People vs. Villanueva (G.R. No.

L-19450 May 27, 1965) Post under case digests, Legal Ethics at Sunday, March 18, 2012 Posted by Schizophrenic Mind Facts: The complainant in the case was represented by City Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City after securing permission of the Secretary of Justice. The condition for his appearance as such was that every time he would appear at trial of the case he would be considered on leave of absence and that he would not receive any payment for his services. Such appearance was questioned by herein respondents counsel. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Fule should be allowed to appear on behalf of the complainant Held: The court ruled in the affirmative. The court held that in appearing as private prosecutor in the case, the isolated appearance of City Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice within themeaning and contemplation of the Rules. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequenthabitual exercise. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding one's self out to the public, as customarily and demanding paymentfor such services. The appearance as counsel on one occasion is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private practice of law. Essentially, the word private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are available to the public for a compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. Furthermore Atty. Fule was given the permission by his immediate superior, the Secretary of Justice.

People of the Philippines vs Simplicio Villanueva

on September 5, 2012

14 SCRA 109 Legal Ethics Practice of Law Isolated Appearance

In 1959, Villanueva was charged with Malicious Mischief in the municipality of Alaminos in Laguna. In said case, the private offended party asked his lawyer friend, Ariston Fule to prosecute said case. Apparently, Fule was the fiscal in San Pablo, Laguna. Villanueva the opposed the appearance of Fule as counsel for the offended party as he said that according to the Rules of Court when an attorney had been appointed to the position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal and therein qualified, by operation of law, he ceased to engage in private law practice. ISSUE: Whether or not Ariston Fule is engaged in private law practice. HELD: No. Private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are available to the public for a compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. In the case at bar, Fule is not being compensated but rather hes doing it for free for his friend who happened to be the offended party. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise. Further, the fact that the Secretary of Justice approved Fules appearance for his friend should be given credence.

Cayetano vs Monsod

Leave a comment 201 SCRA 210, 1991 FACTS Monsod was nominated by President Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC on April 25, 1991. Cayetano 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. Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsods nomination, petitioner filed a 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 because Monsod did not meet the requirement of having practiced law for the last ten years. ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod satisfies the requirement of the position of Chairman of the COMELEC. HELD: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he: . . . for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies. Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the law, 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. 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. Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.