SALLY D. BONGALONTAvs.ATTY. PABLITO M. CASTILLO andALFONSO M.

MARTIJA

FACTS:
Sally Bongalonta charged Pablito M. Castillo and Alfonso M. Martija, members of thePhilippine
Bar, with unjust and unethical conduct, to wit representing con!icting interests andabetting a
scheme to frustrate the e"ecution or satisfaction of a judgment which complainantmight obtain.
#he letter$complaint stated that complainant %led with the &egional #rial Court of Pasig,for
estafa, against the Sps. 'uisa and Solomer Abuel. She also %led, a separate civil action, whereshe
was able to obtain a writ of preliminary attachment and by virtue thereof, a piece of realproperty
situated in Pasig, &i(al and registered in the name of the Sps. Abuel. Atty. PablitoCastillo was the
counsel of the Sps. Abuel in the aforesaid criminal and civil cases.)uring the pendency of these
cases, one *regorio 'antin %led a civil case for collection of a sum of money based on a
promissory note, also with the Pasig &egional #rial Court, against theSps. Abuel. +n the said case
*regorio 'antin was represented by Atty. Alfonso Martija. +n this case,the Sps. Abuel were
declared in default for their failure to %le the necessary responsive pleadingand evidence
ex-parte
was received against them followed by a judgment by default rendered infavor of *regorio 'antin.
A writ of e"ecution was, in due time, issued and the same propertypreviously attached by
complainant was levied upon. +t is further alleged that in all the pleadings %led in these three -
 aforementioned cases,Atty. Pablito Castillo and Atty. Alfonso Martija placed the same address,
the same P#& and thesame +BP receipt number. #hus, complainant concluded that the civil case
%led by *regorio'antin was merely a part of the scheme of the Sps. Abuel to frustrate the
satisfaction of themoney judgment which complainant might obtain in the civil case he %led.After
hearing, the +BP Board of *overnors issued it &esolution with the following %ndingsand
recommendations/01&123&1, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Pablito M. Castillo
beS4SP15)1) from the practice of law for a period of si" 6  months for using the +BP37cial
&eceipt 5o. of his co$respondent Atty. Alfonso M. Martija.#he complaint againstAtty. Martija is
hereby )+SM+SS1) for lac8 of evidence.
ISSUE:
/hether or not respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional &esponsibility9
RULING:
#he Court agreed with the foregoing findings and recommendations. #he practice of law isnot a
right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, andcontinue to
possess, the qualifications re:uired by law for the conferment of such privilege. 3neof these
re:uirements is the observance of honesty and candor. Courts are entitled to e"pectonly complete
candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. Alawyer, on the other
hand, has the fundamental duty to satisfy that e"pectation, for this reason,he is re:uired to swear to
do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court.

CASE DIGEST
RENATO CAYETANO vs. CHRISTIAN MONSOD
G.R. No. 100113. September 3, 1991.
FACTS:
Monsod was nominated by President Aquino as Chairman of the Comelec. The Commission on
Appointments confirmed the appointment despite Cayetano's objection, based on Monsod's
alleged lack of the required qualification of 10 year law practice. Cayetano filed this certiorari and
prohibition. 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:
1. Whether or not Monsod has been engaged in the practice of law for 10 years.

2. Whether or not the Commission on Appointments committed grave abuse of discretion in

confirming Monsod’s appointment.

HELD:
1. YES. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court. It embraces
the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the
management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients, and other works where the work
done involves the determination of the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions
(PLA vs. Agrava.) The records of the 1986 constitutional commission show that the interpretation
of the term practice of law was liberal as to consider lawyers employed in the Commission of
Audit as engaged in the practice of law provided that they use their legal knowledge or talent in
their respective work. The court also cited an article in the January 11, 1989 issue of the Business
Star, that lawyers nowadays have their own specialized fields such as tax lawyers, prosecutors,
etc., that because of the demands of their specialization, lawyers engage in other works or
functions to meet them. These days, for example, most corporation lawyers are involved in
management policy formulation. Therefore, Monsod, who passed the bar in 1960, worked with the
World Bank Group from 1963-1970, then worked for an investment bank till 1986, became
member of the CONCOM in 1986, and also became a member of the Davide Commission in
1990, can be considered to have been engaged in the practice of law as lawyer-economist, lawyer-
manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, etc.

2. NO. The power of the COA to give consent to the nomination of the Comelec Chairman by the
president is mandated by the constitution. The power of appointment is essentially within the
discretion of whom it is so vested subject to the only condition that the appointee should possess
the qualification required by law. From the evidence, there is no occasion for the SC to exercise its
corrective power since there is no such grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA.

PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION vs AGRAVA

G.R. No. L-12426 February 16, 1959

FACTS:

Herein petitioner filed for prohibition and injunction against respondent Agrava, the Director of
Philippines Patent Office due to a circular the latter issued scheduling an examination for
determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office.

Petitioner contended that one who has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme
Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good standing, is duly qualified to practice
before the Philippines Patent Office, and that Agrava is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in
violation of the law for requiring such examination as condition precedent before members of the
bar may be allowed to represent applicants in the preparation and prosecution of applications for
patents. Undaunted, Agrava argued that that the prosecution of patent cases does not involve
entirely or purely the practice of law and that the Rules of Court do not prohibit the Patent Office
from requiring further condition or qualification from those who would wish to handle cases
before the Patent Office.

ISSUE:

Whether appearance before the Patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution of patent
applications, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law

HELD:

Yes. The practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent Office, the representation of
applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications for patent, their
oppositions thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. Although the transaction of
business in the Patent Office involves the use and application of technical and scientific
knowledge and training, still, all such business has to be rendered in accordance with the Patent
Law, as well as other laws, including the Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Patent Office
in accordance with law. All these things involve the applications of laws, legal principles, practice
and procedure. They call for legal knowledge, training and experience for which a member of the
bar has been prepared.

　　　　As stated in 5 Am. Jur,

“The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the
preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and social proceedings, the
management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in
addition, conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters
connected with the law corporation services, assessment and condemnation services
contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of
a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice as
do the preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the
determination by the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions.”

The Supreme Court ruled that under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by
the Supreme Court to practice law, and in good standing, may practice their profession before the
Patent Office, since much of the business in said office involves the interpretation and
determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well as
the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved; that part of the functions of the Patent
director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that appeals from his orders and decisions are,
taken to the Supreme Court.

DUTIES OF A LAWYER, Failure to apply proper legal mattersEmilia R. Hernandez v. Atty.

Venancio B. PadillaA.C. No. 9387, June 20, 2012Sereno, J.:

FACTS:
The records show that Emilia Hernandez and her husband were the respondents in
anejectment case filed against them by Duigan with the RTC which ruled in favor of
complainant.Hernandez appealed with Court of Appeals ordering them to file their Appellants’
Brief. On theirbehalf, Atty. Venancio Padilla filed a Memorandum on Appeal instead of an
Appellants’ Brief.Thus, Duigan filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal which the CA granted. A
disbarment case was then filed by Emilia Hernandez against her lawyer, Atty. Venancio B.Padilla,
for negligence in the handling of her case. It was claimed that by ignoring the resolution,the
lawyer acted with "deceit, unfaithfulness amounting to malpractice of law". It was also raisedthat
when asked about the status of the appeal, Atty. Padilla failed to inform them of the
adversedecision. In his defense, respondent argued that he was not the lawyer of complainant as he
had nevermet the complainant. The respondent claimed that he filed a Memorandum on Appeal
becausehe honestly believed that it is this pleading which was required.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Padilla has neglected the legal matters entrusted to him by
improperlysubmitting a wrong motion.

HELD:
Yes. Regardless of the particular pleading his client may have believed to be necessary, it
wasrespondent’s duty to know the proper pleading to be filed in appeals from RTC decisions. As
alitigator, he was expected to know the proper procedure. Canon 5 of the Code reads that alawyer
shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal
educationprograms, support efforts to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the
practical
training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding the law
andjurisprudence.The supposed lack of time given to respondent to acquaint him with the facts of
the case doesnot excuse his negligence. Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall not
handle anylegal matter without adequate preparation. While it is true that respondent
was notcomplainant’s lawyer from the trial to the appellate court stage, this fact did not excuse
him fromhis duty to diligently study a case he had agreed to handle. If he felt he did not have
enoughtime to study the pertinent matters involved, as he was approached by complainant’s
husbandonly two days before the expiration of the period for filing the Appellant’s Brief,
respondentshould have filed a motion for extension of time to file the proper pleading instead of
whateverpleading he could come up with, just to beat the deadline set by the Court of Appeals.The
failure of respondent to file the proper pleading and a comment is negligence on his part.Under
18.03 of the Code, a lawyer is liable for negligence in handling the client’s case. Lawyersshould
not neglect legal matters entrusted to them, otherwise their negligence in fulfilling theirduty would
render them liable for disciplinary action.Thus, Atty. Venancio Padilla is suspended him from the
practice of law for 6 mon