FACTS:

Renato Cayetano vs Christian Monsod

In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission on Elections. His appointment
was affirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Monsod’s appointment was opposed by Renato Cayetano Complainant Flordeliza A. Madria consulted the respondent to inquire about the process of annulling her
on the ground that he does not qualify for he failed to meet the Constitutional requirement which provides that marriage with her husband, Juan C. Madria. After giving the details of her marriage and other facts relevant to
the chairman of the COMELEC should have been engaged in the practice law for at least ten years. the annulment, the respondent told her that she had a strong case, and guaranteed that he could obtain for her
the decree of annulment. He told her, too, that his legal services would cost P25,000.00.
Monsod’s track record as a lawyer:

1. Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%.

2. Immediately after passing, worked in his father’s law firm for one year. The complainant returned to the respondent’s office. Respondent showed her the petition for annulment, and
3. Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he had a degree in economics and held various positions in asked her to sign it. She paid to him an initial amount of P4,000.00. He acknowledged the payment through a
various foreign corporations. handwritten receipt.
4. In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for various local corporations until 1986.
5. In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.
The complainant again went to the respondent’s office to deliver another partial payment, and to follow up on
the case. The respondent advised her to just wait for the resolution of her complaint, and assured her that she
ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the COMELEC. What constitutes practice of law? did not need to appear in court. He explained that all the court notices and processes would be sent to his
HELD: Yes. Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer- office, and that he would regularly apprise her of the developments. She returned to his office to complete her
entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor payment, and he also issued his receipt for the payment.
— verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he has been engaged in the practice of law
for at least ten years.
The complainant’s daughter Vanessa thereafter made several follow- ups on behalf of her mother. The
As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to court appearances. The members of the respondent informed the complainant that her petition had been granted. Thus, Vanessa went to the
bench and bar and the informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in most developed societies today, respondent’s office and received a copy of the trial court’s decision signed by Judge Lyliha Abella Aquino.
substantially more legal work is transacted in law offices than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law
who do both litigation and non-litigation work also know that in most cases they find themselves spending
more time doing what is loosely described as business counseling than in trying cases. In the course of a According to the complainant, the respondent advised her to allow five months to lapse after the release of the
working day the average general practitioner wig engage in a number of legal tasks, each involving different decision before she could safely claim the status of “single.” After the lapse of such time, she declared in her
legal doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other interested parties. Even the Voter’s Registration Record (VRR) that she was single.
increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized practice wig usually perform at least some legal services outside
their specialty. By no means will most of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is one of the relatively
rare types — a litigator who specializes in this work to the exclusion of much else. Instead, the work will The complainant, again through Vanessa, received from the respondent a copy of the certificate of finality
require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of traditional lawyer skills of client counseling, advice- dated September 26, 2003 signed by one Jacinto C. Danao.
giving, document drafting, and negotiation.
Believing that the documents were authentic, the complainant used the purported decision and certificate of
finality in applying for the renewal of her passport. However, she became the object of an investigation by the
MADRIA V. RIVERA National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) because her former partner, Andrew Dowson Grainge, had filed a
complaint charging that she had fabricated the decision for the annulment of her marriage.

Only then did she learn that the decision and the certificate of finality given by the respondent did not exist in
AC No. 11256 | March 7, 2017 the court records, as borne out by the letter signed by Atty. Aura Clarissa B. Tabag- Querubin, Clerk of Court
of the RTC Branch IV, to wit – As per records of this Court, the above- entitled case was filed on April 25,
By: Karen P. Lustica 2003 but was dismissed as per Order of this Court dated April 6, 2004. The signature of the [sic] Judge Lyliha
Abella Aquino as appearing in the alleged decision attached to your letter is a blatant forgery.
 The respondent directly contravened the letter and spirit of Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 1, and Rule 15.07,
As a result, the complainant faced criminal charges for violation of the Philippine Passport Act. She claims Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, to wit:
that she had relied in good faith on the representations of the respondent; and that he had taken advantage of
his position in convincing her to part with her money and to rely on the falsified court documents.
CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND
AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
The respondent denies the allegations of the complainant. He averred that he had informed her that he would
still be carefully reviewing the grounds to support her petition; that she had insisted that he should prepare the
draft of her petition that she could show to her foreigner fiance; that she had also prevailed upon him to Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
simulate the court decision to the effect that her marriage had been annulled, and to fabricate the certificate of
finality; that she had assured him that such simulated documents would be kept strictly confidential; that he
had informed her that the petition had been filed in April 2003, but she had paid no attention to such Rule 1.02 – A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
information; that she had not appeared in any of the scheduled hearings despite notice; and that he had not confidence in the legal system.
heard from her since then, and that she had not even returned to his office.
xxxx
IBP concluded that the respondent had violated his Lawyer’s Oath; and recommended his suspension from the
practice of law for a period of two years. The IBP Board of Governors modified it to disbarment.
CANON 15 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS
DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
ISSUE:

Rule 15.07. – A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness.
WON ATTY. RIVERA should be disbarred

Surely, too, he could not have soon forgotten his express undertaking under his Lawyer’s Oath to “do no
HELD: falsehood, nor consent to its commission,” Indeed; the ethics of the Legal Profession rightly enjoined every
lawyer like him to act with the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course of his
practice of law.
YES.

Also, Canon 15 and Rule 18.04 of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility required the
RATIO: respondent be true to the complainant as his client. By choosing to ignore his fiduciary responsibility for the
sake of getting her money, he committed a further violation of his Lawyer’s Oath by which he swore not to
“delay any man’s cause for money or malice,” and to “conduct [him]self as a lawyer according to the best of
[his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients.” He compounded
The respondent acknowledged authorship of the petition for annulment of marriage, and of the simulation of this violation by taking advantage of his legal knowledge to promote his own selfish motives, thereby
the decision and certificate of finality. His explanation of having done so only upon the complainant’s disregarding his responsibility under Canon 17.
persistent prodding did not exculpate him from responsibility. For one, the explanation is unacceptable, if not
altogether empty. Simulating or participating in the simulation of a court decision and a certificate of finality
of the same decision is an outright criminal falsification or forgery. One need not be a lawyer to know so, but Under Section 27,23 Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be disbarred on any of the following
it was worse in the respondent’s case because he was a lawyer. Thus, his acts were legally intolerable. grounds, namely: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3) gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5)
Specifically, his deliberate falsification of the court decision and the certificate of finality of the decision conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyers oath; (7) willful disobedience of
reflected a high degree of moral turpitude on his part, and made a mockery of the administration of justice in any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) corruptly or willfully appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case
this country. He thereby became unworthy of continuing as a member of the Bar. without authority so to do.
Falsifying or simulating the court papers amounted to deceit, malpractice or misconduct in office, any of Section 2 of the Act provided that “A bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any subject shall be
which was already a ground sufficient for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 38 of the Rules of Court. deemed to have already passed that subject and the grade/grades shall be included in the computation of the
general average in subsequent bar examinations.”

We note that the respondent was previously sanctioned for unprofessional conduct. In Cruz- Villanueva v. ISSUE:
Rivera he was suspended from the practice of law because he had notarized documents without a notarial
commission. This circumstance shows his predisposition to beguile other persons into believing in the Whether of not, R.A. No. 972 is constitutional.
documents that he had falsified or simulated. It is time to put a stop to such proclivity. He should be quickly
removed through disbarment. RULING:

Section 2 was declared unconstitutional due to the fatal defect of not being embraced in the title of the Act. As
It is true that the power to disbar is always exercised with great caution and only for the most imperative per its title, the Act should affect only the bar flunkers of 1946 to 1955 Bar examinations. Section2 establishes
reasons or in cases of clear misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer a permanent system for an indefinite time. It was also struck down for allowing partial passing, thus failing to
of the court and member of the bar. But we do not hesitate when the misconduct is gross, like in the take account of the fact that laws and jurisprudence are not stationary.
respondent’s case.
As to Section1, the portion for 1946-1951 was declared unconstitutional, while that for 1953 to 1955 was
declared in force and effect. The portion that was stricken down was based under the following reasons:

DISPOSITION: DISBARMENT The law itself admits that the candidates for admission who flunked the bar from 1946 to 1952 had inadequate
preparation due to the fact that this was very close to the end of World War II;
The law is, in effect, a judgment revoking the resolution of the court on the petitions of the said candidates;
IN RE CUNANAN The law is an encroachment on the Court’s primary prerogative to determine who may be admitted to practice
of law and, therefore, in excess of legislative power to repeal, alter and supplement the Rules of Court. The
94 PHIL. 534 rules laid down by Congress under this power are only minimum norms, not designed to substitute the
judgment of the court on who can practice law; and
The pretended classification is arbitrary and amounts to class legislation.
As to the portion declared in force and effect, the Court could not muster enough votes to declare it void.
FACTS: Moreover, the law was passed in 1952, to take effect in 1953. Hence, it will not revoke existing Supreme
Court resolutions denying admission to the bar of an petitioner. The same may also rationally fall within the
Congress passed Rep. Act No. 972, or what is known as the Bar Flunkers Act, in 1952. The title of the law power to Congress to alter, supplement or modify rules of admission to the practice of law.
was, “An Act to Fix the Passing Marks for Bar Examinations from 1946 up to and including 1955.”
PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION vs AGRAVA
Section 1 provided the following passing marks: G.R. No. L-12426 February 16, 1959
FACTS:
1946-1951………………70% Herein petitioner filed for prohibition and injunction against respondent Agrava, the Director of Philippines
Patent Office due to a circular the latter issued scheduling an examination for determining who are qualified to
1952 …………………….71% practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office.

1953……………………..72%
Petitioner contended that one who has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme Court to
1954……………………..73% practice law in the Philippines and who is in good standing, is duly qualified to practice before the Philippines
Patent Office, and that Agrava is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law for requiring such
1955……………………..74% examination as condition precedent before members of the bar may be allowed to represent applicants in the
preparation and prosecution of applications for patents. Undaunted, Agrava argued that that the prosecution of
Provided however, that the examinee shall have no grade lower than 50%. patent cases does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law and that the Rules of Court do not prohibit
the Patent Office from requiring further condition or qualification from those who would wish to handle cases
before the Patent Office.
ISSUE: ISSUE: Whether or not Kuroda can be charged in Philippine courts?
Whether appearance before the Patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution of patent applications,
etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law HELD: Yes. EO No. 68 is constitutional hence the Philippine courts can take cognizance of the case at bar.
EO No 68 is in pursuant to the constitutional provision that states “the Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the
HELD: law of the nation.” The Hague Convention and other similar conventions whose principles are generally
Yes. The practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent Office, the representation of applicants, accepted are hence considered as part of the law of the land.
oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications for patent, their oppositions thereto, or In re: David 93 Phil 461
the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. Although the transaction of business in the Patent Office Respondent was suspended for bad practices in the exercise of his profession as a lawyer for a period of five
involves the use and application of technical and scientific knowledge and training, still, all such business has years from the November 9, 1949. The defendant admits this suspension in `his written report filed on March
to be rendered in accordance with the Patent Law, as well as other laws, including the Rules and Regulations 17, 1951, yet he continued to exercise the profession within the period of suspension, November 9, 1949 to
promulgated by the Patent Office in accordance with law. All these things involve the applications of laws, November 8, 1954.
legal principles, practice and procedure. They call for legal knowledge, training and experience for which a On Feb 28 1950 the respondent file a claim in the case of Tan Tek vs Sy not as a lawyer but as an agent. (For
member of the bar has been prepared. and in behalf of Tan Tek Sy) CFI decided in favor of Tan Tek, subsequently Atty Felix David filed a motion
for execution. In another civil case of the CFI called Malayan Saw Mill, Inc vs Tolentino, defendant filed a
brief for an order to demolish homes.
As stated in 5 Am. Jur,
“In order - says the appeal - to show That I did not Have the intention to disregard the suspension of the
“The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of
Supreme Court, I did not With The Knowledge of Tan Tek Identified Sy Even myself as the attorney for the
pleadings and other papers incident to actions and social proceedings, the management of such actions and
Appelles But In Good Faith, I signed for and in Behalf of the appellee Without Designating That I am
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to
Practicing as attorney-at-law.”
clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law corporation services, assessment and
condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage,
ISSUE: Whether the acts of Atty Felix David is tantamount to practice of law.
enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice as do the
HELD: Yes. Neither can he allow his name to appear in such pleading by itself or as part of firm name under
preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained
the signature of another qualified lawyer because the signature of an agent amounts to signing of a non-
legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions.”
qualified senator or congressman, the office of an attorney being originally an agency, and because he will, by
such act, be appearing in court or quasi-judicial or administrative body in violation of the constitutional
The Supreme Court ruled that under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by the restriction. “He cannot do indirectly what the Constitution prohibits directly.”
Supreme Court to practice law, and in good standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office,
since 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; 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.

Shigenori Kuroda vs Rafael Jalandoni

Shigenori Kuroda was the highest ranking Japanese officer stationed in the Philippines during the Japanese
occupation. He was then charged before the Military Commission, headed by Major General Rafael Jalandoni,
due to the atrocities that were done against non combatant civilians and prisoners during the war. His trial was
in pursuant to Executive Order No. 68 which established the National War Crimes Office and prescribing rules
and regulations governing the trial of accused war criminals. Kuroda is questioning the legality of the said EO
arguing that the same is not provided for in the Constitution. He further underscores the fact that the
Philippines is not a signatory of the Hague Convention on the Rules and Regulations Covering Land Warfare
hence we cannot impose against him any criminal charges because it has no laws to base on, national or
international.