IN RE CUNANAN In the Matter of Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful

94 PHIL. 534 Candidates (1946-1953); CUNANAN

FACTS: Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as FACTS:
the Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The title of the law was, An Act to Fix the RA 972 IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST BECAUSE IT QUALIFIES 1,094
Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and including 1955. LAW GRADUATES WHO CONFESSEDLY HAD INADEQUATE PREPARATION
Section 1 provided the following passing marks: FOR THE PRACTICE OF THE PROFESSION.
1946-195170% Public interest demands adequate preparation and efficiency, especially
1952 .71% that legal problems become more difficult.
1953..72% i. RA 972 (BAR FLUNKERS ACT 1953): in order that a
1954..73% candidate may be deemed to have passed his examinations successfully,
1955..74% he must have obtained a general average of 75% in all subjects, without
Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%. falling below 0% in any subject.
Section 2 of the Act provided that A bar candidate who obtained a grade
of 75% in any subject shall be deemed to have already passed that 1. This court passed and admitted to the bar, candidate who had
subject and the grade/grades shall be included in the computation of the obtained an average only of 72 then raised to 75%.
general average in subsequent bar examinations. 2. Unsuccessful candidates of few percentage lower than those admitted
to the Bar agitated in Congress for and secured in 1951 the passage
ISSUE: Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional. Senate Bill 12, reduced the passing grade to 70% since 1946.

RULING: Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal a. President vetoed it. Congress did not override the veto. Instead, it
defect of not being embraced in the title of the Act. As per its title, the Act approved the bill without its signature.
should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar i. Any bar candidate who obtained 70% after July 1946 to Aug
examinations. Section2 establishes a permanent system for an indefinite 1951, 71% 1952, 72% 1953, 73% 1954, 74% 1955 without a below 50%
time. It was also struck down for allowing partial passing, thus failing to in any subject shall be allowed to take oath.
take account of the fact that laws and jurisprudence are not stationary. ii. Any bar candidate who obtained 75% in any subject after
As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional, July 1946 shall be deemed to have passed, such grades shall be added in
while that for 1953 to 1955 was declared in force and effect. The portion computing the passing the general average that said candidate may obtain
that was stricken down was based under the following reasons: any following examinations.
The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who flunked the b. After approval, unsuccessful postwar candidates filed petitions for
bar from 1946 to 1952 had inadequate preparation due to the fact that admission to the bar invoking its provisions, others who motioned for
this was very close to the end of World War II; revision of exam papers also invoked the law.
The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on i. To avoid injustice, court reviewed motions for
the petitions of the said candidates; reconsideration. Court did not find a reason to revise their grades. If they
The law is an encroachment on the Courts primary prerogative to are admitted to bar, it must be pursuant to RA 972 which, if declared
determine who may be admitted to practice of law and, therefore, in valid, should be applied equally to all concerned whether they filed
excess of legislative power to repeal, alter and supplement the Rules of petitions or not.
Court. The rules laid down by Congress under this power are only
minimum norms, not designed to substitute the judgment of the court on 3. Unsuccessful candidates who benefited section 1 totaled 1,168. 92
who can practice law; and have passed the subsequent examination and only 568 have filed either
The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class legislation. motions for admission to bar pursuant to the Act or mere motions for
As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not muster reconsideration.
enough votes to declare it void. Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to a. 10 candidates are to be benefited, each taken from 2 to 5 different
take effect in 1953. Hence, it will not revoke existing Supreme Court examinations, but failed to obtain passing average in any of them.
resolutions denying admission to the bar of an petitioner. The same may Consolidating, highest grades in different subjects with their latest marks,
also rationally fall within the power to Congress to alter, supplement or they would be sufficient to reach passing average as provided in RA 972.
modify rules of admission to the practice of law. b. Total number of candidates to be benefited is 1,094 with only 604 filed
petitions.
c. 33 who failed in 1946-1951 filed motions for reconsideration got d. Must rest on some reason on which it can be defended.
denied. e. There should be a a difference between the situation and
d. 125 of 1952 and 56 of 1953 were pending. circumstances of all the members of the class and the situation and
e. Tribunal found no sufficient reasons to reconsider their grades. circumstances of all other members of the state.
4. LAW NOT CONSIDERED GENERAL:
ISSUE: a. Operates on all within a clause unless there is a substantial reason
WON RA 972 is constitutional. NO. why it is made to operate on that class only, and not generally on all.
i. It was indicated why unsuccessful candidates prior 1946 were
HELD: not included.
Portion of Art. 1 referring to the examinations of 1946 to 1952, and all of ii. No record of examinations prior to 1946, does not mean they
Art. 2 of said law are unconstitutional. Therefore, void and without force dont have right for equal consideration.
and effect.

Part of Art. 1 referring to the examinations following to the approval of the

law from 1953 to 1955 inclusive, is valid and shall continue to be in force, PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION vs AGRAVA
in conformity with Sec. 10, Art. 7 of the Constitution. G.R. No. L-12426 February 16, 1959
FACTS:
Consequently: Herein petitioner filed for prohibition and injunction against respondent
a. All the above-mentioned petitions 1946 to 1952 are denied Agrava, the Director of Philippines Patent Office due to a circular the latter
b. All candidates in 1953 examinations, obtaining 71.5%+, without issued scheduling an examination for determining who are qualified to
having a grade -50% in any subject, are considered passed. practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office.
c. Permitted to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as Petitioner contended that one who has passed the bar examinations and is
members of the Bar licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is
in good standing, is duly qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent
1. Article 2 permits partial passing of examinations at indefinite Office, and that Agrava is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of
intervals. the law for requiring such examination as condition precedent before
a. Does not take into account that the laws and jurisprudence are not members of the bar may be allowed to represent applicants in the
stationary preparation and prosecution of applications for patents. Undaunted,
b. Article not expressed in the title will have temporary effect only from Agrava argued that that the prosecution of patent cases does not involve
1946 to 1955, the text of article 2 establishes a permanent system for an entirely or purely the practice of law and that the Rules of Court do not
indefinite time. prohibit the Patent Office from requiring further condition or qualification
i. Contrary to Constitution, which vitiates and annuls article 2 from those who would wish to handle cases before the Patent Office.
completely; and because it is inseparable from article 1, it is obvious that ISSUE:
its nullity affect the entire law. Whether appearance before the Patent Office and the preparation and the
prosecution of patent applications, etc., constitutes or is included in the
2. UNCONSTITUTIONALITY: practice of law
a. Not within the legislative powers of Congress to enact, or Congress HELD:
has exceeded its powers. Yes. The practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent Office,
b. Create or establish arbitrary methods or forms that infringe the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the
constitutional principles. prosecution of their applications for patent, their oppositions thereto, or
c. Purposes or effects violate the Constitution or its basic principles. the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. Although the transaction of
business in the Patent Office involves the use and application of technical
3. GENERAL RULE: and scientific knowledge and training, still, all such business has to be
a. A classification to be valid must rest upon material differences rendered in accordance with the Patent Law, as well as other laws,
between the person included in it and those excluded. including the Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Patent Office in
b. Must be based upon substantial distinctions. accordance with law. All these things involve the applications of laws, legal
c. Therefore, any law that is made applicable to one class of citizens only principles, practice and procedure. They call for legal knowledge, training
must be based on some substantial difference between the situation of and experience for which a member of the bar has been prepared.
that class and other individuals who do not apply.
 As stated in 5 Am. Jur, ISSUE: Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in and the preparation and the prosecution of patent application, etc.,
court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident constitutes or is included in the practice of law.
to actions and social proceedings, the management of such actions and HELD: The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, such appearance before the Patent Office, the representation of applicants,
conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications for
matters connected with the law corporation services, assessment and patent, their opposition thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in
condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial patent cases. Moreover, the practice before the patent Office involves the
body, the foreclosure of a mortgage, enforcement of a creditors claim in interpretation and application of other laws and legal principles, as well as
bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in the existence of facts to be established in accordance with the law of
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to evidence and procedure. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct
constitute law practice as do the preparation and drafting of legal of cases or litigation in court but also embraces all other matters
instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the connected with the law and any work involving the determination by the
trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions. Furthermore, the law
The Supreme Court ruled that under the present law, members of the provides that any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final
Philippine Bar authorized by the Supreme Court to practice law, and in order or decision of the director. Thus, if the transactions of business in
good standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office, the Patent Office involved exclusively or mostly technical and scientific
since much of the business in said office involves the interpretation and knowledge and training, then logically, the appeal should be taken not to a
determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law and other court or judicial body, but rather to a board of scientists, engineers or
laws applicable, as well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts technical men, which is not the case.
involved; that part of the functions of the Patent director are judicial or
quasi-judicial, so much so that appeals from his orders and decisions are,
taken to the Supreme Court.
Mauricio Ulep vs The Legal Clinic
# 223 SCRA 378 42 SCAD 287 Legal Ethics Advertisement in the
Legal Profession Practice of Law
PHILIPPINE LAWYER'S ASSOCIATION vs. CELEDONIO AGRAVA
G.R. No. L-12426. February 16, 1959.
In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim,
FACTS: On may 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular according to Nogales was to move toward specialization and to cater to
announcing that he had scheduled an examination for the purpose of clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms. Now, Atty. Mauricio
determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Ulep filed a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of the latters
Philippines Patent Office. According to the circular, members of the advertisements which contain the following:
Philippine Bar, engineers and other persons with sufficient scientific and
technical training are qualified to take the said examination. The petitioner SECRET MARRIAGE?
contends that one who has passed the bar examination sand is licensed by P560.00 for a valid marriage.
the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good
standing is duly qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
and that the respondent Directors holding an examination for the purpose THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law.The respondent,
in reply, maintains the prosecution of patent cases does not involve
Please call: 521-0767; 521-7232; 522-2041
entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the application of 8:30am 6:00pm
scientific and technical knowledge and training as a matter of actual 7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila
practice so as to include engineers and other individuals who passed the
examination can practice before the Patent office. Furthermore, he GUAM DIVORCE
stressed that for the long time he is holding tests, this is the first time that DON PARKINSON
his right has been questioned formally.
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. as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the
advertisements of Legal Clinic seem to promote divorce, secret marriage,
Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retirees Visa. Declaration of Absence. bigamous marriage, and other circumventions of law which their experts
Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed.
Call Marivic. 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
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC. outcome of character and conduct. Good and efficient service to a client as
7th Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Manila nr. US Embassy 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
Tel. 521-7232, 521-7251, 522-2041, 521-0767
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
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for difference between a normal by-product of able service and the
Legal Problems in Star Week of Philippine Star wherein Nogales stated unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also enumerated
that they The Legal Clinic is composed of specialists that can take care of a the following as allowed forms of advertisement:
clients problem no matter how complicated it is even if it is as complicated
as the Sharon Cuneta-Gabby Concepcion situation. He said that he and his 1. Advertisement in a reputable law list
staff of lawyers, who, like doctors, are specialists in various fields, can 2. Use of ordinary simple professional card
take care of it. The Legal Clinic, Inc. has specialists in taxation and 3. Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his
criminal law, medico-legal problems, labor, litigation and family law. These specialization.
specialists are backed up by a battery of paralegals, counselors and
attorneys.
Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.
As for its advertisement, Nogales said it should be allowed in view of the Rule 2.03 | June 17, 1993 | Regalado, JNature of Case: Original
jurisprudence in the US which now allows it (John Bates vs The State Bar Petition in the SC
of Arizona). And that besides, the advertisement is merely making known Petitioner: Mauricio Ulep
to the public the services that The Legal Clinic offers. Respondent: The Legal Clinic, Inc.
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law;
SUMMARY: Petitioner avers that the advertisements reproduced are
whether such is allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be
champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive
allowed.
oft he confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, bar and that, as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and
such practice is not allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of offended by the said advertisements. Respondent admits the fact of
paralegals. The services it offered include various legal problems wherein a publication of said advertisements at its instance, but claims that it is not
client may avail of legal services from simple documentation to complex engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of "legal support
litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are services" through paralegals with the use of modern computers and
undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive electronic machines.
functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine
jurisdiction however, the services being offered by Legal Clinic which DOCTRINE: The services offered by respondent include various legal
constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple
person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of
regular standing, is entitled to practice law. these services are exclusive functions of lawyers engaged in the practice of
law. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code good and regular standing is entitled to practice law.
of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his
legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective FACTS:
information or statement of facts. The standards of the legal profession Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays for the Court "to order the
condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot, respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., to cease and desist from issuing
without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills 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 services it offers include various legal problems wherein a client may avail
making advertisements pertaining to the exercise of the law profession of legal services from simple documentation to complex litigation and
other than those allowed by law. corporate undertakings. Most of these services are undoubtedly beyond
Petitioner avers that the advertisements reproduced are champertous, the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers
unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the
confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar services being offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law
and that, as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and cannot be performed by paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a
offended by the said advertisements. member of the bar and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to
practice law.
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 RULING: The Court Resolved to RESTRAIN and ENJOIN The Legal
rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals with the use of Clinic, Inc., from issuing or causing the publication or dissemination of any
modern computers and electronic machines. advertisement in any form which is of the same or similar tenor and
purpose as Annexes "A" and "B" of
Respondent further argues that assuming that the services advertised are this petition, and from conducting, directly or indirectly, any activity, opera
legal services, the act of advertising these services should be allowed tion ortransaction proscribed by law or the Code of Professional Ethics as
supposedly in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen indicated herein.
vs.State Bar of Arizona, reportedly decided by the United States Supreme
Court on June 7, 1977. NOTE: Rule 2.03
- A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to
The contention of respondent that it merely offers legal support services solicit legal business.
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.

It is palpably clear 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.

It is clear that services offered by respondent fall within the ambit of the
practice of law. And only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar
and who is in good and regular standing is entitled to practice law.

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

1. WON 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
of YES. The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law and such
practice is not allowed. Respondent is composed mainly of paralegals; the
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. LADAGA 350 SCRA
326 [2001]
FACTS: Atty. Ladaga, an RTC Branch Clerk of Court, acted as
pro bonocounsel for a relative in a criminal case, without the previous
authority from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as required by the
Administrative Code. An administrative complaint was filed against Atty.
Ladaga for practicing law without permission from the Department Head
(CJ) as required by law. Atty. Ladaga justified his appearance as he merely
gave a free legal assistance to a relative and that he was on an approved
leave of absence during his appearances as such counsel. Moreover, the
presiding judge of the court to which he is assigned knew his appearances
as such counsel.

ISSUE: Whether Atty. Ladagas appearances as a pro bono counsel for a

relative constitutes practice of law as prohibited by the Administrative
Code.

HELD: No. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of the statute
should be customarily or habitually holding ones self to the public as a
lawyer and demanding payment for such services. It does not pertain to
isolated court appearances as in this case. Nevertheless, for his failure to
obtain a prior permission from the head of the Department (CJ) as
required by law, respondent was reprimanded.

Office of the Court Administrator vs Atty. Misael M. Ladaga

(A.M. No. P-99-1287, January 26, 2001)

Facts: Atty. Misael Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
Court of Makati, appeared as counsel for and in behalf of his cousin,
Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, an accused in Criminal Case No. 84-885 for
Falsification of Public Documents before the METC of Quezon City. It is
also denied that the appearance of said respondent in said case was
without the previous permission of the Court. During the occasions that
the respondent appeared as such counsel before the METC of Quezon City,
he was on official leave of absence. Moreover, his Presiding Judge, Judge
Napoleon Inoturan was aware of the case he was handling. Respondent
appeared as pro bono counsel for his cousin-client Narcisa Ladaga.
Respondent did not receive a single centavo from her. Helpless as she was
and respondent being the only lawyer in the family, he agreed to represent
her out of his compassion and high regard for her. This is the first time
that respondent ever handled a case for a member of his family who is like
a big sister to him. He appeared for free and for the purpose of settling the
case amicably. Furthermore, his Presiding Judge was aware of his
appearance as counsel for his cousin. On top of this, during all the years Held: In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated:
that he has been in government service, he has maintained his integrity The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in
and independence. He failed to obtain a prior permission from the head of court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident
the Department. The presiding judge of the court to which respondent is to actions and special proceeding, the management of such actions and
assigned is not the head of the Department contemplated by law. 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
Issue: WON Atty. Ladaga, upon such several appearances, was engages matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and
into private practice? NO condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body,
the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditors claim in
Held: Respondent is charged under Sec. 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees which prohibits attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to
civil servants from engaging in the private practice of their profession. A constitute law practice. Practice of law means any activity, in or out court,
similar prohibition is found under Sec. 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training
Court which disallows certain attorneys from engaging in the and experience.
private practice of their profession. THERE WAS NO PRIVATE PRACTICE: In
People vs. Villanueva: Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required
consists in frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years
kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise (State vs. Cotner, is incorrect since Atty. Monsods past work experience as a lawyer-
127, p. 1, 87 Kan. 864, 42 LRA, N.S. 768).Practice of law to fall within the economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customarily or habitually lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the
holding ones self out to the public, as a lawyer and demanding payment poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement for the
for such services (State vs. Bryan, 4 S. E. 522, 98 N. C. 644, 647). The position of COMELEC chairman, The respondent has been engaged in the
appearance as counsel on one occasion, is not conclusive as determinative practice of law for at least ten years does In the view of the foregoing, the
of engagement in the private practice of law. Based on the foregoing, it is petition is DISMISSED.
evident that the isolated instances when respondent appeared as pro bono
counsel of his cousin in Criminal Case No.84885 does not constitute the #
private practice of the law profession contemplated by law.
DECISION: Reprimanded. Renato Cayetano vs Christian Monsod
201 SCRA 210
G.R. No. 100113
September 3, 1991
Cayetano vs. Monsod 201 SCRA 210 September 1991
Facts: Christian Monsod was nominated by then President Corazon C.
Facts: Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon Aquino as chairman of the COMELEC. Cayetano questioned the
C. Aquino to the position of chairman of the COMELEC. Petitioner opposed appointment for Monsod allegedly lacked the necessary qualification of
the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not posses required having been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.
qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a
years. The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners
shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a Chairman and six who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of
Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college
the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the
college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective immediately preceding elections.However, a majority thereof, including the
position in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged
thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar in the practice of law for at least ten years.
who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. It was established that after graduating from the College of Law and
hurdling the Bar, respondent worked in his fathers law office for a short
Issue: Whether the respondent does not posses the required qualification while, then worked as an Operations Officer in the World Bank Group for
of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. about 2 years, which involved getting acquainted with the laws of
member-countries, negotiating loans, and coordinating legal, economic
and project work of the Bank. Upon returning to the Philippines, he worked lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a
with the Meralco Group, served as Chief Executive Officer of an investment lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and
bank and has subsequently worked either as Chief Executive Officer or the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement that
Consultant of various companies. he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.

Issue 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
1. Whether or not Monsod satisfies the requirement of the position of power of appointment is essentially within the discretion of whom it is so
Chairman of the COMELEC. vested subject to the only condition that the appointee should possess the
qualification required by law. From the evidence, there is no occasion for
2. Whether or not the Commission on Appointments committed grave the SC to exercise its corrective power since there is no such grave abuse
abuse of discretion in confirming Monsods appointment. of discretion on the part of the CA.

Held

1. YES. In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava: The G.R. No. L-62909 April 18, 1989
practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in
courtIn general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORPORATION, petitioner,
matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and vs. LABOR ARBITER ADRIAN N. PAGALILAUAN and the NATIONAL
condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body, LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, public respondents, and
the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditors claim in ROGELIO A. ABAN, private respondent.
bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to Facts:
constitute law practice.
Petitioner corporation hired the private respondent Aban as its "Legal
Practice of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires the Assistant and received basic monthly salary of Pl,500.00 plus an initial
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. living allowance of P50.00 which gradually increased to P320.00. On
To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are September 4, 1980, Aban received a letter from the corporation informing
characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice him that he would be considered terminated effective October 4, 1980
or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in because of his alleged failure to perform his duties well.
any degree of legal knowledge or skill. In general, a practice of law
requires a lawyer and client relationship, it is whether in or out of court. Aban filed a complaint against the petitioner for illegal dismissal. The labor
arbiter ruled that Aban was illegally dismissed. This ruling was affirmed by
A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he: . . . for the NLRC on appeal. Hence, this present petition.
valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms,
associations or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in Issue:
a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or
prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship between the
committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized to settle petitioner corporation and Aban.
controversies. Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity,
engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the law, Held:
or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of
court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, and reinstate
Aban to his former or a similar position without loss of seniority rights and
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed to pay three (3) years backwages without qualification or deduction and
the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86.55%. He has been a dues P5,000.00 in attorney's fees. Should reinstatement not be feasible, the
paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception petitioner shall pay the private respondent termination benefits in addition
in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license fees as to the above stated three years backpay and P5,000.00 attorney's fees.
lawyer for more than 10 years. Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a
A lawyer, like any other professional, may very well be an employee of a upon four standards: 1. the manner of selection and engagement of the putative
private corporation or even of the government. This Court has consistently employee; 2. the mode of payment of wages; 3. the presence or absence of a
ruled that the determination of whether or not there is an employer- power of dismissal and 4. the presence or absence of a power to control the
employee relation depends upon four standards: (1) the manner of putative employees conduct. Of the four, the right of control test has been held to
selection and engagement of the putative employee; (2) the mode of be the decisive factor.
payment of wages; (3) the presence or absence of a power of dismissal; In this case, Aban received basic salary plus living allowance, worked solely for the
and (4) the presence or absence of a power to control the putative petitioner, dealt only with legal matters involving the said corporation and its employees
employee's conduct. Of the four, the right-of-control test has been held to and also assisted the Personnel Officer in processing appointment papers of employees
be the decisive factor. which is not act of a lawyer in the exercise of his profession. These facts showed that
petitioner has the power to hire and fire the respondent employee and more
In this case, Aban received basic salary plus living allowance, worked important, exercised control over Aban by defining the duties and functions of his work
solely for the petitioner, dealt only with legal matters involving the said which met the four standards in determining whether or not there is an employee-
corporation and its employees and also assisted the Personnel Officer in employer relationship.
processing appointment papers of employees which is not act of a lawyer
in the exercise of his profession. These facts showed that petitioner has
the power to hire and fire the respondent employee and more important,
exercised control over Aban by defining the duties and functions of his OMICO MINING & INDUSTRIAL CORP. V. VALLEJOS
work which met the four standards in determining whether or not there is
Omico Mining & Industrial Corp. v. Vallejos
an employee-employer relationship.
G.R. No. L-38974. March 25, 1975.
Antonio, J.
# Doctrine:
Section 35 of the Rules of Court, Rule 135, not allowing judges, or other
HYDRO RESOURCES CONTRACTORS CORP. vs PAGALILAUAN official or employee of the superior courts or the OSG to engage in private
GR No. L-62909 1989 practice] is based on sound reasons of public policy, for there is no
question that the rights, duties, privileges, and functions of the office of an
Facts: Petitioner corporation hired the private respondent Aban as its "Legal
Assistant and received basic monthly salary of Pl,500.00 plus an initial living attorney-at-law are so inherently incompatible with the high official
allowance of P50.00 which gradually increased to P320.00. functions, duties, powers, discretions, and privileges of a judge of the CFI.

On September 4, 1980, Aban received a letter from the corporation informing him that FACTS: While petitioners motion to dismiss the complaint filed by
he would be considered terminated effective October 4, 1980 because of his then CFI Judge Catolico was pending resolution by the trial court, the
alleged failure to perform his duties well. Aban filed a complaint against the petitioner for latter filed a petition to declare petitioners in default alleging that seven
illegal dismissal. The labor arbiter ruled that Aban was illegally dismissed. This ruling was
months had lapsed since summons was served on petitioners. The court
affirmed by the NLRC on appeal. Hence, this present petition.
granted the petition. Petitioners filed their notice of appeal to the Supreme
Issue: Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship Court after their motion for reconsideration was denied.
between the petitioner corporation and Aban.
ISSUE: WON judges can engage in private practice of law.
Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, and
reinstate Aban to his former or a similar position without loss of seniority rights and to pay
RULING: No. The inhibitory rule embodied in Section 25 of Rule 138
three years backwages without qualification or deduction and P5,000.00 in attorneys
fees. Should reinstatement not be feasible, the petitioner shall pay the private respondent makes it obligatory upon the judicial officers to give their full time and
termination benefits in addition to the above stated three years backpay and attention to their judicial duties. These objectives are dictated by a sense
P5,000.00 attorneys fees. of moral decency and the desire to promote the public interest.

A lawyer, like any other professional, may very well be an employee of a private
corporation or even of the government. This Court has consistently ruled that
the determination of whether or not there is an employer-employee relation depends
CATU VS. RELLOSA (A.C. NO. 5738 02/19/2008) expressly subjected to a total or partial proscription to practice their
profession or engage in any occupation, no such interdiction is made on
FACTS: Petitioner initiated a complaint against Elizabeth Catu and Antonio the punong barangay and the members of the sangguniang barangay.
Pastor who were occupying one of the units in a building in Malate which Expressio unius est exclusio alterius since they are excluded from any
was owned by the former. The said complaint was filed in the prohibition, the presumption is that they are allowed to practice their
Lupong Tagapamayapa of Barangay 723, Zone 79 of the 5th District of profession. Respondent, therefore, is not forbidden to practice his
Manila where respondent was the punong barangay. The profession.
parties, having been summoned for conciliation proceedings and failing
to arrive at an amicable settlement, were issued by the respondent a Third, notwithstanding all of these, respondent still should have procured a
certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court. Petitioner, prior permission or authorization from the head of his Department, as
thus, filed a complaint for ejectment against Elizabeth and Pastor in the required by civil service regulations. The failure of respondent
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila where respondent entered his to comply with Section 12, Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules
appearance as counsel for the defendants. Because of this, petitioner filed constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer: to obey the laws. In acting
the instant administrative complaint against the respondent on the ground as counsel for a party without first securing the required written
that he committed an act of impropriety as a lawyer and as a public officer permission, respondent not only engaged in the unauthorized practice of
when he stood as counsel for the defendants despite the fact that he law but also violated a civil service rules which is a breach of Rule 1.01 of
presided over the conciliation proceedings between the litigants as punong the Code of Professional Responsibility:
barangay. In his defense, respondent claimed that as punong barangay,
he performed his task without bias and that he acceded to Elizabeths Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral
request to handle the case for free as she was financially distressed. The or deceitful conduct.
complaint was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
where after evaluation, they found sufficient ground For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with the exacting
to discipline respondent. According to them, respondent violated Rule 6.03 ethical standards of the legal profession, respondent failed
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and, as an elective official, the to comply with Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
prohibition under Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713.Consequently, for the
violation of the latter prohibition, respondent committed CANON 7. A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND
a breach of Canon 1. Consequently, for the violation of the latter THE DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES
prohibition, respondent was then recommended suspension from the OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
practice of law for one month with a stern warning that the commission of
the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
A lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing, he disregards
ISSUE: Whether or not the foregoing findings regarding the transgression legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of the legal profession. Every lawyer
of respondent as well as the recommendation on the imposable penalty of should act and comport himself in a manner that promotes public
the respondent were proper. confidence in the integrity of the legal profession. A member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from his office as an attorney for violation
HELD: No. First, respondent cannot be found liable for violation of Rule of the lawyer's oathand/or for breach of the ethics of the legal profession
6.03 the Code of Professional Responsibility as this applies only to a lawyer as embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility.
who has left government service and in connection to former government
lawyers who are prohibited from accepting employment in connection WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa is hereby
with any matter in which [they] had intervened while in their service. In found GUILTY of professional misconduct for violating his oath as a lawyer
the case at bar, respondent was an incumbent punong barangay. and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Apparently, he does not fall within the purview of the said provision. Responsibility. He is therefore SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a
period of six months effective from his receipt of this resolution. He is
Second, it is not Section 90 of RA 7160 but Section 7(b) (2) of RA 6713 sternly WARNED that any repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more
which governs the practice of profession of elective local government severely.
officials. While RA 6713 generally applies to all public officials and
employees, RA 7160, being a special law, constitutes an exception to RA Respondent is strongly advised to look up and take to heart the meaning
6713 .Moreover, while under RA 7160,certain local elective officials (like of the word delicadeza.
governors, mayors, provincial board members and councilors) are
 HELD: MARCOS AND CONCONDIA DISQUALIFIED TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL
FERDINAND E. MARCOS and MANUEL CONCORDIA, petitioners, vs. CHIEF FOR ACCUSED IN COURT-MARTIALS. AFP DID NOT UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDED
OF STAFF, ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.,respondents. THEIR RIGHTS. HENCE, PETITIONS FORMANDAMUS ARE DENIED WITH COSTS.
G.R. No. L-4663 May 30, 1951
MARCOS/CONCORDIA: applicable, because the words "any court" includes the
Nature of the Action: Special civil actions for Mandamus General Court-Martial, and a court-martial case is a criminal case within the
meaning of the above quoted provisions of our Constitution.
Facts: Petitioners instituted two special civil actions of mandamus against
respondents, alleging that respondents Military Tribunals unlawfully excluded Words any court, used in prohibiting members of Congress to appear as
them from the enjoyment of their right to appear as counsel for the accused counsel in any criminal case in which an officer or employee of the
prosecuted before said tribunals; that they are entitled being attorneys duly Government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office,
admitted to practice law in the Philippine Courts. Meanwhile, respondents refers not only to civil, but also to military courts.
maintained that according to Section 17, Article 17 of the Constitution, No
Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall directly or indirectly. General meaning must prevail over restricted meaning UNLESS the nature of
. .appear as counsel before. . .any court. . .in any criminal case wherein an the subject matter clearly indicates that limited sense is intended.
offer or employee of the Government is accused of an offense committed in
relation to his office. . . It would be a bar to another prosecution for the same case which would result
to DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
Issue: Is the above prohibition applicable to petitioners?
If a court-martial has jurisdiction to try an officer or soldier for a crime, its
Ruling: Wherefore, as the petitioners are disqualified to appear as counsel for judgment will be accorded the finality and conclusiveness as to the issues
the accused in court-martial, the respondents did not unlawfully exclude them involved which attend the judgments of a civil court in a case of which it may
from the enjoyment of any right, and hence the petitions for mandamus in legally take cognizance.
these two cases are denied with costs against the petitioners.
Ratio: Yes. The Supreme Court held that the said law applies to petitioners, Restricting our decision to the above question of double jeopardy, the plaintiff
being members of the Congress. Furthermore, the words any court refers not in error, having been acquitted of the crime of homicide, could not be
only to civil courts but also to military courts, or a court-martial; that a court- subsequently tried for the same offense in a civil court exercising authority in
martial is a court, and the prosecution of an accused before it is a criminal and that territory.
not an administrative case. Thus, under certain conditions, another prosecution
of a defendant for the same offense would already constitute double jeopardy. In Sec 17, it is obvious that the reason of prohibiting appearance of members
of the Senate/House of Representatives as counsel for the accused in court-
# martials, as for inhibiting them to appear as such in civil courts, because the
Marcos vs. Chief of Staff independence of
civil courts judges is guaranteed by our Constitution.
FACTS: Alleged that the AFP Military Tribunals unlawfully excluded MARCOS
and CONDORDIA from their right to appear as counsel on the ground that they Ubieadem ratio ibieademlexi
are DISQUALIFIED/EXEMPTED/INHIBITED from SEC 17, Article 17 of the
Constitution: A court-martial is strictly a criminal court. It has no civil jurisdiction; cannot
SEC. 17: No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall enforce a contract, collect a debtor award damages in favor of an individual.
directly or indirectly be financially interested in any contract with the
Government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof, or in any franchise Judgment is a criminal sentence, not a civil verdict.
or special privilege granted by the Congress during his term of office.
He shall not appear as counsel before the Electoral Tribunals or before Proper function is to award punishment upon the ascertainment of guilt.
any court in any civil case wherein the
Court-martial is a lawful tribunal existing by same authority that any other
Government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party, exists by, and the military law is a branch of law as valid as the others.
or in any criminal case wherein an offer or employee of the Government is
accused of an offense committed in relation to his office It differs from other laws only because- it applies to officers and soldiers but
not to other members of the body politic, it is limited to beaches of military
ISSUE: WON the prohibition contained in the above quoted section 17 duty.
of our Constitution is applicable to the petitioners in the two cases. YES.