuyo spouses forged respondents signature. -The deed of sale had all the legal formalities of a deed of sale, including respondents dry seal. -Respondent denies notarizing the deed of sale. He was then a junior lawyer at Carpio General and Jacob Law Office; he did notary public duties. He avers that sometimes, the secretaries by themselves affix the dry seals of the junior associates on documents by the firm. -Respondents say he was on vacation when the deed in question was notarized, and that he did not know the Santuyos until 6 years after the said notarization. He says the secretaries must have affixed the dry seal when he was not in the office (with the concurrence of the senior partners).-Case referred to IBP.IBP said the signatures were indeed questionable BUT respondent lawyer was negligent, allowing secretaries to execute his notarial functions, including keeping his dry seal and notarial register. Issue: 1. WON the signature was forged. YES. 2. WON respondent was negligent in his notarial duty. YES. Ratio: - 1. Santuyos had no personal knowledge of respondent lawyers act of notarizing the said deed. They just to the office and the firm gave them a deed with respondents notarization. -Santuyos did not contest the fact that they met respondent lawyer 6years after the notarization of questioned deed. (So they really did not appear before the respondent)

- 2. The responsibility attached to a notary public is SENSITIVE. Respondent should have been more discreet and cautious in the execution of his duties. He should not have entrusted everything to secretaries. - Entrusting everything to secretaries open up many possibilities of misusage.- Negligence of respondent lawyer is not only found in the questioned notarization of deed, but in the act of entrusting to secretaries the act of making necessary entries in his notarial registry. Held: -Respondent is GUILTY of NEGLIGENCE, and is suspended from his commission as a notary public for 2 years. Ui vs. Bonifacio Facts: Lesli Ui filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against Atty. Iris Bonifacio on the ground of immorality, for allegedly carrying an immoral relationship with Carlos Ui, her (Lesli) husband. In the proceeding before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline, Iris attached a photocopy of a marriage certificate that said that she and Carlos got married in 1985 but according to the certificate of marriage obtained from the Hawaii State Department of Health, they were married in 1987. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Iris Bonifacio conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred from the practice of law. Held: NO. While a lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct," there is no fixed standard for such conduct. Although circumstances existed which should have irked Bonifacio's suspicion, her act cannot be considered immoral. Immorality connotes conduct that showsindifference to moral norms of society. Moreover, "a member of the bar must so behave himselfas to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moralstandards." Bonifacio's act of immediately distancing herself from complainant's husband uponknowledge of his true civil status avoids the alleged moral indifference--that she had no intention of flouting the law and the high standards of the legal profession. The complaint is dismissed butshe is reprimanded for attaching to her Answer a falsified copy of her marriage certificate.

Figueroa vs. Barranco Facts: Figueroa and Barranco were sweethearts since their teens. Their intimacy eventually resulted to a son born out of wedlock. At this point (1964) Barranco promised Figueroa that he would marry her when he passes the bar examinations. After four takes, he finally passed but did not hold true to his promise of marriage. In 1971, their relationship ended. Years later, he married another woman. When Barranco was about to take his oath to enter the legal profession, Figueroa filed a complaint relaying to the court what happened between her and Barranco. Until 1988, Barranco has filed three motions to dismiss because Figueroa still would not persecute and because for the past years, he has become elected in the Sangguniang Bayan, has actively participated in various civic organizations and has acquired a good standing within his community while the case was pending. The court sought the opinion of the IBP which recommended that Barranco be allowed to take his oath. Figueroa reappeared and intercepted the scheduled oath-taking of Barranco which led to its delay. Issue: Whether or not Barranco should be allowed to take his oath despite the accusations of Figueroa.

Held: Yes. The maintenance of an intimate relationship between a man and a woman, both of whom had no impediment to marry and voluntarily carried on with the affair, does not amount to a grossly immoral conduct even if a child was born out of the relationship. His previous acts may be said to be a question to his moral character but none of these are so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high d egree. Her allegations that she was forced to have sexual relations with him cannot lie as evidenced by her continued cohabitation with him even after their child was born in 1964. The ignobleness of his treatment of Figueroa is sufficiently punished by the 26 years that he has been prevented from entering the profession he has worked so hard for. Donton vs. Tansingco (493 SCRA 1 [June 27, 2006]) Facts: The respondent attorney prepared an Occupancy Agreement recognizing the ownership of a house and lot of Mr. Duane O. Stier, an American citizen disqualified to own land in the Philippines, despite the transfer of title in the name of Peter Donton, a Filipino citizen. Issue: Is the respondent guilty of malpractice? Ans: Yes.

The Court finds respondent liable for violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code. A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client that will involve defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer. By his own admission, respondent admitted that Stier, a U.S. citizen, was disqualified from owning real property. Yet, in his motion for reconsideration, respondent admitted that he caused the transfer of ownership to the parcel of land to Stier. Respondent, however, aware of the prohibition, quickly rectified his act and transferred the title in complainants name. But respondent provided some safeguards by preparing several documents, including the Occupancy Agreement that would guarantee Stiers recognition as the actual owner of the property despite its transfer in complainants name. In effect, respondent advised and aided Stier in circumventing the constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of lands by preparing said documents. Respondent had sworn to uphold the Constitution. Thus, he violated his oath and the Code when he prepared and notarized the Occupancy Agreement to evade the law against foreign ownership of lands. Respondent used his knowledge of the law to achieve an unlawful end. Such an act amounts to malpractice in his office, or which he may be suspended.