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. Monsods appointment was
opposed by Renato Cayetano on the ground that he does not qualify for he failed to meet the
Constitutional requirement which provides that the chairman of the COMELEC should have
been engaged in the practice law for at least ten years.
Monsods track record as a lawyer:
1.

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

2.

Immediately after passing, worked in his fathers law firm for one year.

3.

Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he had a degree in economics and held
various positions in various foreign corporations.

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.

ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the COMELEC. What constitutes
practice of law?
HELD: Yes. 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.
As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to court appearances. The
members of the bench and bar and the informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in
most developed societies today, 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 working day the
average general practitioner wig engage in a number of legal tasks, each involving different
legal doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other interested
parties. Even the 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 require the lawyer to have mastered
the full range of traditional lawyer skills of client counseling, advice-giving, document drafting,
and negotiation.

Digested Casesv. Atty. Venida,

A.C. No. 10043,November 20, 2013,
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) thru its Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD)
received a Complaint filed by Aurora H.Cabauatan (complainant) against respondent Atty.

Freddie A. Venida for serious misconduct and gross neglect of duty. x x x Complainantalleged
that she was the appellant in CA-G.R. [No.] 85024 entitled Aurora Cabauatan, Plaintiff-Appellant
vs. Philippine National Bank,Defendant-Appellee. The case was originally handled by a different
lawyer but she decided to change her counsel and engaged theservices of the Respondent x x
x. Complainant was then furnished by the Respondent of the pleadings he prepared, such as
"Appearanceas Counsel/Dismissal of the Previous Counsel and a Motion for Extension of time
to File a Memorandum."Complainant made several follow-ups on her case until she lost contact
with the Respondent. Complainant alleged the gross,reckless and inexcusable negligenc
e of the Respondent that led to the case is x x x deemed ABANDONED and DISMISSED on
authority ofSec. 1(e), Rule 50 of the 1996 Rules of Civil Procedure. x x x Certified on March 31,
2006.
Respondent did not submit any pleading with the Court of Appeals. It is likewise very noticeable
that the Respondent was notamong those furnished with a copy of the Entry of Judgment hence
it is crystal clear that he never submitted his Entry of Appearance withthe Court of Appeals
[insofar] as the case of the Complainant is concerned. Respondent assured the Complainant
that he was doing hisbest in dealing with the case, nevertheless, later on Complainant lost
contact with him. x x x including the fact that he was not one of theparties furnished with a copy
of the Entry of Judgment proved the inaction and negligence of the Respondent. x x x
Issue:
Is respondent can be held liable for his gross negligence and inaction against his clients case?
Ruling:
Yes, It is beyond dispute that complainant engaged the services of respondent to handle her
case which was then on appealbefore the Court of Appeals.Indeed, when a lawyer takes a
client's cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting the latter's
rights.Complainant also established that she made several follow-ups with the respondent but
the latter merely ignored her or made herbelieve that he was diligently handling her case. Thus,
complainant was surprised when she received a notice from the Court of Appealsinforming her
that her appeal had been abandoned and her case dismissed. The dismissal had become final
and executory. This is a clearviolation of Rule 18.04, Canon 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility which enjoins lawyers to keep their clients informed of the statusof their case and
shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients' request for information.The Code of
Professional Responsibility pertinently provides:Canon 17

A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed on him.Canon 18

A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. x x x xRule 18.03

A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.Rule 18.04

A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the client'srequest for information.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Freddie A. Venida is SUSPENDED from the practice o law for
one year effective immediately, withWARNING that a similar violation will be dealt with more
severely. He is DIRECTED to report to this Court the date of his receipt of thisResolution to
enable this Court to determine when his suspension shall take effect.Let a copy of this
Resolution be entered in the personal records of respondent as a member of the Bar, and

copies furnished theOffice of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the
Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in thecountry.SO ORDERED.

Canon 6 Huyssen vs. Guttierez (A.C. No. 6707, March 24, 2006)
Facts: In 1995, the complainant and her three sons, all American citizens, applied for Philippine
Visas. The respondent who was then connected with the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation
(BID) informed them that they needed to deposit a certain amount of money in order that their
visa applications will be approved. Complainant then deposited with respondent on six different
occasions from April 1995 to April 1996 the total amount of US $20,000. However, the
respondent refused to issue copies of official receipts despite the demand of the complainant.
After one year, complainant demanded from respondent the return of US $20,000 who assured
her that said amount would be returned. Instead of returning the money, the respondent issued
postdated checks which were dishonored. After respondent made several unfulfilled promises to
return the said amount, a complaint for disbarment was filed in the Commission on Bar
Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
Issue: Whether or not Atty. Guttierez should be disbarred for the act complained of in the case
Held: The respondent was DISBARRED from the practice of law and ordered to return the
amount he received from the complainant with legal interest from his receipt of the money until
payment. Respondents acts of asking money from complainant in consideration of the latters
pending application for visas is violative of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or
deceitful acts. Moreover, said acts also constitute a breach of Rule 6.02 of the Code which bars
lawyers in government service from promoting their private interests. Promotion of private
interests includes soliciting gifts or anything of monetary value in any transaction requiring the
approval of his office or which may be affected by the functions of his office. As a lawyer, who
was also a public officer, respondent miserably failed to cope with strict demands and high
standards of the legal profession.
In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILLION
(IBP Administrative Case No. MDD-1)
FACTS: The respondent Marcial A. Edillon is a duly licensed practicing Attorney in the
Philippines. The IBP Board of Governors recommended to the Court the removal of the name of
the respondent from its Roll of Attorneys for stubborn refusal to pay his membership dues
assailing the provisions of the Rule of Court 139-A and the provisions of par. 2, Section 24,
Article III, of the IBP By-Laws pertaining to the organization of IBP, payment of membership fee
and
suspension
for
failure
to
pay
the
same.
Edillon contends that the stated provisions constitute an invasion of his constitutional rights in
the sense that he is being compelled as a pre-condition to maintain his status as a lawyer in
good standing, to be a member of the IBP and to pay the corresponding dues, and that as a
consequence of this compelled financial support of the said organization to which he is admitted
personally antagonistic, he is being deprived of the rights to liberty and properly guaranteed to

him by the Constitution. Hence, the respondent concludes the above provisions of the Court
Rule and of the IBP By-Laws are void and of no legal force and effect.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court may compel Atty. Edillion to pay his membership fee to the IBP.
HELD: The Integrated Bar is a State-organized Bar which every lawyer must be a member of as
distinguished from bar associations in which membership is merely optional and voluntary. All
lawyers are subject to comply with the rules prescribed for the governance of the Bar including
payment a reasonable annual fees as one of the requirements. The Rules of Court only
compels him to pay his annual dues and it is not in violation of his constitutional freedom to
associate. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to
attend or not the meeting of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its election as
he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. The
Supreme Court in order to further the States legitimate interest in elevating the quality of
professional legal services, may require thet the cost of the regulatory program the lawyers.
Such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of the State. The right to practice
law before the courts of this country should be and is a matter subject to regulation and inquiry.
And if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory measure is recognize then a penalty
designed to enforce its payment is not void as unreasonable as arbitrary. Furthermore, the
Court has jurisdiction over matters of admission, suspension, disbarment, and reinstatement of
lawyers and their regulation as part of its inherent judicial functions and responsibilities thus the
court may compel all members of the Integrated Bar to pay their annual dues.

LUZVIMINDA R. LUSTESTICA vs. ATTY. SERGIO E. BERNABE A.C. No. 6258, 24 August
2010, EN BANC (Per Curiam)
Atty Bernabe applied for consideration of the disbarment complaint filed by Luzviminda R.
Lustestica (complainant) against Atty. Sergio E. Bernabe (respondent) for notarizing a falsified
or forged Deed of Donation of real property despite the non-appearance of the donors,
Benvenuto H. Lustestica (complainant's father) and his first wife, Cornelia P. Rivero, both of
whom were already dead at the time of execution of the said document. Atty Bernabe admitted
the fact of death of Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero, considering their death
certificates attached to the complaint. The respondent claimed, however, that he had no
knowledge that the real Benvenuto H. Lustestica and Cornelia P. Rivero were already dead at
the time he notarized the Deed of Donation. 2 cralaw He also claimed that he exerted efforts to
ascertain the identities of the persons who appeared before him and represented themselves as
the donors under the Deed of Donation.
ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent committed a falsehood in violation of his oath as a lawyer
and his duties as Notary Public
HELD: We cannot overemphasize the important role a notary public performs. In Gonzales v.
Ramos, we stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one

invested with substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private
document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its
authenticity. A notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for
this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of his duties; otherwise, the publics confidence in the integrity of a notarized
document would be undermined.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DISBARMENT OF TELESFORO A. DIAO VS.
SEVERINO G. MARTINEZ, AC No. 244, March 29, 1963
FACTS: Telesforo A. Diao took the law examinations in 1953 and was admitted to the Bar. Two
years later, Severino Martinez charged Diao of falsifying the information in his application for
such Bar Examination. Upon further investigation, it was found that Diao did not finish his high
school training, and neither did he obtain his Associate in Arts (AA) degree from Quisumbing
College in 1941. Diao practically admits first charge, but claims that he served the US army, and
took the General Classification Test which, according to Diao, is equivalent to a High School
Diploma, although he failed to submit certification for such claim from any proper school
officials. The claim was doubtlful, however, the second charge was clearly meritorious, as Diao
did not obtain his AA degree from Quisumbing College. Diao claims that he was erroneously
certified, and asserts that he obtained his AA from Arellano University in 1949. This claim was
still unacceptable, as records would have shown that Diao graduated from the University in April
1949, but he started his Law studies in October 1948 (second semester, AY 1948-1949) and he
would not have been permitted to take the Bar, as it is provided in the Rules, applicants under
oath that Previous to the study of law, he had successfully and satisfactorily completed the
required pre-legal education (AA) as required by the Department of Private Education
ISSUE: WON Telesforo A Diao should be Disbarred.

RULING: The Supreme Court ruled that Telesforo A. Diao was not qualified to take the Bar
Exams, but did by falsifying information. Admission under false pretenses thus give grounds for
revoking his admission in the Bar, as passing the Bar Exam is not the only requirement to
become an attorney at law. Thus, the name Telesforo A. Diao is deleted from the roll of
attorneys and he is required to return his law diploma within thirty days. P a g e | 10 Legal Ethics
Case Digest Judge Philip Aguinaldo 3AA, A.Y. 2011-2012 The records undeniably show the
gross negligence exhibited by the respondent in discharging his duties as a notary public. He
failed to ascertain the identities of the affiants before him and failed to comply with the most
basic function that a notary public must do, i.e., to require the parties presentation of their
residence certificates or any other document to prove their identities. Given the respondents
admission in his pleading that the donors were already dead when he notarized the Deed of
Donation, we have no doubt that he failed in his duty to ascertain the identities of the persons
who appeared before him as donors in the Deed of Donation. Under the circumstances, we find
that the respondent should be made liable not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer. He
not only violated the Notarial Law (Public Act No. 2103), but also Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 (Old Notarial Law) states:
(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before a notary public or an officer duly authorized by
law of the country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the
act is done. The notary public or the officer taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the
person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him and that he is the same
person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The
certificate shall be made under his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not,
his certificate shall so state.