1.

Renato Cayetano v Christian Monsod (DISMISSED)

(Whether or not Monsod is qualified to be the COMELEC chairman)
 Corazon Aquino nominated Monsod to be Chairman of COMELEC
 Cayetano file a petition of centiorari and prohibition stating that the confirmation of
Atty Monsod as Chairman should be null and void since he did not meet the
requirement of practicing law for 10 years
 HELD:
 YES. Practicing law 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 the law.
(BLACK LAW DICTIONARY)
 Atty Monsod work for many government and non-government agencies and as well as
notable companies where he practiced his legal knowledge.
 This includes MERALCO and NAMFREL where was familiarized with the election law.
 The court use the latin maxim: We must interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by
the spirit that giveth life
 The petition was DISMISSED

2. Eduardo Cojuangco v Leo Palma (DISBARRED)

(WON Palma committed grossly immoral conduct by marrying Lisa despite being already
married with 3 children)
 Leo Palma was hired by Mr. Cojuanco to be his personal counsel
 He trusted Atty Palma that he was including him in family gatherings and even allowed
him to tutor his daughter, Lisa
 Unbeknownst to him, Atty Palma pursued Lisa and they secretly got married in Hong
Kong, despite Atty Palma being married already with three (3) kids.
 Mr. Cojuangco filed a civil case for the nullification of their marriage. And then
proceeded to file for the disbarment of Atty Palma for allege acts constituting deceit,
malpractice, gross misconduct or violation of his lawyer’s oath
 HELD:
 Undoubtedly, The circumstances here speak of a clear case of betrayal of trust and
abuse of confidence. Respondent’s act constitutes grossly immoral conduct, a ground
for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court.
 Respondent’s culpability is aggravated by the fact that Lisa was just a 22-year old college
student of Assumption Convent and was under psychological treatment for emotional
immaturity
 Cannon 1 of code of ethics: A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law and legal processes
 Lawyers oath: UPHOLD THE LAW
 Leo J. Palma is found GUILTY of grossly immoral conduct and violation of his oath as a
lawyer, and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice of law.

3. Khan v Simbillo – SUSPENDED for 1 year

(WON Atty Simbillo is guilty of improper advertising and solicitation of legal services)
 Atty Simbillo posted an advertisement that appeared in the Philippine Daily Inquirer,
which reads: "ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE Specialist 532-4333/521-2667.
 A staff member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court called and talked
to the wife of Atty Simbillo where she claimed that:
 Atty. Rizalino Simbillo, was an expert in handling annulment cases and can guarantee a
court decree within four to six months, for the fee of 48,000 pesos
 Further investigation revealed that similar advertisements were published in the August
2 and 6, 2000 issues of the Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The Philippine
Star.
 Atty. Ismael G. Khan, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo
for improper advertising and solicitation of his legal services, in violation of Rule 2.03
 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 138, Section 27 of
the Rules of Court.

 Rule 2.03. – A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
solicit legal business.

 Rule 3.01. – A lawyer shall not 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.

 Respondent admitted the acts imputed to him, but argued that advertising and
solicitation per se are not prohibited acts; that the time has come to change our views
about the prohibition on advertising and solicitation
 HELD:
 YES. There is no question that respondent committed the acts complained of. He himself
admits that he caused the publication of the advertisement.
 8 months after he pleaded for compassion and claimed that he had no intention to
violate the code, he again advertised his legal services.
 What adds to the gravity of respondent’s acts is that in advertising himself as a self-
styled "Annulment of Marriage Specialist,"
 He was suspended from the practice of law for 1 year

4. Rhonda Vivares v Saint Theresa’s College – Petition DENIED

(WON the STC and its officials violated the minors' privacy rights)
 Sometime in January 2012, while changing into their swimsuits for a beach party they
were about to attend, Julia and Julienne, graduating students of STC, took digital
pictures of themselves clad only in their undergarments.
 These pictures were then uploaded by Angela Lindsay Tan (Angela) on her
Facebook profile.
 Mylene Rheza T. Escudero (Escudero), a computer teacher at STC’s high school
department, learned from her students that some seniors at STC posted pictures online,
depicting themselves from the waist up, dressed only in brassieres.
 Using STC’s computers, Escudero’s students logged in to their respective personal
Facebook accounts and showed her photos of the identified students, which include:
o Julia and Julienne drinking hard liquor and smoking cigarettes inside a
bar;
o Julia and Julienne along the streets of Cebu wearing articles of clothing
that show virtually the entirety of their black brassieres.
 Upon discovery, Escudero reported the matter and, through one of her student’s
Facebook page, showed the photos to Kristine Rose Tigol (Tigol), STC’s Discipline-in-
Charge, for appropriate action. 
 As part of their penalty, they are barred from joining the commencement exercises.
 Thereafter, petitioners filed before the RTC a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of
Habeas Data, 
 Writ of Habeas Data - The writ of habeas data, however, can be availed as an
independent remedy to enforce one’s right to privacy, more specifically the right to
informational privacy.
 According to the petitioners, the privacy setting of their children’s Facebook accounts
was set at "Friends Only.", and that only Five (5) other people can access the pictures in
question. They, thus, have a reasonable expectation of privacy which must be
respected. Escudero, however, violated their rights by saving digital copies of the photos
and by subsequently showing them to STC’s officials
 HELD:
 No. Escudero’s students are the one who showed her the photos which disproves their
allegation that the photos were viewable only by the five of them. They also have no
proof that the photos can only be accessed by their friends.
  If such were the case, they cannot invoke the protection attached to the right to
informational privacy. 
 According to the court, they cannot afford protection to persons if they themselves did
nothing to place the matter within the confines of their private zone.
 Petition was DENIED

5. Petition of Benjamin Dacanay to resume practice of law - GRANTED

(Whether petitioner Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he
gave up his Philippine citizenship)
 Mr. Benjamin Dacanay is a Filipino lawyer who went to Canada to receive medical
treatment. He also applied for a Canadian citizenship to acquire financial assistance.
 He then returned to the PH and through Republic Act (RA) 9225 (Citizenship Retention
and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003), petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship.
 HELD:
 No. A Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have
lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225.
(A) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP;
(B) the payment of professional tax;
(C) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal
education; this is specially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioner’s
knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments and
(D) the retaking of the lawyer’s oath which will not only remind him of his duties
and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his
pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
 WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney Benjamin M. Dacanay is hereby GRANTED, 

6. Gana-Carait v Comelec
(WON her certificate of candidacy should be cancelled for false representations on her
eligibility to run for office given her American citizenship)
(WON Gana filed the petition for certiorari in time)
 Ghana-Carait filed her coc for a public position in Biñan
 The Comelec cancelled her coc finding that she has a dual citizenship
 COMELEC held that Gana-Carait must comply with RA No. 9225, or the Citizenship
Retention and Re-acquisition Act, which requires candidates who are dual citizens
by naturalization to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and
to renounce their foreign citizenship.
 Gana-Carait contended and states that, she was born to a Filipino father and an
American mother. Thus, she is a dual citizen by birth, and not by naturalization.
 The Comelec then contended that according to Comelec Rules, petitions to cancel
COCs become final and executory after five days from promulgation.
 HELD:
 According to the court, As a dual citizen by birth, Gana-Carait is thus considered a
Filipino qualified to run for public office.
 The Court held that the COMELEC Rules are merely procedural and thus cannot
override substantive law, especially the Constitution.
 Since the constitution allows 30 days to file for a petition for certiorari, then the
cancellation issued shall be rendered only executory, but not final.