CAYETANO VS MONSOD

201 SCRA 210, 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.

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 a 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.

Cayetano opposed and challenged the nomination and the subsequent confirmation of the Commission
because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice
of law for at least ten years.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Monsod possesses the required qualification for the position of Chairman of COMELEC.

RULING:

Yes, Respondent Monsod, corporate executive, civic leader, and member of the Constitutional Commission
may possess the background, competence, integrity, and dedication, to qualify for such high offices as
President, Vice-President, Senator, Congressman or Governor but the Constitution in prescribing the specific
qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten (10) years for the position of COMELEC
Chairman has ordered that he may not be confirmed for that office. The Constitution charges the public
respondents no less than this Court to obey its mandate.

I, therefore, believe that the Commission on Appointments committed grave abuse of discretion in confirming
the nomination of respondent Monsod as Chairman of the COMELEC.

I vote to GRANT the petition.

AM. No. 21-06-20-SC.

APRIL 11, 2023

FACTS:

The right to privacy of lawyers is limited, especially when it comes to their social media accounts.Thus said the
Supreme Court in a 26-page Per Curiam Decision as it reprimanded Atty. Morgan Rosales Nicanor (Atty.
Nicanor), Atty. Joseph Marion Peña Navarrete (Atty. Navarrete), Atty. Noel V. Antay, Jr. (Atty. Antay), and Atty.
Israel P. Calderon (Atty. Calderon), and imposed a PhP25,000 fine on Atty. Ernesto A. Tabujara III (Atty.
Tabujara), all for violation of Rule 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar offense will be more severely dealt with.

That on October 25, 2021, Atty. Antay, Jr. expressed his deep remorse and profound shame over the incident
and extends his sincerest apologies for whatever anxiety and alarm that his posts might have caused. He
further asserts that he could barely remember the posts and was only reminded of them when he saw
screenshots that had begun circulating. He could no longer recover the posts through his social media account
and he· can only rely on the unauthenticated screenshots and the forwarded copy of this Comi's resolution (he
had not yet been served a copy thereof). What makes the incident more perplexing is that his social media
profile is locked and its contents cannot be accessed by outsiders. He has always been discreet and private in
his personal dealings. He has no excuse about the incident and is mortified of how the breach occurred. He
had no intention of disrespecting any magistrate or undermining the Judiciary. His posts did not single out or
disparage anyone. His use of the phrase "member of the LGBT community" was merely descriptive, not
disparaging nor disrespectful. The word "effeminate" was not used to describe a particular magistrate but
merely to describe a non-antagonistic and non-threatening demeanor. He never dreams of discriminating
against or disparaging any member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Queer or Questioning,
Intersex, Asexual, and more (LGBTQIA+) community. He even tried to politely put an end to the conversation
by saying "Bad ka.

ISSUE:

Can the erring lawyers invoke their right to privacy as a shield against administrative liability.

RULING:

Yes. A heavier penalty is imposed on Atty. Tabujara III for not only did he violate Rule 7 .03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, he did so in a reckless wanton and malevolent manner. What makes his infraction
worse ' ' than that of Atty. Nicanor, Atty. Navarrete, Atty. Antay, Jr. and Atty. Calderon is that Atty. Tabujara III
made a sweeping statement about the mental fitness of judges and equated homosexual judges with corrupt
ones. Such language jeopardizes the high esteem in courts and is prohibited per Tiangco v. Hon. Aguilar .The
Court notes that, unlike the other lawyers here, Atty. Tabujara III did not sincerely apologize. He only said:
"Unfortunately, some conversations may rub some persons the wrong way or offend certain people. I do not
profess to be perfect. I do make mistakes occasionally. l[ I have hurt anyone, I am sorry and seek to make
amends. No one is 100% perfect."60 He is the only one so far who has not acknowledged his participation in
the conversation and he seems to completely sidestep the fact that he made such sweeping statements
against judges pertaining to their mental health or their sexual orientation. There is no slightest hint of remorse.
What makes the offense worse is that Atty. Tabujara III is a professor
BELO-HENARES v. GUEVARRA

A.C. NO. 11394, DECEMBER 01, 2016

FACTS:

Complainant is the Medical Director and principal stockholder of the Belo Medical Group, Inc. (BMGI), a
corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws[2] and engaged in the specialized field of
cosmetic surgery.[3] On the other hand, respondent is the lawyer of a certain Ms. Josefina "Josie" Norcio
(Norcio), who filed criminal cases against complainant for an allegedly botched surgical procedure on her
buttocks in 2002 and 2005, purportedly causing infection and making her ill in 2009.

In 2009, Atty. Guevarra, wrote a series of posts on his Facebook account, a popular online social networking
site, insulting and verbally abusing complainant.

The complaint further alleged that respondent posted remarks on his Facebook account that were intended to
destroy and ruin BMGI's medical personnel, as well as the entire medical practice of around 300 employees for
no fair or justifiable cause.

Moreover, respondent, through his Facebook account, posted remarks that allegedly threatened complainant
with criminal conviction, without factual basis and without proof.

Finally, complainant averred that the attacks against her were made with the object to extort money from her,
as apparent from the following reply made by respondent on a comment on his Facebook post.

Asserting that the said posts, written in vulgar and obscene language, were designed to inspire public hatred,
destroy her reputation, and to close BMGI and all its clinics, as well as to extort the amount of P200 Million
from her as evident from his demand letter dated August 26, 2009, complainant lodged the instant complaint
for disbarment against respondent.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable based on the allegations of the verified
complaint.

RULING

Yes. The subject Facebook posts are in complete and utter violation of the following provisions in the Code of
Professional Responsibility:

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.

Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
otherwise improper.

Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges
to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.

By posting the subject remarks on Facebook directed at complainant and BMGI, respondent disregarded the
fact that, as a lawyer, he is bound to observe proper decorum at all times, be it in his public or private life. He
overlooked the fact that he must behave in a manner befitting of an officer of the court, that is, respectful, firm,
and decent. Instead, he acted inappropriately and rudely; he used words unbecoming of an officer of the law,
and conducted himself in an aggressive way by hurling insults and maligning complainant's and BMGI's
reputation.

That complainant is a public figure and/or a celebrity and therefore, a public personage who is exposed to
criticism does not justify respondent's disrespectful language. It is the cardinal condition of all criticism that it
shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety. In this case, respondent's
remarks against complainant breached the said walls, for which reason the former must be administratively
sanctioned.
ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC INC,

223 SCRA 378, JUNE 17, 1993

FACTS:

This case involves praying for an order to the respondent to cease and desist from issuing certain
advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than those allowed by law. The said
advertisement of the Legal Clinic invites potential clients to inquire about secret marriage and divorce in Guam
and annulment, and the like. It also says that they are giving free books on Guam Divorce. Ulep claims that
such advertisements are unethical and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of
lawyers. He, being a member of the bar, is ashamed and offended by the said advertisements. On the other
hand, the respondent, while admitting of the fact of the publication of the advertisements, claims that it is not
engaged in the practice of law but is merely rendering legal support services through paralegals. It also
contends that such advertisements should be allowed based on certain US cases decided.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Legal Clinic Inc. is engaged in the practice of law.

RULING:

Yes, it constitutes practice of law.Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to
perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give advice or
render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge or skill.

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It includes legal advice and counsel, and the
preparation of legal instruments and contract by which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or
may not be pending in a court. When a person participates in a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he is in
the practice of law. One who confers with clients, advises them as to their legal rights and then takes the
business to an attorney and asks the latter to look after the case in court, is also practicing law. Giving advice
for compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct with respect thereto
constitutes a practice of law. The practice of law, therefore, covers a wide range of activities in and out of court.
And applying the criteria, respondent Legal Clinic Inc. is, as advertised, engaged in the “practice of law”.

What is palpably clear is that respondent corporation gives out legal information to laymen and lawyers. 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 the which services it will consequently charge and be paid. That
activity falls squarely within the jurisprudential definition of "practice of law."

The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot,
without violating the ethics of his profession advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar to a merchant
advertising his goods. The only exceptions are when he appears in a reputable law list and use of an ordinary,
simple professional card.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN herein respondent, 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.
Let copies of this resolution be furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the Office of the Bar Confidant
and the Office of the Solicitor General for appropriate action in accordance herewith.
DIRECTOR OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS VS. BAYOT

74 SCRA 579; AC NO. L-1117, MARCH 20, 1944

FACTS:

The respondent, who is an attorney-at-law, is charged with malpractice for having published an advertisement
in the Sunday Tribune of June 13, 1943 Appearing in his own behalf, respondent at first denied having
published the said advertisement; but subsequently, thru his attorney, he admitted having caused its
publication and prayed for "the indulgence and mercy" of the Court, promising "not to repeat such professional
misconduct in the future and to abide himself to the strict ethical rules of the law profession." In further
mitigation he alleged that the said advertisement was published only once in the Tribune and that he never had
any case at law by reason thereof. That on June 1943, Bayot advertised in a newspaper that he helps people
in securing marriage licenses; that he does so avoiding delays and publicity; that he also makes marriage
arrangements; that legal consultations are free for the poor; and that everything is confidential. The Director of
Religious Affairs took notice of the ad and so he sued Bayot for Malpractice. Bayot initially denied having
published the advertisement. But later, he admitted the same and asked for the court’s mercy as he promised
to never repeat the act again.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Bayot is guilty of Malpractice.

RULING:

Yes. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that “the practice of soliciting cases at law
for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.” The
advertisement he caused to be published is a brazen solicitation of business from the public. .” It is highly
unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his marketable skills.
Considering his plea for leniency and his promise not to repeat the misconduct, the Court is of the opinion and
so decided that the respondent should be, as he hereby is, reprimanded.