Cayetano vs. Monsod 201 SCRA 210 September 1991 The contention that Atty.
n that Atty. Monsod does not posses the
September 1991
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 posses 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: Whether the respondent does not posses the
required qualification of having engaged in the practice
of law for at least ten years.
Held: In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs.
Agrava, stated: 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 proceeding, 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 incorporation
services, assessment and condemnation services,
contemplating an appearance before judicial body, the
foreclosure of 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. Practice of law means any activity, in or
out court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience.
required qualification of having engaged in the practice
of law for at least ten years is incorrect since Atty.
Monsod’s past work experience as a lawyer-economist,
a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator
of both rich and the poor – verily more than satisfy the
constitutional requirement for the position of COMELEC
chairman, The respondent has been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years does In the view of
the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.
PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION vs. CELEDONIO
AGRAVA
G.R. No. L-12426. February 16, 1959.
FACTS:
On may 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular
announcing that he had scheduled an examination for
the purpose of determining who are qualified to
practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines
Patent Office. According to the circular, members of the
Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons with
sufficient scientific and technical training are qualified
to take the said examination. The petitioner contends
that one who has passed the bar examination sand 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
the respondent Director’s holding an examination for
the purpose is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in
violation of the law.The respondent, in reply, maintains
the prosecution of patent cases “ does not involve
entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the
application of scientific and technical knowledge and
training as a matter of actual practice so as to include
engineers and other individuals who passed the
examination can practice before the Patent office.
Furthermore, he stressed that for the long time he is
holding tests, this is the first time that his right has been
questioned formally.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appearance before the patent
Office and the preparation and the prosecution of
patent application, etc., constitutes or is included in the
practice of law.
HELD:
The Supreme Court held that 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 opposition thereto, or the enforcement of
their rights in patent cases. Moreover, the practice
before the patent Office involves the interpretation and
application of other laws and legal principles, as well as
the existence of facts to be established in accordance
with the law of evidence and procedure. The practice of
law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in
court but also embraces all other matters connected
with the law and any work involving the determination
by the legal mind of the legal effects of facts and
conditions. Furthermore, the law provides that any
party may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final
order or decision of the director. Thus, if the
transactions of business in the Patent Office involved
exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge
and training, then logically, the appeal should be taken
not to a court or judicial body, but rather to a board of
scientists, engineers or technical men, which is not the
case.
Hernandez vs. Atty. Padilla
A.C. No. 9387, June 20, 2012
Re: Disbarment case filed by Emilia Hernandez
(complainant) against her lawyer, Atty. Venancio B.
Padilla (respondent) of Padilla Padilla Bautista Law
Offices, for his alleged negligence in the handling of her
case.
Facts:
Complainant and her husband were the
respondents in an ejectment case filed against
them. The RTC ordered that the Deed of Sale executed
in favor of complainant be cancelled; and that the latter
pay the complainant therein, Elisa Duigan, attorney’s
fees and moral damages. Complainant and her
husband filed their Notice of Appeal with the
RTC.T hereafter, the Court of Appeals (CA) ordered
them to file their Appellants’ Brief. But the respondent
instead of an Appellants’ Brief filed a Memorandum on
Appeal instead of an Appellants’ Brief. Thus, Duigan
filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal. The CA granted
the Motion in a Resolution. Complainant and her
husband failed to file an appeal on the Resolution,
because respondent never informed them of the
adverse decision. Complainant further claims that she
asked respondent “several times” about the status of
the appeal, but “despite inquiries he deliberately
withheld response,” to the damage and prejudice of the
spouses. Hence, Complainant filed an Affidavit of
Complaint with the Committee on Bar Discipline of
the IBP seeking the disbarment of respondent
on grounds of deceit, malpractice, and grave
misconduct. Complainant prays for moral damages in
the amount of 350,000.₱The Director of Bar
Discipline ordered respondent to submit an
answer to the Complaint. In his Counter-
Affidavit/Answer respondent prayed for the outright
dismissal of the Complaint. He explained that he was
not the lawyer of complainant. He averred that prior to
the mandatory conference set by the IBP he had never
met complainant, because it was her husband
who had personally transacted with him.
According to respondent, the husband
“despondently pleaded to me to prepare a
Memorandum on Appeal because according to him the
period given by the CA was to lapse within two or three
days.” Thus, respondent claims that he filed a
Memorandum on Appeal because he honestly believed
that “it is this pleading which was required. The IBP
Investigating Commissioner found that respondent
violated Canons 5, 17,and 18 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (the Code) and
recommended suspension from practicing law from 3 to
6 months. The IBP board of governors of the
IBP issued A Resolution adopting and approving the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner. Upon Motion the IBP board of governors
partly granted by reducing the penalty imposed to one-
month suspension from the practice of law.
Issue: WON respondent is guilty of malpractice, deceit
and grave misconduct.

Ruling:.
The SC adopted the factual findings of the board of
governors of the IBP but, thesix-month suspension the
Board originally imposed. Acceptance of money from a
client establishes an attorney-client relationship
andgives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause.
Once a lawyer agrees to handle acase, it is that
lawyer’s duty to serve the client with
competence and diligence.Respondent has failed to
fulfill this duty. Regardless of the particular pleading his
clientmay have believed to be necessary, it was
respondent’s duty to know the proper pleading to be
filed in appeals from RTC decisions. Respondent, as a
litigator, was expected to know the procedure and this
is embodied in Canon 5 of the Code. Respondent’s plea
for leniency should not have been granted. The
supposed lack of time given to respondent to acquaint
himself with the facts of the case does not excuse his
negligence. Rule 18.02 of the Code provides that a
lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without
adequate preparation. Second, respondent, as counsel,
had the duty to inform his clients of the status of their
case. His failure to do so amounted to a violation of
Rule 18.04 of the Code. Lastly, the failure of
respondent to file the proper pleading and a
comment on Duigan’s Motion to Dismiss is negligence
on his part. Under 18.03 of the Code, a lawyer is liable
for negligence in handling the client’s case. Lawyers
should not neglect legal matters entrusted to
them, otherwise their negligence in fulfilling their
duty would render them liable for disciplinary action.
Respondent has failed to live up to his duties as a
lawyer. When a lawyer violates his duties to his client,
he engages in unethical and unprofessional conduct for
which he should be held accountable.
Spouses David and Marisa Williams v. Atty. Rudy T.
Enriquez
February 27, 2006
Facts:
Atty. Enriquez, a retired judge, stands charged with
“unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful acts in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
the Canons of Professional Ethics, and with conduct
unbecoming an attorney.” filed by the petitioner.
Marisa Williams bought the lot subject of the
controversy, a TCT was then issued in her favor, stating
that she is “Filipino, married to David W. Williams, an
American citizen.”
Respondent charged her with falsification of public
documents before the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Dumaguete City, declaring that her “act of marrying”
her husband was equivalent to renouncing her
citizenship. He also doggedly attempts to show that the
1987 Constitution supports his position
Enriquez cited outdated materials in his complaint -
affidavit, to argue that Marisa had lost her filipino
citizenship when she married an american and is this
prohibited from owning land in the ph - making her
guilty of falsification in the deed to buy property in
Negros oriental. The complaint for his disbarment was
a mere tactic to divert attention to the criminal charges
against her.
The case was brought to Integrated Bar of the
Philippines. - respondent only appeared in P's position
paper: respondent had maliciously and knowingly
fabricated cases against them and his acts were mere
form of extortion. Respondent maintained that
complainant Marisa Williams was no longer a citizen of
the Republic of the Philippines as a result of her
marriage to David Williams.
Ruling:
There is no evidence shown by respondent that
complainant has renounced her Filipino citizenship
except her Certificate of Marriage, which does not show
that she has automatically acquired her husband’s
citizenship upon her marriage to him. The cases cited by
respondent are not applicable in this case as it is clear
that they refer to aliens acquiring lands in the
Philippines.
Lawyers must keep themselves abreast of legal
developments. He must acquaint himself at least with
the newly promulgated laws, the recent decisions of the
Supreme Court and of the significant decisions of the
Court of Appeals. There are other executive orders,
administrative circulars, regulations and other rules
promulgated by other competent authorities engaged
in the administration of justice. The lawyer’s life is one
of continuous and laborious study, otherwise, his skill
and knowledge of the law and related disciplines will lag
behind and become obscure due to obsoleteness
(Canon 5, Code of Professional Responsibility.)
Indeed when the law is so elementary, not to know it
constitutes gross ignorance, but since the respondent
was a retired judge it is incumbent upon him to be
abreast with the latest rulings of the court on the issues
and legal problems confronting a client - he
misconstrued the constitution which is the basic law of
the land.
The power to disbar or suspend must be exercised with
great caution and only for a clear case of misconduct
that seriously affects the standing and character of a
lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the
bar. The penalty of reprimand by the IBP commission on
bar discipline will suffice with it having been his first
infraction
WHEREFORE, for gross ignorance of the law, Atty. Rudy
T. Enriquez is REPRIMANDED and ADVISED to carefully
study the opinions he may give to his clients. He is
STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar act shall
be dealt with more severely.
IGOY v SORIANO
FACTS:
Igoy is one of the petitioners in the case of Heirs of
Gavino Igoy, et al. vs. Mactan Shangrila Hotel.
Eng. William Redoblado introduced Atty. Soriano to
Igoy as a Justice of the CA.
According to Igoy’s friend, Atty. Soriano will be able to
help him in his case which is pending in the CA
Atty. Soriano demanded from Igoy P20,000 but the
former reminded the latter the he will only be able to
help in the case as soon as the case was lifted to the SC
•Igoy’s case received an unfavorable decision in the CA
and Atty. Soriano offered to prepare the Petition for
Review to be filed in the SC.
•Atty. Soriano asked for an additional P20,000
•Igoy send the amount by courier to the address of
Atty. Soriano which was received by his son.
•SC denied the petition for review of Igoy with finality
•Igoy later found out that Atty. Soriano is not a CA
Justice and filed this complaint against Igoy in the SC
•Arguments of Atty. Soriano:
o It is unnatural for a person to give money to
someone whom he does not know well and whom he
met only for the first time
o The money was offered gratuitously by Igoy
o it is impossible the Igoy handed the money to
him on the SC parking lot for many employees were
passing in that place
o it is not Eng. Redoblado who introduced him to
Igoy but Mr. Taneo
o if the SC finds that he is guilty, he will retire
from the service
•Atty. Soriano filed his letter of resignation/retirement
under RA 1616
ISSUE:
•W/N Atty. Soriano violated Canon 6, Rule 6.02 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD:
•Yes! Atty. Soriano was dismissed from the service with
forfeiture of all retirement benefits and is suspended
from the practice of law.
•Atty. Soriano’s offer to resign was obviously an
attempt to evade whatever penalty may be imposed on
him. However, resignation will not extricate him form
the consequences of his acts
•Resignation should not be used either as an escape or
an easy way out to evade administrative liability by
court personnel facing administrative sanctions
•To accept the claim of Soriano that the money was
offered gratuitously will open the floodgates to fraud or
graft and corruption.
•Government lawyers who are public servants owe
utmost fidelity to the public service for public service is
a public trust. Government lawyers should be more
sensitive to their professional obligations as their
reputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the
public eye.

•The nature and responsibilities of public officers

enshrined in the Constitution are not mere rhetorical
words to be taken lightly as idealistic sentiments but as
working standards and attainable goals that should e
matched with actual deeds.