You are on page 1of 3

RENATO CAYETANO vs.

CHRISTIAN MONSOD
G.R. No. 100113. September 3, 1991.
FACTS:
Monsod was nominated by President Aquino as Chairman of the Comelec. The Commission on Appointments confirmed the
appointment despite Cayetano's objection, based on Monsod's alleged lack of the required qualification of 10 year law practice.
Cayetano filed this certiorari and prohibition. The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission
on Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of
their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective
position in the immediately preceding elections.However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of the
Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Monsod has been engaged in the practice of law for 10 years.
2. Whether or not the Commission on Appointments committed grave abuse of discretion in confirming Monsods appointment.

HELD:
1. YES. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court. It embraces the preparation of pleadings and
other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients, and
other works where the work done involves the determination of the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions (PLA
vs. Agrava.) The records of the 1986 constitutional commission show that the interpretation of the term practice of law was liberal as to
consider lawyers employed in the Commission of Audit as engaged in the practice of law provided that they use their legal knowledge
or talent in their respective work. The court also cited an article in the January 11, 1989 issue of the Business Star, that lawyers
nowadays have their own specialized fields such as tax lawyers, prosecutors, etc., that because of the demands of their specialization,
lawyers engage in other works or functions to meet them. These days, for example, most corporation lawyers are involved in
management policy formulation. Therefore, Monsod, who passed the bar in 1960, worked with the World Bank Group from 1963-1970,
then worked for an investment bank till 1986, became member of the CONCOM in 1986, and also became a member of the Davide
Commission in 1990, can be considered to have been engaged in the practice of law as lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyerentrepreneur, etc.
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 power of appointment is essentially within the discretion of whom it is so vested subject to the only condition that the
appointee should possess the qualification required by law. From the evidence, there is no occasion for the SC to exercise its corrective
power since there is no such grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA.

Manangan v. CFI
- Petitioner counsel for himself was charged in CFI with violation of RPC (Execution of Deeds by Intimidation). On the
same date an order of arrest was released.
- He then filed a petition for CPM with TRO assailing the jurisdiction of the lower court. However the same was dismissed
for non-payment of legal fees.
- During prelim invest. he did not show up and disappeared for 1 year.
- When he surfaced an alias writ was issued. And he challenged this Alias Writ. He contested the Alias writ in CFI but the
latter said that the said warrant of arrest was still in force after the lapsed of time.
SC: Contrary to petitioner's pretensions, the Alias Warrant of Arrest is valid. Petitioner had evaded arrest by disappearing
from the jurisdiction of respondent Court. Neither is there any indication in the records that the property bond, filed by
petitioner-accused in the Municipal Circuit Court of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur, had been accepted by respondent
Court and petitioner discharged on the basis thereof. The Alias Warrant is not "stale or functus officio," as alleged. Unlike a
warrant, which is valid for only ten (10) days from date (Rule 126, Sec. 9), a Warrant of Arrest remains valid until arrest is
effected or the Warrant lifted. Respondent Court, therefore, cannot be faulted with grave abuse of discretion for holding
that said Warrant is in full force and effect.

Page 1

Salvacion Cordova vs Atty. Laurence Cordova


179 SCRA 680 Legal Ethics Moral Delinquency
In 1985, Atty. Laurence Cordova, while being married to Salvacion Delizo and with two children, left his wife and children
to cohabit with another married woman. In 1986, Salvacion and Cordova had a reconciliation where Cordova promised to
leave his mistress. But apparently, Cordova still continued to cheat on her wife as apparently, Cordova again lived with
another woman and worse, he took one of his children with him and hid the child away from Salvacion.
In 1988, Salvacion filed a letter-complaint for disbarment against Cordova. Eventually, multiple hearing dates were sent
but no hearing took place because neither party appeared. In 1989, Salvacion sent a telegraphic message to the Commission
on Bar Discipline intimating that she and her husband has reconciled. The Commission, since Salvacion failed to submit
her evidence ex parte, merely recommended the reprimand and admonishment of Cordova.
ISSUE: Whether or not Cordova should be merely reprimanded.
HELD: No. He should be suspended indefinitely until he presents evidence that he has been morally reformed and that
there was true reconciliation between him and his wife. Before a person can be admitted to the bar, one requirement is that
he possesses good moral character. That requirement is not exhausted and dispensed with upon admission to membership
of the bar. On the contrary, that requirement persists as a continuing condition for membership in the Bar in good standing.
The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the
generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct for instance, which makes a mockery of the inviolable
social institution or marriage such was the case in the case at bar.

Maglasang vs. People [G.R. No. 90083, October 4, 1990]


Facts: Khalyxto Maglasang was convicted in the court in San Carlos, Negros Occidental. His counsel, Atty. Castellano,
filed for a petition for certiorari through registered mail. Due to non-compliance with the requirements, the court dismissed
the petition and a motion for reconsideration. Atty. Castellano then sent a complaint to the Office of the President where he
accused the five justices of the 2nd division, with biases and ignorance of the law or knowingly rendering unjust
judgments. He accused the court of sabotaging the Aquino administration for being Marcos appointees, and robbing the
Filipino people genuine justice and democracy. He also said that the SC is doing this to protect the judge who was
impleaded in the petition and for money reasons. He alleges further that the court is too expensive to be reached by
ordinary men. The court is also inconsiderate and overly strict and meticulous. When asked to show cause why he should
not be cited in contempt, Castellano said that the complaint was constructive criticism intended to correct in good faith the
erroneous and very strict practices of the justices concerned. He also said that the justices have no jurisdiction over his act
and that they should just answer the complaint. The SC found him guilty of contempt and improper conduct and ordered to
pay P1, 000 or imprisonment of 15 days, and to suffer six months suspension.
Issue: Whether or not the Atty. Castellanos acts constitute a violation of the provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Held: Yes. The court found his comments scurrilous and contumacious. He went beyond the bounds of constructive
criticism. What he said are not relevant to the cause of his client. They cast aspersion on the Courts integrity as a neutral
and final arbiter of all justiciable controversies before it.
The explanation of Castellano in his negligence in the filing of the petition for certiorari did not render his negligence
excusable. It is clear that the case was lost not by the alleged injustices Castellano irresponsibly ascribed to the members of
the Court, but his inexcusable negligence and incompetence.
As an officer of the court, he should have known better than to smear the honor and integrity of the Court just to keep the
confidence of his client.
Also, with the complaint he filed, the most basic tenet of the system of government separation of power - has been lost.
He should know that not even the President of the Philippines can pass judgment on any of the Courts acts.
Page 2

Page 3