Monsod vs cayetano

Legal Ethics – Practice of Law

In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission on Elections.
His appointment was affirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Monsod’s appointment
was opposed by Renato Cayetano on the ground that he does not qualify for he failed to
meet the Constitutional requirement which provides that the chairman of the COMELEC
should have been engaged in the practice law for at least ten years.
Monsod’s track record as a lawyer:

1. Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%.

2. Immediately after passing, worked in his father’s law firm for one year.
3. Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he had a degree in economics and held
various positions in various foreign corporations.
4. In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for various local corporations
until 1986.
5. In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.

ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the COMELEC. What constitutes
practice of law?
HELD: Yes. Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-
manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-
legislator of both the rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional
requirement — that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to court appearances. The
members of the bench and bar and the informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in
most developed societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted in law offices
than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do both litigation and non-litigation
work also know that in most cases they find themselves spending more time doing what is
loosely described as business counseling than in trying cases. In the course of a working
day the average general practitioner wig engage in a number of legal tasks, each involving
different legal doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other
interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized practice wig
usually perform at least some legal services outside their specialty. By no means will most
of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is one of the relatively rare types — a
litigator who specializes in this work to the exclusion of much else. Instead, the work will
require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of traditional lawyer skills of client
counseling, advice-giving, document drafting, and negotiation.

People v. Hon. Bonifacio Maceda

January 24, 2000

This case stems from denial by the SC of the People’s motion seeking reconsideration of our
August 13, 1990 decision holding that respondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda committed no
grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of August 8, 1989 giving custody over private
respondent Avelino T. Javellana to the Clerk of Court of the Antique RTC, Atty. Deogracias del
Rosario, during the pendency of Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355. At that time, sufficient reason
was shown why Javellana should not be detained at the Antique Provincial Jail. The trial court’s
order specifically provided for private respondent’s detention at the residence of Atty. del
Rosario. However, private respondent was not to be allowed liberty to roam around but was to be
held as detention prisoner in said residence. It was howevere found that the order was not strictly
complied with because Javellana was not detained in the residence of Atty. Del Rosario. He went
about his normal activities as if he were a free man, including engaging in the practice of law.

Held:

Private respondent Javellana has been arrested based on the filing of criminal cases against him.
By such arrest, he is deemed to be under the custody of the law. The trial court gave Atty.
Deogracias del Rosario the custody of private respondent Javellana with the obligation “to hold
and detain” him in Atty. del Rosario’s residence in his official capacity as the clerk of court of the
regional trial court. Hence, when Atty. del Rosario was appointed judge, he ceased to be the
personal custodian of accused Javellana and the succeeding clerk of court must be deemed the
custodian under the same undertaking.

As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed placed under
the custody of the law. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound
to answer for the commission of the offense. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of
the case against him, unless he is authorized by the court to be released on bail or on
recognizance. Let it be stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving
final sentence can not practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation, or hold
office, elective or appointive, while in detention.

OCA vs lagada

FACTS: Atty. Ladaga, an RTC Branch Clerk of Court, acted as pro bono
counsel for a relative in a criminal case, without the previous authority from the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as required by the Administrative Code. An
administrative complaint was filed against Atty. Ladaga for practicing law
without permission from the Department Head (CJ) as required by law. Atty.
Ladaga justified his appearance as he merely gave a free legal assistance to a
relative and that he was on an approved leave of absence during his
appearances as such counsel. Moreover, the presiding judge of the court to
which he is assigned knew his appearances as such counsel.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Ladaga’s appearances as a pro bono counsel for a
relative constitutes practice of law as prohibited by the Administrative Code.

HELD: No. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of the statute should
be customarily or habitually holding one’s self to the public as a lawyer and
demanding payment for such services. It does not pertain to isolated court
appearances as in this case. Nevertheless, for his failure to obtain a prior
permission from the head of the Department (CJ) as required by law,
respondent was reprimanded.

ALMAZEN

31 SCRA 562 – Legal Ethics – A Lawyer’s Right to Criticize the Courts

Atty. Almacen was the counsel of one Virginia Yaptinchay in a civil case. They lost in said
civil case but Almacen filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He notified the opposing party of
said motion but he failed to indicate the time and place of hearing of said motion. Hence, his
motion was denied. He then appealed but the Court of Appeals denied his appeal as it
agreed with the trial court with regard to the motion for reconsideration. Eventually, Almacen
filed an appeal on certiorari before the Supreme Court which outrightly denied his appeal in
a minute resolution.
This earned the ire of Almacen who called such minute resolutions as unconstitutional. He
then filed before the Supreme Court a petition to surrender his lawyer’s certificate of title as
he claimed that it is useless to continue practicing his profession when members of the high
court are men who are calloused to pleas for justice, who ignore without reasons their own
applicable decisions and commit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity. He
further alleged that due to the minute resolution, his client was made to pay P120k without
knowing the reasons why and that he became “one of the sacrificial victims before the altar
of hypocrisy.” He also stated “that justice as administered by the present members of the
Supreme Court is not only blind, but also deaf and dumb.”
The Supreme Court did not immediately act on Almacen’s petition as the Court wanted to
wait for Almacen to ctually surrender his certificate. Almacen did not surrender his lawyer’s
certificate though as he now argues that he chose not to. Almacen then asked that he may
be permitted “to give reasons and cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against
him . . . in an open and public hearing.” He said he preferred this considering that the
Supreme Court is “the complainant, prosecutor and Judge.” Almacen was however
unapologetic.
ISSUE: Whether or not Almacen should be disciplined.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court first clarified that minute resolutions are needed because
the Supreme Court cannot accept every case or write full opinion for every petition they
reject otherwise the High Court would be unable to effectively carry out its constitutional
duties. The proper role of the Supreme Court is to decide “only those cases which present
questions whose resolutions will have immediate importance beyond the particular facts
and parties involved.” It should be remembered that a petition to review the decision of the
Court of Appeals is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion; and so there is no
need to fully explain the court’s denial. For one thing, the facts and the law are already
mentioned in the Court of Appeals’ opinion.
On Almacen’s attack against the Supreme Court, the High Court regarded said criticisms as
uncalled for; that such is insolent, contemptuous, grossly disrespectful and derogatory. It is
true that a lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, has the right to criticize in
properly respectful terms and through legitimate channels the acts of courts and
judges. His right as a citizen to criticize the decisions of the courts in a fair and respectful
manner, and the independence of the bar, as well as of the judiciary, has always been
encouraged by the courts. But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be
bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. Intemperate and unfair
criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.
In the case at bar, Almacen’s criticism is misplaced. As a veteran lawyer, he should have
known that a motion for reconsideration which failed to notify the opposing party of the time
and place of trial is a mere scrap of paper and will not be entertained by the court. He has
only himself to blame and he is the reason why his client lost. Almacen was suspended
indefinitely.

IN RE: VICTORIO
LANUEVO(former Bar
confidant)
RAMON GALANG (1971 Bar Examinee) flunked in 1969, 1966-76, 1962-64 Bar exam

FACTS:
Administrative proceeding against Victorio Lanuevo for disbarment.

1. Admitted having brought the five examination notebooks of Ramon E. Galang back to the
respective examiners for re-evalution or re-checking.
2. The five examiners admitted having re-evaluated or re-checked the notebook to him by the
Bar Confidant, stating that he has the authority to do the same and that the examinee
concerned failed only in his particular subject and was on the borderline of passing.
3. Ramon galang was able to pass the 1971 bar exam because of Lanuevo’s move but the
exam results bears that he failed in 5 subjects namely in (Political, Civil, Mercantile, Criminal
& Remedial).
4. Galang on the otherhand, denied of having charged of Slight Physical Injuries on Eufrosino
de Vera, a law student of MLQU.
RULING:
The court disbarred Lanuevo – has no authority to request the examiners to re-evaluate grades of
examinees w/o prior authority from Supreme Court.
He does not possess any discretion with respect to the matter of admission of examinees to the
bar. He does not a have any business evaluating the answers of the examinees.

Consequently, Galang was also disbarred Sec. 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Curt of 1964,
candidates for admission to the bar must be of good moral character. Galang has a pending
criminal cases of Physical Injuries, he committed perjury when he declared under oath that he had
no pending criminal case this resulted him to revoked his license.