BASILLA, ROAN R.

JD IV
PRACTICE COURT I

CASE DIGESTS
1. AGUIRRE vs. RANA B. M.

FACTS: Respondent Edwin L. Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar
Examinations. Respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate
in the May 2001 elections before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers of
Mandaon, Masbate and filed with the MBEC a pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled
Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the Canvassing of Votes in some Precincts for the
Office of Vice-Mayor. In this pleading, respondent represented himself as "counsel for
and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan," and signed the pleading as
counsel for George Bunan. Furthermore, respondent also signed as counsel for Emily
Estipona-Hao on 19 May 2001 in the petition filed before the MBEC praying for the
proclamation of Estipona-Hao as the winning candidate for mayor of Mandaon,
Masbate. On 21 May 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of
successful bar examinees as members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie
Aguirre filed against respondent a Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. On 22
May 2001, respondent was allowed to take the lawyer’s oath but was disallowed from
signing the Roll of Attorneys until he is cleared of the charges against him.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent shall be denied Admission to the Bar.

RULING: Respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the
proceedings before the MBEC and filed various pleadings, without license to do so.
Evidence clearly supports the charge of unauthorized practice of law. Respondent called
himself "counsel" knowing fully well that he was not a member of the Bar. Having held
himself out as "counsel" knowing that he had no authority to practice law, respondent
has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar. The right to practice
law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons of
good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The
exercise of this privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge,
educational attainment, and even public trust since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A
bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice law simply by passing the bar
examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even from one who
has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law
without a license. True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took
the lawyer’s oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that finally makes
one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is
immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law.
Respondent should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to
be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and his
signature in the Roll of Attorneys.

1
BASILLA, ROAN R.
JD IV
PRACTICE COURT I

CASE DIGESTS

2. CAYETANO V. MONSOD (201 SCRA 210) G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991

FACTS: RENATO CAYETANO, petitioner, vs. CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R. SALONGA,
COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENT, and HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity as
Secretary of Budget and Management, respondents. PARAS, J.: FACTS: Christian Monsod was
nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a
letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991.
Renato 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. On
June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of Monsod as
Chairman of the COMELEC. On June 18, 1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he
assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC. Pertinent provision of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution regarding the required qualifications for COMELEC is as follows: 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. Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments of Monsod's nomination, petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer,
filed the instant 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. 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. After graduating from the College
of Law (U.P.) and passing the bar, Atty. Monsod worked in the law office of his father. During
his stint in the World Bank Group (19631970), Monsod worked as an operations officer for
about two years in Costa Rica and Panama, which involved getting acquainted with the laws
of member-countries negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic, and project work of
the Bank. Upon returning to the Philippines in 1970, he worked with the Meralco Group,
served as chief executive officer of an investment bank and subsequently of a business
conglomerate, and since 1986, has rendered services to various companies as a legal and
economic consultant or chief executive officer. As former Secretary-General (1986) and
National Chairman (1987) of NAMFREL, Monsod's work involved being knowledgeable in
election law. He appeared for NAMFREL in its accreditation hearings before the Comelec. In
the field of advocacy, Monsod, in his personal capacity and as former Co-Chairman of the
Bishops Businessmen's Conference for Human Development, has worked with the under
privileged sectors, such as the farmer and urban poor groups, in initiating, lobbying for and
engaging in affirmative action for the agrarian reform law and lately the urban land reform
2
BASILLA, ROAN R.
JD IV
PRACTICE COURT I

CASE DIGESTS
bill. Monsod also made use of his legal knowledge as a member of the Davide Commission, a
quasi judicial body, which conducted numerous hearings (1990) and as a member of the
Constitutional Commission (1986-1987), and Chairman of its Committee on Accountability of
Public Officers, for which he was cited by the President of the Commission, Justice Cecilia
Muñoz-Palma for "innumerable amendments to reconcile government functions with individual
freedoms and public accountability and the party-list system for the House of Representative.

ISSUE: Whether or not Christian Monsod possesses the required qualification of having been
in the practice of law for at least ten years.

RULING: Yes. In the light of the various definitions of the term “Practice of law" and taking
into consideration the liberal construction intended by the framers of the Constitution, Atty.
Monsod's past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a
lawyerentrepreneur 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.

1. The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and
technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in
court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of
pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the
preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It
embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in mattersconnected with the
law. An attorney engages in the practice of law by maintaining an office where he is held out
to be-an attorney, using a letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling clients in
legal matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about pending litigation, and fixing and
collecting fees for services rendered by his associate. 2. 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 and there, in such representative capacity
performs any act or acts for the purpose of obtaining or defending the rights of their clients
under the law. 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.” 3. Practice of law under modem conditions consists in no small part of work performed
outside of any court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in court. It embraces
conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of subjects, and the preparation
and execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field of business and trust relations
and other affairs. Although these transactions may have no direct connection with court
proceedings, they are always subject to become involved in litigation. They require in many
aspects a high degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men and affairs, and great
capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These customary functions of an
3
BASILLA, ROAN R.
JD IV
PRACTICE COURT I

CASE DIGESTS
attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration of justice by the
courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the question set forth in the order, can be
drawn between that part of the work of the lawyer which involves appearance in court and
that part which involves advice and drafting of instruments in his office. It is of importance to
the welfare of the public that these manifold customary functions be performed by persons
possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all times
under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys.

3. CRUZ VS CABRERA

Facts:Complainant alleges that he is a fourth year law student; since the latter part of 2001,
he instituted several actions against his neighbors; he appeared for and in his behalf in his
own cases; he met respondent who acted as the counsel of his neighbors; during a hearing on
January 14, 2002, in one case before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 112, Pasay City,
presided by Judge Caridad Cuerdo.

Respondent’s imputations were uncalled for and the latter’s act of compelling the court to ask
complainant whether he is a lawyer or not was intended to malign him before the public,
inasmuch as respondent knew that complainant is not a lawyer, having appeared for and in
his behalf as a party litigant in prior cases; respondent’s imputations of complainant’s
misrepresentation as a lawyer was patently with malice to discredit his honor, with the
intention to threaten him not to appear anymore in cases respondent was handling; the
manner, substance, tone of voice and how the words “appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka
muna!” were uttered were totally with the intention to annoy, vex and humiliate, malign,
ridicule, incriminate and discredit complainant before the public.

Issue:Whether or not respondent violated Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Whether or not complainant is not precluded from litigating personally his cases

Whether or not complainant is engaged in the practice of law

Ruling:

1. We hold that respondent’s outburst of “appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna” does not
amount to a violation of Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such single
outburst, though uncalled for, is not of such magnitude as to warrant respondent’s suspension
or reproof. It is but a product of impulsiveness or the heat of the moment in the course of an
argument between them. It has been said that lawyers should not be held to too strict an
account for words said in the heat of the moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and
that the big way is for the court to condone even contemptuous language.

2. Nonetheless, we remind respondent that complainant is not precluded from litigating

personally his cases. A party’s right to conduct litigation personally is recognized by Section
34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court: SEC. 34. By whom litigation conducted. — In the court
of a justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent
or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other
4
BASILLA, ROAN R.
JD IV
PRACTICE COURT I

CASE DIGESTS
court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his
appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.

3. The practice of law, though impossible to define exactly, involves the exercise of a
profession or vocation usually for gain, mainly as attorney by acting in a representative
capacity and as counsel by rendering legal advise to others. Private practice has been defined
by this Court as follows:
x x x. Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary
action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise.
Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of statute [referring to the prohibition for judges
and other officials or employees of the superior courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General
from engaging in private practice] has been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding
one’s self out to the public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services. x x x.

Clearly, in appearing for herself, complainant was not customarily or habitually holding
herself out to the public as a lawyer. Neither was she demanding payment for such services.
Hence, she cannot be said to be in the practice of law.

On the other hand, all lawyers should take heed that lawyers are licensed officers of the
courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties,
responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar
imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity of the legal
profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Though a lawyer’s language
may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the
dignity of the legal profession. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has
no place in the dignity of judicial forum.

4. CRUZ v. MINA – G.R. No. 154207, April 27, 2007

Fact:
Ferdinand A. Cruz (petitioner) filed before the MeTC a formal Entry of Appearance, as private
prosecutor for Grave Threats, where his father, Mariano Cruz, is the complaining witness. The
petitioner, describing himself as a third year law student, justifies his appearance as private
prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the ruling of the
Court En Banc in Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr.2 that a non-lawyer may appear before the
inferior courts as an agent or friend of0020a party litigant. The petitioner furthermore avers
that his appearance was with the prior conformity of the public prosecutor and a written
authority of Mariano Cruz appointing him to be his agent in the prosecution of the said
criminal case.
However the MeTC denied permission for petitioner to appear as private prosecutor on the
ground that Circular No. 19 governing limited law student practice in conjunction with Rule
138-A of the Rules of Court (Law Student Practice Rule) should take precedence over the
ruling of the Court laid down in Cantimbuhan. Petitioner filed before the MeTC a Motion for
Reconsideration seeking to reverse the February 1, 2002 Order alleging that Rule 138-A, or
5
BASILLA, ROAN R.
JD IV
PRACTICE COURT I

CASE DIGESTS
the Law Student Practice Rule, does not have the effect of superseding Section 34 of Rule
138, for the authority to interpret the rule is the source itself of the rule, which is the
Supreme Court alone. The MeTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration.
The petitioner filed before the RTC a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with Prayer for
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order against the private respondent and
the public respondent MeTC. RTC denied the petition of the petitioner and its Motion for
Reconsideration.

Issue:
Whether the petitioner, a law student, may appear before an inferior court as an agent or
friend of a party litigant.

Held:
Yes, Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer
is allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student. As succinctly clarified in Bar
Matter No. 730, by virtue of Section 34, Rule 138, a law student may appear, as an agent or
a friend of a party litigant, without the supervision of a lawyer before inferior courts. There is
really no problem as to the application of Section 34 of Rule 138 and Rule 138-A. In the
former, the appearance of a non-lawyer, as an agent or friend of a party litigant, is expressly
allowed, while the latter rule provides for conditions when a law student, not as an agent or a
friend of a party litigant, may appear before the courts.

5. ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR. vs. ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO

Facts:

The administrative complaint arose from the paid advertisement that appeared in the July 5,
2000 issue of Philippine Daily Inquirer which read: Annulment of Marriage Specialist 532-
4333/521-2667. Ms. Ma. Theresa Espeleta, a staff member of the Public Information Office of
the Supreme Court, took notice of the advertisement and inquired by pretending as an
interested party. After such inquiry, confirming that Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is actually
promoting himself as an expert in handling annulment cases and is guaranteeing a court
decree within four to six months with a fee of P48,000 to be paid in installment basis,
further research was conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The
research revealed other similar advertisements published in two other newspapers –August 2
and 6, 2000 issues of Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star. Atty.
Ismael Khan, Jr., afterwards, in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the
Public Information Office filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo for improper
advertising and solicitation in violation of Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional
6
BASILLA, ROAN R.
JD IV
PRACTICE COURT I

CASE DIGESTS
Responsibility (CPR) and Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court. The IBP, taking
cognizance of the referral to investigate, report and recommend, found the respondent
guilty.Respondent, then, filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied.
Hence, this petition for certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of CPR.

Held:

Yes. The Court agreed with the IBP’s resolution, holding that the practice of law is not a
business but a profession in which duty to public service and not money is the primary
consideration. By advertising himself as an “Annulment Specialist,” he undermined the
stability and sanctity of marriage —encouraging people who might have otherwise been
disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so. In
addition, although solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed, for solicitation to
be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of the legal profession which the petitioner
failed to do. Therefore, the Court suspended the petitioner from the practice of law for one
year and sternly warned him that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with
more severely.

6. In re: Michael A. Medado (In re: Petition to Sign the Roll of Attorneys)

FACTS: Medado graduated from UP in 1979 with a Bachelor of Laws degree. In the same year
he passed the bar exams. May, 1980, he took the Attorney's Oath at the Philippine
International Convention Center (PICC). He was scheduled to sign the Roll on May 13, but
failed to do so because allegedly he misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorney given by
the Bar Office. Several years later, he found the Notice. It was here he realized he had not
signed the Roll and what he signed at the PICC was just an attendance record. When he
found such Notice, he was already working, specifically doing corporate and taxation work.
During this course, he operated "under the mistaken belief that since he had already taken
the oath, the signing of the Roll was not as urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer".
When Medado attended MCLE in 2005, he was required to provide his Roll number, he was
unable to provide his roll number. Seven years later, on Feb. 6, 2012, he filed the instant
petition that he be allowed to sign the Roll. Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) submitted a
Report and Recommendation to this Court stating that the petition be denied because of
Medado's gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit, and that he has no valid
justification for his negligence in signing the Roll. Supreme Court granted Medado's prayer,
subject to a fine and the imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of
law. SC noted that if they deny Medado to sign the Roll, it would be tantamount to imposing
upon him disbarment, which is only reserved to the most serious ethical transgressions of Bar
members. In this case, the records do not show that this action is warranted. First, Medado
exercised good faith and good moral character because it was not a third party but he himself
called the Court's attention for his omission and acknowledged his own lapse. Second,
Medado has not been subject to any action for disqualification. Third, Medado appears to be
7
BASILLA, ROAN R.
JD IV
PRACTICE COURT I

CASE DIGESTS
competent as he was able to hold various positions at the Laurel Law Office, Petron, Petrophil
Corporation, the Philippine National Oil Company, and the Energy Development Corporation.
All aforementioned demonstrate Medado's worth to become a full-fledged lawyer.