LEGAL PROFESSION

Practice of Law and the Legal Profession ( Chapters I, VII, IX, X1V)

Practice of Law, defined

Rule 138, Sec 1

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.

People of the Philippines vs

Simplicio Villanueva
In 1959, Villanueva was charged with Malicious Mischief in the municipality of Alaminos in
Laguna. In said case, the private offended party asked his lawyer friend, Ariston Fule to
prosecute said case. Apparently, Fule was the fiscal in San Pablo, Laguna. Villanueva the
opposed the appearance of Fule as counsel for the offended party as he said that according
to the Rules of Court when an attorney had been appointed to the position of Assistant
Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal and therein qualified, by operation of law, he ceased to engage
in private law practice.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ariston Fule is engaged in private law practice.
HELD: No. Private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the
active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are
available to the public for a compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of
his said services. In the case at bar, Fule is not being compensated but rather he’s doing it
for free for his friend who happened to be the offended party. Practice is more than an isolated
appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same
kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise. Further, the fact that the Secretary of
Justice approved Fule’s appearance for his friend should be given credence.

Mauricio Ulep vs The Legal

Clinic
In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales
was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of
big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of
the latter’s advertisements which contain the following:

SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
8:30am – 6:00pm
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An attorney in Guam is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic
beginning Monday to Friday during office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota
Res. & Special Retiree’s Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees.
Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children.
Call Marivic.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled “Rx for Legal Problems” in
Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated that they The Legal Clinic is composed
of specialists that can take care of a client’s problem no matter how complicated it is even if
it is as complicated as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he and
his staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are “specialists” in various fields, can take care of it.
The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and criminal law, medico-legal problems,
labor, litigation and family law. These specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals,
counselors and attorneys.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the jurisprudence in the
US which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar of Arizona). And that besides, the
advertisement is merely making known to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is
allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not
allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include
various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple documentation
to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly
beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in
the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal
Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly
admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to
practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true,
honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the
legal profession condemn the lawyer’s advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, without
violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner similar to a
merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote
divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law which their
experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best
advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
 fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and
efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and
catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is
right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it and
to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of able
service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated
the following as allowed forms of advertisement:

1. Advertisement in a reputable law list

2. Use of ordinary simple professional card
3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization

CRITERIA IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW

Justice Padilla’s dissent in Cayetano v Monsod

PADILLA, J., dissenting:

The records of this case will show that when the Court first deliberated on the Petition at bar, I voted
not only to require the respondents to comment on the Petition, but I was the sole vote for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order to enjoin respondent Monsod from assuming the position
of COMELEC Chairman, while the Court deliberated on his constitutional qualification for the office.
My purpose in voting for a TRO was to prevent the inconvenience and even embarrassment to all
parties concerned were the Court to finally decide for respondent Monsod's disqualification.
Moreover, a reading of the Petition then in relation to established jurisprudence already
showed prima facie that respondent Monsod did not possess the needed qualification, that is, he
had not engaged in the practice of law for at least ten (10) years prior to his appointment as
COMELEC Chairman.

After considering carefully respondent Monsod's comment, I am even more convinced that the
constitutional requirement of "practice of law for at least ten (10) years" has not been met.

The procedural barriers interposed by respondents deserve scant consideration because, ultimately,
the core issue to be resolved in this petition is the proper construal of the constitutional provision
requiring a majority of the membership of COMELEC, including the Chairman thereof to "have been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten (10) years." (Art. IX(C), Section 1(1), 1987
Constitution). Questions involving the construction of constitutional provisions are best left to judicial
resolution. As declared in Angara v. Electoral Commission, (63 Phil. 139) "upon the judicial
department is thrown the solemn and inescapable obligation of interpreting the Constitution and
defining constitutional boundaries."

The Constitution has imposed clear and specific standards for a COMELEC Chairman. Among these
are that he must have been "engaged in the practice of law for at least ten (10) years." It is the
bounden duty of this Court to ensure that such standard is met and complied with.

What constitutes practice of law? As commonly understood, "practice" refers to the actual
performance or application of knowledge as distinguished from mere possession of knowledge; it
connotes an active, habitual, repeated or customary action.1 To "practice" law, or any profession for
that matter, means, to exercise or pursue an employment or profession actively, habitually,
repeatedly or customarily.

Therefore, a doctor of medicine who is employed and is habitually performing the tasks of a nursing
aide, cannot be said to be in the "practice of medicine." A certified public accountant who works as a
clerk, cannot be said to practice his profession as an accountant. In the same way, a lawyer who is
employed as a business executive or a corporate manager, other than as head or attorney of a
Legal Department of a corporation or a governmental agency, cannot be said to be in the practice of
law.

Anent Justice Teodoro Padilla's separate opinion, suffice it to say that his definition of the practice of
law is the traditional or stereotyped notion of law practice, as distinguished from the modern concept
of the practice of law, which modern connotation is exactly what was intended by the eminent
framers of the 1987 Constitution. Moreover, Justice Padilla's definition would require generally a
habitual law practice, perhaps practised two or three times a week and would outlaw say, law
practice once or twice a year for ten consecutive years. Clearly, this is far from the constitutional
intent.

Practice of Law, Concepts

-impressed with public interest (1987 Constitution, Art 7, sec 5, par 5)

Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,

pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for
all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.
Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court.

GARRIDO vs. GARRIDO

Facts:The petitioner, the respondent’s legal wife, filed a complaint-affidavit and a

supplementalaffidavit for disbarment against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty.
Romana P.Valencia before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Discipline,
chargingthem with gross immorality, in violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01, of the Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility. The complaint arose after the petitioner caught wind through her
daughter that her husband was having an affair with a woman other than his wife and already had
achild with her; and the same information was confirmed when oner of her daughters saw thather
husband walking in a Robinsons mall with the other respondent, Atty. Valencia, with their child in
tow. After a much further investigation into the matter, the time and effort given yielded resultstelling
her that Atty. Valencia and her legal husband had been married in Hong Kong.Moreover, on June
1993, her husband left their conjugal home and joined Atty. RamonaPaguida Valencia at their
residence, and has since failed to render much needed financialsupport. In their defense, they
postulated that they were not lawyers as of yet when theycommitted the supposed immorality, so as
such, they were not guilty of a violation of Canon1, Rule 1.01.Issue:Whether or not Atty. Garrido’s
and Valencia’s actions constitute a violation of Canon 1, Rule1.01 and thus a good enough cause for
their disbarment, despite the offense beingsupposedly committed when they were not
lawyers.Held:Yes. Membership in the Bar is a privilege, and as a privilege bestowed by law through
theSupreme Court, membership in the Bar can be withdrawn where circumstances show thelawyer’s
lack of the essential qualifications required of lawyers, be they academic or moral.In the present
case, the Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty. Angel E.Garrido and Atty. Rowena
P. Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of Canon 1,Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which commands that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. Furthermore, The contention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers when
they got married shall not afford them exemption from sanctions; good moral character was already
required as a condition precedent to admission to the Bar. As a lawyer, a person whom the
community looked up to, Atty. Garrido and Valencia were shouldered with the expectation that they
would set a good example in promoting obedience to the Constitution and the laws. When they
violated the law and distorted it to cater to his own personal needs and selfish motives, not only did
their actions discredit the legal profession. Such actions by themselves, without even including the
fact of Garrido’s abandonment of paternal responsibility, to the detriment of his children by the
petitioner; or the fact that Valencia married Garrido despite knowing of his other marriages to two
other women including the petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of moral values not consistent
with the proper conduct of practicing lawyers within the country. As such, their disbarment is
affirmed.

-not a money-making venture

CANONS 2 AND 3

MARY MALECDAN vs. PEKAS and KOLLINA.C. No. 5830. January 26, 2004

Facts:

Atty Pekas and Kollin substituted Atty. Bustamante as a counsels for the Fanged Spouses.
Petitioner Malecdan bought a parcel of land located in Baguio City from the Fanged spouses. The
money was received by Eliza Fanged and deposited in the account of Atty. Artemio Bustamante,
then counsel for the latter. The complainant later found out, however, that the said lot was the
subject of a controversy between the former owners and the Fanged Spouses. Then Kollin replaced
Bustamante. He filed for a petition for rescission over the contract of sale, without returning the
amount of money to Malecdan. While Malecdan was in the US, the Fanged spouses, Atty
Bustamante and the PCIB (bank) signed a compromised contract, and Malecdanwas not made a
signatory to such contract. They caused the transfer of P30K from the accountof Bustamante to a
separate account for Kollin and Pekas as attorney’s fees.Now, Malecdan files a case for disbarment
against Kollin and Pekas, because not only was she prejudiced from such withdrawal of money, but
they also committed acts against the IBP in contravention/violation to the lawyer’s oath that they
shall uphold the laws of the land.

Issue: WON Kollin and Pekas should be suspended? YES

Held:

It is a settled principle that the compensation of a lawyer should be but a mere incident of the
practice of law, the primary purpose of which is to render public service. The practice of law is a
profession and not a money-making trade. The process of imbibing ethical standards can begin with
the simple act of openness and candor in dealing with clients, which would progress thereafter
towards the ideal that a lawyer’s vocation is not synonymous with an ordinary business proposition
but a serious matter of public interest.

DECISION: Pekas suspended for 6 months, Kollin for 3 years.

-privilege burdened with condition, to some degree right

Torben Overgaard vs Godwin Valdez

A.C. no. 7902 March 31, 2009

Facts:

Overgaard engaged the services of Atty. Valdez as his legal counsel in two
cases filed by him and two cases filed against him.
Torben Overgaard filed a disbarment case against Atty. Valdez for despite the
receipt of the full amount of legal fees ofP900,000.00 as stipulated in a
Retainer Agreement, Valdez refused to perform any of his obligations under
their and, ignored the Overgaard’s request for report of the status of the
cases entrusted, and rejected the complainants demands for the return of the
money paid to him.
For his part, Atty. Valdez failed to neither answer the complaint against him
nor attend the hearing even with due notice.
On September 30, 2008 the Court found Valdez to be guilty of violations of
the canons of Code of Professional Responsibility his name was ordered to be
stricken the roll of attorneys.
October 21, 2008 filed a Motion for Reconsideration. He argued that he have
no knowledge of the disbarment case filed against him. In September 2006
he abandoned his Makati office and Cavite residence and moved his office in
Bukidnon where he also resided due to a threat on his person, and he was not
able to receive the demands of Overgaard or orders and notices pertaining to
the disbarment case.
He also argued that he gave the Overgaard legal advice, and that he searched
for and interviewed witnesses in relation to the cases he was handling for the
latter. As for the 900, 000.00 pesos, he claimed that he gave 300,000.00 to
two intelligence operatives to locate witnesses. He offered to return
250,000.00 but Overgaard’s partner refused to accept. But he was not able to
present receipt made by the intelligence operatives nor other certification or
receipts on how the money was spent to provide sufficient accounting.
Held:
In abruptly abandoning his law office without advising his client and without
making sure that the cases he was handling for his client were properly
attended to during his absence, and without making arrangements whereby
he would receive important mail, the Valdez is clearly guilty of gross
negligence. A lawyer cannot simply disappear and abandon his clients and
then rely on the convenient excuse that there were threats to his safety. Even
assuming that there were serious threats to his person, this did not give him
the permission to desert his client and leave the cases entrusted to his care
hanging. He should have at least exercised reasonable and ordinary care and
diligence by taking steps to ensure that the cases he was handling were
attended to and that his clients interest was safeguarded. If it was not possible
for him to handle the cases entrusted to his care, he should have informed
the complainant of his predicament and asked that he be allowed to withdraw
from the case to enable the client to engage the services of another counsel
who could properly present him.

The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. This Courts en banc decision in

Administrative Case No. 7902 dated September 30, 2008, entitled Torben B.
Overgaard v. Atty. Godwin R. Valdez, is AFFIRMED