Chapter 3: 10 Supreme Court Cases which discuss the practice

of law and the objectives of the legal profession

1. Diao v Martinez, 7 SCRA 745, March 29, 1963

FACTS: 2 years after passing the Bar exam, a complaint was filed against Diao on false
representation of his application to the Bar examination that he has the requisite academic
qualification. The Solicitor General made an investigation and recommended to strike the name
of Diao off the rolls of attorney because contrary to the allegations in his petition for
examination in this Court, he had not completed, before taking up law subjects, the required
pre-legal education prescribed by the Department of Private Education.

ISSUE: Whether or Not Diao may continue to practice the law profession.

RULING: The court held that his admission to the bar was under the pretense that he had
acquired a pre-legal education, an academic requirement before one could take the bar exam.
Such admission having been obtained under false pretenses is thereby revoked. The fact that he
hurdled the Bar examinations is immaterial. Passing such examinations is not the only
qualification to become an attorney-at-law, taking the prescribed courses of legal study in the
regular manner is equally essential. His name thus was stricken out from the Rolls of Attorneys.

2. Santos Jr. v Llamas A.C. No. 4749, January 20, 2000

FACTS: This is a complaint against respondent for misrepresentation and non-payment of IBP
membership dues. For years, the respondent does not indicate proper PTR no. in his practice of
the law profession. Now of old age, he contends that he is engaged in the limited practice of his
profession and as a senior citizen, he is exempt from paying taxes and membership dues with
the IBP.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is exempt from paying his membership dues owing to
limited practice of law and for being a senior citizen.

RULING: No. He is not exempt since Rule 139-A requires all IBP members to pay the annual fee
and failure thereof for 6 months merits suspension of the membership and for 1 year becomes a
ground for removal of the member’s name from the Rolls of Attorney regardless one is a
practicing lawyer or not. His non-renewal of his PTR is a misrepresentation to the public and the
courts that he has paid his dues violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.

3. CAYETANO v. MONSOD, G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991

FACTS: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon Aquino to the
position of Chairman of the COMELEC. The Commission on Appointments confirmed the said
nomination. Petitioner Renato Cayetano opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod
does not possess the Constitutional qualification requirement. The 1987 Constitution provides
in Section 1, Article IX-C:
 (1) 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.
(2) 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.
It was known to us that Monsod, after graduating from the College of Law and having hurdled
the bar, worked in his father’s law office. After then, he worked as operations officer in the
World Bank Group for about two years (1963-1970). Upon returning to the Philippines, he
worked with the Meralco Group as a Chief Executive Officer, and subsequently rendered
services to various companies either as legal and economic consultant or chief executive officer.
He also served as former Secretary-General (1986) and National Chairman (1987) of NAMFREL,
as a member of the Constitutional Commission (1986-1987) and Davide Commission (1990), and
as Chairman of Committee on Accountability of Public Officers.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT Monsod possess the required qualification for the position of
Chairman of the COMELEC.
2.WHETHER OR NOT there has been grave abuse of discretion on the part of Commission on
Appointments regarding the confirmation of nomination of Monsod.
RULING: (1) YES. In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava,(105 Phil. 173,176-177)
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
proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before
judges and courts, and in addition, conveying.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.

(2) NO. The power of the Commission on Appointments to confirm the nomination of the
COMELEC Chairman by the president is mandated by the Constitution. 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 for has been clearly shown.

4. Tan vs. Sabandal, 206 SCRA 473, February 24, 1992

FACTS: Respondent Sabandal passed the 1975 Bar Examinations but was denied taking his oath
in view of the finding of the Court that he was guilty of unauthorized practice of law. Since then,
he has filed numerous petitions for him to be allowed to take his lawyer’s oath.

Acting to his 1989 petition, the Court directed the executive judge of the province where
Sabandal is domiciled to submit a comment on respondent’s moral fitness to be a member of the
Bar. In compliance therewith, the executive judge stated therewith in his comment that he is not
 aware of any acts committed by the respondent as would disqualify him from admission to the
Bar. However, he added that respondent has a pending civil case before his Court for
cancellation/reversion proceedings, in which respondent, then working as Land Investigator in
the Bureau of Lands is alleged to have secured a free patent and later a certificate of title to a
parcel of land which upon investigation, turned out to be a swampland and not susceptible of
acquisition under a free patent, and which he later mortgaged to the bank. The mortgage was
later foreclosed, and the land subsequently sold at public auction and respondent has not
redeemed the land since then.

The case was however settled through amicable settlement. The said amicable settlement
cancelled the OCT under Free Patent in the name of Sabandal and his mortgage in the bank;
provided for the surrender of the certificate of title to the RD for proper annotation; reverted to
the mass of public domain the land covered by the aforesaid certificate of title with respondent
refraining from exercising acts of possession or ownership over the said land. Respondent also
paid the bank a certain sum for the loan and interest.

ISSUE: Whether the respondent may be admitted to the practice of law considering the he
already submitted three testimonials regarding his good moral character, and his pending civil
case has been terminated.

RULING: His petition must be denied. Time and again, it has been held that practice of law is a
matter of right. It is a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law
but who are also known to possess good moral character. It should be recalled that respondent
worked as Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands. Said employment facilitated his
procurement of the free patent title over the property which he could not but have known was a
public land. This was manipulative on his part and does not speak well of his moral character. It is
a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in public service, which cannot be erased by the
termination of the case and where no determination of guilt or innocence was made because his
suit has been compromised. this is a sad reflection of his sense of honor and fair dealings.

Although the term “good moral character” admits of broad dimensions, it has been defined as
“including at least common dishonesty.” It has also been held that no moral qualification for
membership is more important than truthfulness or candor.

5. Artiaga vs. Villanueva, 163 SCRA 638, July 29, 1988

FACTS: This is a disbarment case which arose from four civil actions involving the same property.
Juliano Estolnao, client of Atty. Artiaga, Jr. and Glicerio Aquino and Florentina Guanzon, client of
respondent Atty. Villanueva. Atty. Artiaga, Jr. filed for the disbarment of the respondent for
unethical practice in the profession of law in the following acts: 1)causing his client to perjure
himself; 2)lack of candor and respect towards his adversary and the courts; and 3)abuse of right
of recourse to the court.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of alleged unethical practices.

RULING: Yes, the duty of an attorney to the courts to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the
causes confided to him, such means are as consistent with truth and honor cannot be
overemphasized. His high vocation is to correctly inform the court upon the law and the facts of
 the case, and to aid it, is doing justice and arriving at correct conclusions. The respondent
violated his oath of office when he resorted to deception an examination of the records also
show that respondent did not disclose before the court of agrarian reform prior law. Suits and
decisions rendered relative to the subject land. Respondent resorted to forum shopping.

6. Philippine Lawyer’s Association vs. Agrava, 105 Phil. 173, February 16, 1959

FACTS: Celedonio Agrava, as Director of the Philippine Patent Office, set a schedule for an
examination to determine who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the said
office. The Philippine Lawyer’s Association contends 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 Philippine Patent Office, and that the
act of Agrava, requiring an examination to allow someone to practice before the said office is in
excess of his jurisdiction and a violation of the law.

ISSUE: Whether or not the members of the Philippine Bar are still required to take the
examination in order to practice law before the said office.

RULING: No. 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, for the reason that 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.

7. Cruz v Atty. Cabrera, AC No. 5737, October 25, 2004

Facts: The complainant files an administrative charge against the respondent for misconduct in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complainant, a fourth-year law student,
appears in court in his own behalf as he instituted a case against his neighbor who is
represented by the respondent as counsel. During a hearing, the respondent uttered remarks
that the complainant finds arrogant and misconduct in the performance of his duties as a
lawyer. The complaint was referred to the IBP commissioner who recommended suspension of
respondent in the practice of law for 3 months which was annulled by a resolution of the IBP
Board recommending dismissal of the case for lack of merit.

ISSUE: Whether or Not the manner of respondent may constitute misconduct.

RULING: The court ruled that although the outburst of the respondent is uncalled for, it is not to
such a magnitude as to warrant his suspension in the practice of his profession. The court
thereby dismissed the case due to lack of merit.

8. People vs. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109, May 27, 1965

FACTS: City Attorney Ariston Fule, after securing the permission from the Secretary of Justice,
has appeared as a defense counsel of accused for malicious mischief. Atty. Fule would be
considered on official leave of absence at work whenever he does the appearance before the
Court. He did not receive any compensation from the service he rendered.
 ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Fule is considered engaging in the practice of law.

RULING: Yes, he is a private prosecutor in that criminal case, however, this practice is allowed
only as long as there is a permission from his immediate supervisor. Since he sought first the
approval of the Secretary of Justice, his appearance as a private counsel is legal.

9. FENTICOSTES VS. lBANEZ, 304 SCRA 281, March 9, 1999

Facts: Sometime in 1989, Encarnacion Pascual was sued for non-remittance of SSS premiums
which complaint was assigned to Prosecutor Ibanez for preliminary investigation. In the course
of the investigation, Encarnacion gave the amount of Pl,804 .00 to respondent 8 S payment of
her SSS contribution in arrears. Respondent did not pay the SSS, hence on Nov. 10, 1990. a
complaint was filed against the respondent for professional misconduct in allegedly
misappropriating the amount. On 23 November 1990, the respondent paid SSS the amount of
Pl,804 .00 on behalf of Encarnacion.

Issue: Whether or not respondent is guilty of misconduct and have violated Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held: It is glaringly clear that respondent's non-remittance for over one year of the funds coming
from Encarnacion is gross violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
belated payment does not excuse his misconduct. Neither would his defense that the acts
complained of were not done by him in his capacity as a practicing lawyer but on account of his
office as a prosecutor exculpate him from responsibility. While Encarnacion may not strictly be
considered a client of respondent, the rules relating to a lawyer's handling of funds of a client is
applicable.

Respondent 's failure to immediately remit the amount gives rise to the presumption of
misappropriation. That is in gross violation of general morality as well as professional ethics, it
impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.

10. Yumol vs Atty. Ferrer, Sr.,A.C. No. 6585, April 21, 2005

Facts: The petitioner, OIC of the Commission on Human Rights, files a disbarment case against
respondent, Attorney IV said commission on ground for grave misconduct. The respondent was
found to have issued 2 orders awarding custody of a child to a complainant in the Commission,
ordered a bank to reinstate the bank account of the said complainant, engaging in private
practice, notarizing public documents, and attending court hearings while filling up his DTR at
the Commission as present at the same time. The case was referred to the IBP and the
investigating commissioner recommended suspension for 2 years which was modified by the IBP
Board to 6 months.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent has committed gross misconduct arising from the following
alleged acts:
1. Engaging in the private practice of his profession while being a government employee;
2. Falsifying his Daily Time Records;
3. Issuing unauthorized orders; and
4. Continuously engaging in private practice even after the filing of case against him for engaging
in private practice.

RULING: The court held on the following:

1. CHR Resolution No. (III) A2002-133 authorizes CHR lawyers to engage in private practice
(adopting the Civil Service Commission Resolution) subject to some conditions with
indispensable requirement to secure approval from the CHR. In the absence of such approval,
the respondent is not allowed in private practice and proved to have falsified his attendance in
the DTR while appearing in court at the same time without approved leave of absence.
2. The respondent has been notarizing even before the CHR authorized his practice as a notary
public.
3. The authority granted with the CHR in their function is merely to investigate all forms of
human rights violation. They cannot try and decide cases.
With the above constituting grounds for suspension of lawyers stated in Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court, the court ruled to modify the suspension of 1 year as sufficient sanction.