Cayetano vs.

Monsod 201 SCRA 210 September 1991

Cayetano vs. Monsod

201 SCRA 210

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 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: Whether the respondent does not possess 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.

The contention that Atty. Monsod does not possess the 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.
Query of Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, Former Clerk of Court- Branch 81, Romblon,
Romblon-On The Prohibition From Engaging In the Private Practice of Law FACTS:
Atty. Buffe previously worked as Clerk of Court VI of the RTC, Branch 81 of Romblon, she
resigned from her position effective February 1, 2008. Thereafter, she engaged in the private
practice of law by appearing as private counsel in several cases before RTC Branch 81 of
Romblon within 1 year after the effectivity of her resignation.
RA
6713, “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees”,
Section 7(b)(2)
places a limitation on public officials and employees during their incumbency and those already
separated from government employment for a period of one (1) year after separation, in
engaging in the private practice of their profession.
SECTION 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions.
–
In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the
Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited actsand transactions of
any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful: x x x (b) Outside
employment and other activities related thereto.
–
Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not: x x x (2)
Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law,
provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official
functions;
or
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after resignation,
retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2) above,
but the professional concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter
before the office he used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise apply.

ISSUE:
WON Atty. Buffe is guilty of professional misconduct.
HELD: YES.
She was fined in the amount of P10,000 and a stern warning that a repetition of the same
violation and other acts of professional misconduct shall be dealt with more severely. The letter-
query
“Why an incumbent can engage in private practice assuming not in conflict with his
official duties but a non-
incumbent may not as is apparently prohibited under last par. of Sec 7”
filed by Atty. Buffe and the petition for declaratory relief cannot cover her acts and did not serve
as a mitigating circumstance for violating the abovementioned provision. It should be noted that
she had already appeared before Branch 81 in at least 3 cases at the time she filed the letter-
query. The terms of Section 7 (b)(2) of RA 6713 did not deter her in any way and her misgivings
about the fairness of the law cannot excuse any resulting violation she committed.
Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, Inc., 223 SCRA 378

FACTS:
Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays this Court "to order the respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., to cease and desist
from issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that of Annexes `A' and `B' (of said petition) and to
perpetually prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law
profession other than those allowed by law.” The advertisements complained of by herein petitioner are as
follows:
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
Please call: 521-0767,
LEGAL5217232, 5222041
CLINIC, INC.8:30 am-6:00 pm
7-Flr. Victoria Bldg. UN Ave., Mla.
Annex B
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 Fiancées. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign
Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
THE 7 F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.
LEGAL Ermita, Manila nor. US Embassy
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232521-7251522-2041; 521-0767

It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are champertous, unethical,
demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the
members of the bar and that, as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said
advertisements, hence the reliefs sought in his petition as herein before quoted.

In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said advertisements at its instance, but
claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support services" through
paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines. Respondent further argues that assuming
that the services advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these services should be allowed supposedly in
the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of Arizona, reportedly decided by the United
States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.
Issue:
Whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it constitutes practice of
law and, in either case, whether the same can properly be the subject of the advertisements herein complained

Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the services offered by the respondent constitute practice of law. The definition
of “practice of law” is laid down in the case of Cayetano vs. Monsod, as defined:Black defines "practice of law"
as:"The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique to serve
the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the
conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special
proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to
clients. It embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with thelaw." The
contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services can neither be seriously considered nor
sustained. Said proposition is belied by respondent's own description of the services it has been offering. While
some of the services being offered by respondent corporation merely involve mechanical and technical know-how,
such as the installation of computer systems and programs for the efficient management of law offices, or the
computerization of research aids and materials, these will not suffice to justify an exception to the general rule.
What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. Its
contention that such function is non-advisory and non-diagnostic is more apparent than real. In providing
information, for example, about foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption, it strains the credulity of this
Court that all that respondent corporation will simply do is look for the law, furnish a copy thereof to the client,
and stop there as if it were merely a bookstore. With its attorneys and so called paralegals, it will necessarily have
to explain to the client the intricacies of the law and advise him or her on the proper course of action to be taken
as may be provided for by said law. That is what its advertisements represent and for which services it will
consequently charge and be paid. That activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential definition of "practice of
law." Such a conclusion will not be altered by the fact that respondent corporation does not represent clients in
court since law practice, as the weight of authority holds, is not limited merely to court appearances but extends
to legal research, giving legal advice, contract drafting, and so forth. That fact that the corporation employs
paralegals to carry out its services is not controlling. What is important is that it is engaged in the practice of law by
virtueof the nature of the services it renders which thereby brings it within the ambit of the statutory prohibitions
against the advertisements which it has caused to be published and are now assailed in this proceeding. The
standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his talents. (SEE CANON 2) 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. The proscription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal
business rests on the fundamental postulate that the practice of law is a profession. The canons of the profession
tell us that 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.