ZETA vs.

MACALINAO
FACTS:     Administrative complaint against Felicisimo Malinao, court interpreter of the CFI of Catbalogan, Samar Felicisimo Macalinao is a lower corurt employee in Zumarraga, Western Samar. He was charged with Illegally appearing in court, grave misconduct in office, crime of falsification and violation of executive order and civil service law. Julio Zeta, private complainant appears to be a fictitious person but nevertheless the court proceeded to investigate the case against him by calling Judge Restituto Duran of Sta. Rita Samar, Judge Juanito Reyes of Zumarraga, Samar and Judge Miguel Avestruz of Daram, Samar. Macalinao contended that his participation for defendants case was gratuitous as they could not engage the services of counsel by reason of poverty and the absence of one in the locality.

ISSUE:  HELD:   Yes. Macalinao is guilty of Illegally appearing in court, grave misconduct in office, crime of falsification and violation of executive order and civil service law. WHEREFORE, respondent Felicisimo Macalinao is hereby ordered dismissed from his position as interpreter in the CFI, Zumarraga, WS; with prejudice to reemployment in the judicial branch of the government. Whether Macalinao is guilty of all the charges against him.

MEJIA vs. REYES
FACT:    This Is a disbarment proceeding s against attorney Francisco S. Reyes for malpractice. Respondent was acting as counsel for the complainants (Mejia) in the civil case against PNB (Baguio branch) that has appointed him as bank attorney and notary public. The civil case against PNB was won by the complainants but the court only considers Php67.34, the Php currency equivalent value of Php2,693.53 under the Balantyne Schedule. Motion for reconsideration was denied by the court. In the administrative proceedings, the complainants prayed for the disbarment of Reyes on the ground of malpractice. The complainants claimed that they did not know the affiliation of Reyes with PNB and that Reyes did not reveal this to them. Reyes answered their accusation and according to him, they have not appealed the case because they would want to avail of RA No. 1286 that condoned interest accruing on gov’t

then the appointment cannot be faulted on the ground that there are others better qualified who should have been preferred. the only condition being that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law. It also appears that the respondent was deeply devoted to his duties as counsel for the complainants and collected a very small attorney’s fees and the malpractice committed by the respondent is not so serious. o Not limited to the conduct of cases in the court. firms. (1987 Const. HELD: Reyes is guilty of malpractice but only recommending reprimand.etc. Ople and Jamir) Appointment is an essentially discretionary power and must be performed by the officer in which it is vested according to his best lights. COMELEC shall be composed of a Chairman and 6 Commissioners. lawyer-negotiator of contracts and a lawyer legislator or rich and poor. lawyer entrepreneur of industry. lawyer-manager. ISSUE: Whether Reyes is guilty of malpractice. It does not appear satisfactorily proven that during the pendency of their case the complainants did not know of the respondents connection with PNB.” o 1986 Constitution adopted a liberal interpretation of the term “practice of law” (Discussion b/w Foz. o Qualifications: Natural-born citizens of the Philippines and at the time of their appointment. MONSOD’s past professional experience includes: lawyer-economist. Practice of Law o Black Law = The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and techniques to serve the interest of another with his consent.    . Art IX-C) o Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the COA for a term of seven years without reappointment. If he does..debts. shall be members of the Phil. o A person is also considered in the practice of law when he “for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person. CAYETANO vs. they knew his affiliation with PNB and he is not guilty of malpractice as he is not a retainer lawyer of PNB. holders of bachelor degree and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding elections. Sec 1 (1). Majority thereof including the Chairman. MONSOD FACTS:   Petition to review the decision of the COA on the appointment of Monsod as COMELEC Chairman. He also said that the contrary to the claim of the complainants. at least 35 yrs old. Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

there being no claim for civil liability and therefore. HELD: AFFIRMATIVE.      . Atty. MOR and Motion to Hold in Abeyance was filed by the petitioner before the RTC but were denied by the same. Monsod has never practices law except for an alleged one year period after passing the bar examinations”. Attorney-Client Relationship. Petitioner filed before RTC a petition for certiorari and mandamus with prayer for preliminary injunction and TRO with MeTC but both was DENIED. Concurrence: NARVASA: No grave abuse of jurisdiction by COA so as the court to interfere in MONSOD’s appointment. ISSUE: Whether MONSOD’s professional experience will qualify in the definition of “practice of law” for at least 10 years. CRUZ vs. Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term “practice of law” particularly the modern concept of law practice. Certiorari. MINA FACTS:   Special Civil Action in the SC. Thus. A MOR was filed by the petitioner was denied by the MeTC. Dissenting Opinions:    PADILLA: Factors determinative whether a particular activity constitutes a “practice of law” (COA) o Habitually. MeTC denied permission for the petition to appear as private prosecutor on the ground that Circular 19 governing limited law student practice in conjunction with Rule 138-A. Compensation. and taking into consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the Constitution.” GUTIERREZ: “In fact. only where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown the Court interferes with the Commission’s judgment. Ferdinand Cruz filed before the MeTC (Metropolitan Trial Court) a formal entry of Appearance as private prosecutor in a criminal case (grave threats) where his father Mariano Cruz is the complaining witness on the bases of Sec. it appears that Mr. Ferdinand is a third year law student. 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. CRUZ: “I see no reason why we cannot disqualify an appointee simply because he has passed the COA. MeTC proceeding with criminal case on the ground that the case is one that can be prosecuted de oficio. MONSOD has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. His appearance was with prior conformity of the public prosecutor and a written authority if his father appointing him to his agent. Application of law. intervention of a private prosecutor is not legally tenable.

730. Whether Law Student Practice Rule encapsulated in Rule 138-A of the Rules of Court prohibits the petitioner from entering his appearance in behalf of his father. 1997 in Bar Matter No. Sec 2)  Shall be under the direct supervision and control of a member of IBP duly accredited by the law school. unless the offended party waives the civil action. as an agent or frind of a party without the supervision of a member of a bar. criminal or administrative case before any trial court. A law student may appear before an inferior court. Conditions for Student Practice: (Rule 138-A. board or officer to represent indigent clients. a law student may appear in his personal capacity without the supervision of a lawyer.ISSUE: 1. No.  Resolution dated June 10. In inferior courts. 2. reserves the right to institute it separately of institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. Appearance: (Rule 138-A. HELD: 1. the private prosecutor may rightfully intervene to prosecute the civil aspect. tribunal. No. . Whether the MeTC is correct in proceeding with the criminal case as there is no civil liability instituted in the case at bar. Whether the petitioner may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of a party litigant. Yes. where the issues and procedure are relatively simple. 3. the Court En Banc clarified: o The rule however is different if the law student appears before an inferior court. Sec 1)  Successfully completed 3rd year of regular 4 year prescribed law curriculum in a recognized law school approved by SC. Recovery of Civil Liability:  Deemed instituted with the criminal action. The petitioner is right in stating that there being no reservation. 2.  May appear without compensation in any civil. waiver nor prior institution of civil aspect in the criminal case. 3.

1 of RA No. 972 referring to the examinations of 1953 to 1955. 1946 up to August 1951. d) Title of law must embrace all its provisions. FACTS:   ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court.094 law graduates who confessedly ad an inadequate preparation for the practice of profession. Congress has exceeded it legislative power to repeal. By the disputed law. Sec 2) ISSUE: Whether RA. Lacking in 8 votes to declare the nullity of that part of Art. said part insofar as it concerns the examinations in those years. 1946 shall be deemed to have passed in such subject of subjects and such grade/s shall be included in computing the passing gen ave that said candidate may obtain in any subsequent examinations that he may take. 73% in 1954. 972.In Re: CUNANAN et al. It qualifies 1. DOCTRINES: a) RA No. 972 is not embraced in the title of the law. (RA No. 72% in 1953. c) The constitution has not conferred on Congress and this Tribunal equal responsibilities governing the admission to the practice of law. a judgment revoking the resolution of this Court on the petitions of these 810 candidates. b) Admission. This is a manifest encroachment on the constitutional responsibility of the SC. It is undoubtedly a class legislation. No 972 is unconstitutional. RA No. shall continue to be in force. 972. disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys-at-law in the practice of profession are a JUDICIAL FUNCTION. (RA No. 74% in 1955 w/o a candidate obtaining a grade below 50% in any subject. 972 is contrary to public interest bec. Article 2 of RA No. The entire law is void. 972: AN ACT TO FIX THE PASSING MARKS FOR BAR EXAMINATIONS FROM 1946 TO 1955. RA. in effect.71% in 1952. It is. HELD: Yes. suspension. No 972 is unconstitutional and therefore declared void and without effect for the following reasons to wit:       Its declared purpose is to admit 810 candidates who failed in the bar examinations of 1946 – 1952. shall be allowed to take and subscribe the corresponding oath of office as member of the Phil Bar. alter and supplement the rules on admission to the bar. o Any bar candidate who obtained a gen ave of 70% in any bar examinations after July 4. Sec 1) o Any bar candidate who obtained a grade of 75% in any subject in any bar examination after July 4. .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful