Cayetano v.

Monsod
G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991
Facts:

Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of Chairman of the
COMELEC in a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991. Petitioner
opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the
COMELEC. On June 18, 1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he assumed office as Chairman of the
COMELEC.

Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod's nomination, petitioner
as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the
consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void.

Issue:

Whether the appointment of Chairman Monsod of Comelec violates Section 1 (1), Article IX-C of the 1987
Constitution?

Held:

The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (1), Article IX-C, that 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.

Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade
of 86-55%. He has been dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception in 1972-73.
He has also been paying his professional license fees as lawyer for more than ten years.

At this point, it might be helpful to define private practice. The term, as commonly understood, means "an individual
or organization engaged in the business of delivering legal services." (Ibid.). Lawyers who practice alone are often
called "sole practitioners." Groups of lawyers are called "firms." The firm is usually a partnership and members of
the firm are the partners. Some firms may be organized as professional corporations and the members called
shareholders. In either case, the members of the firm are the experienced attorneys. In most firms, there are younger
or more inexperienced salaried attorneys called "associates."

Hence, the Commission on the basis of evidence submitted doling the public hearings on Monsod's confirmation,
implicitly determined that he possessed the necessary qualifications as required by law. The judgment rendered by
the Commission in the exercise of such an acknowledged power is beyond judicial interference except only upon a
clear showing of a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1 Constitution).
Thus, only where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere with the Commission's
judgment. In the instant case, there is no occasion for the exercise of the Court's corrective power, since no abuse,
much less a grave abuse of discretion, that would amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction and would warrant the
issuance of the writs prayed, for has been clearly shown.

Besides in the leading case of Luego v. Civil Service Commission, he Court said that, Appointment is an essentially
discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in which it is vested according to his best lights, the only
condition being that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law. If he does, then the appointment
cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others better qualified who should have been preferred. This is a
political question involving considerations of wisdom which only the appointing authority can decide.

#1 : 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 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.

The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses 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.

*** The Supreme Court held that the appointment of Monsod is in accordance with the requirement of law as having been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. 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. Again, in the case of Philippine Lawyer’s
Association vs. Agrava, the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases and litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of
pleadings and other papers incident to actions and social proceedings and other similar work which involves the determination by a legal
mind the legal effects of facts and conditions.

Renato Cayetano vs Christian Monsod

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.
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.
Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210
21JUL
FACTS:
Atty. Christian Monsod was appointed as Chairman of the Commission of Elections. His appointment was
contested by Atty. Renato Cayetano citing that his years of experience cannot be considered that which
constitutes the “practice of law”. Atty. Monsod was a member of good standing in the Bar for more than
ten (10) years. He worked:

– As a lawyer in the law office of his father (1960-1963);

– As an operations officer with the World Bank Group (1963-1970);

– As a Chief Executive Officer of an investment bank (1970-1986);

– As a legal or economic consultant on various companies (1986);

– As Secretary General of NAMFREL (1986);

– As a member of Constitutional Commission (1986-1987);

– As National Chairman of NAMFREL (1987); and,

– As a member of the quasi-judicial Davide Commission (1990).

ISSUE:
Whether or not the above mentioned activities may be considered to constitute the “practice of law”.

HELD:
YES. By majority vote.

RATIO:
Definition of “practice of law” by:

Black’s Legal Dictionary: The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal
principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent.
Philippine Lawyer’s Association v. Agrava (105 Phil. 173, 176-177): 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 before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying.
Further, records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission show that it has adopted a liberal interpretation of
the term “practice of law”.

CAYETANO vs. MONSOD

G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991

Facts: Renato Cayetano questioned Christian Monsod’s nomination by

President Corazon Aquino as Chairman of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC). Cayetano stated that Monsod allegedly lacked the necessary
requirement of practicing law for at least 10 years. However, despite Cayetano’s
objection, the Commission on Appointments (COA) still confirmed Monsod’s
appointment.

Issue: Whether or not the Commission on Appointments committed grave abuse

of discretion in confirming Monsod’s appointment.

Held: No. COA’s power to give consent to the nomination of the COMELEC
chairman by the President is mandated by the Constitution under Article IX,
Section 1 (2), Sub Article C. It provides:

“The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with
the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years
without reappointment. Of those first appointed, three Members shall hold
office for seven years, two Members for five years, and the last Members for
three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only
for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be
appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity.”

The power of appointment is essentially within the discretion to whom it is so

vested subject to the only condition that the appointee should possess the
qualification required by law. Therefore, there is no occasion for the Supreme
Court to exercise its corrective power since COA did not commit grave abuse of
discretion based on the evidence presented.
Ulep vs. Legal Clinic, 223 SCRA 378 (1993)
FACTS: The petitioner contends that the advertisements reproduced by the respondents 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, to which as a member of the legal
profession, he is ashamed and offended by the following advertisements:

Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE Please call:521-0767,
LEGAL 5217232,5222041
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 Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil.
US/Force Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.

THE 7F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.,

LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232; 521-7251;
522-2041; 521-0767

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 advertised services offered by the Legal Clinic, Inc., constitutes practice of law
and whether the same are in violation of the Code of Professional responsibility RULING: The
advertisement of the respondent is covered in the term practice of law as defined in the case of Cayetano
vs. Monsod. There is a restricted concept and limited acceptance of paralegal services in the Philippines.
It is allowed that some persons not duly licensed to practice law are or have been permitted with a limited
representation in behalf of another or to render legal services, but such allowable services are limited in
scope and extent by the law, rules or regulations granting permission therefore. Canon 3 of 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. Canon 3.01 adds that he is not
supposed to use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-
laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services. Nor shall he pay or
give something of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipation of, or in return for, publicity
to attract legal business (Canon 3.04). The Canons of Professional Ethics, before the adoption of the
CPR, had also warned that lawyers should not resort to indirect advertisements for professional
employment, such as furnishing or inspiring newspaper comments, or procuring his photograph to be
published in connection with causes in which the lawyer have been engaged of concerning the manner of
the conduct, the magnitude of the interest involved, the importance the lawyer's position, and all other like
self-laudation. There are existing exceptions under the law on the rule prohibiting the advertisement of a
lawyer’s services. However, taking into consideration the nature and contents of the advertisements for
which respondent is being taken to task, which even includes a quotation of the fees charged by said
respondent corporation for services rendered, the court found and held that the same definitely do not
and conclusively cannot fall under any of the exceptions. The respondent’s defense with the case of
Bates vs. State Bar applies only when there is an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by
lawyers, to publish a statement of legal fees for an initial consultation or the availability upon request of a
written schedule of fees or an estimate of the fee to be charged for the specific services. No such
exception is provided for, expressly or impliedly whether in our former Canons of Professional Ethics or
the present Code of Professional Responsibility. Besides, even the disciplinary rule in the Bates case
contains a proviso that the exceptions stand therein are "not applicable in any state unless and until it is
implemented by such authority in that state.” The Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN The Legal
Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of any advertisement in any form
which is of the same or similar tenor and purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of this petition, and from
conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, operation or transaction proscribed by law or the Code of
Professional Ethics as indicated herein.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1940junedecisions.php?id=114