September 2, 2023
lawyer-manager, lawyer-
CASES (OWN NOTES)
CAYETANO v MONSOD, 201 SCRA 210
Facts:
The president appointed Monsod as
Chairman of the Commission on Elections.
Cayetano opposed, filed a petition for
prohibition in action of certiorari before the
SC, challenging the appointment of
Monsod, and declaring that it should be null
and void. Based on the alleged fact that he
has not met the qualifications, particularly
for legal practice, for at least 10 years.
Issue:
Whether or not, Monsod, an attorney, meets
the requirement of practicing law for at least
10 years.
Held:
- Practice of law is not limited to
conduct or litigation cases in court
only.
- Practice of law also encompasses
work outside of court, like advising
or consulting private and/or public
entities of their rights. Or appearing
in a representative capacity to settle
proceedings before any court or
commission, or any venue, or to
settle controversies as authorized
and constituted by law.
- Atty. Monsod is a member of the
Philippine Bar, who is a paying
member of the Integrated Bar, has
his professional license as a lawyer,
worked as a lawyer-economist,
entrepreneur, lawyer-negotiator, and
lawyer-legislator, for more the 10
years, which is verily satisfactory of
the constitutional requirements to be
qualified of his appointed position.
PHILIPPINE LAWYER’S ASSOCIATION V
AGRAVA, 105 PHIL 173
Facts:
- Agrava, director of the Philippines
Patent Office, under his own
discretion, issued tests which are
required to be passed to qualify to
work to the aforementioned office.
The tests were given to test
applicants of their scientific and
technical knowledge which
according to him, is required in
handling patent applications.
- The PLA filed a petition for
prohibition and injunction against
Agrava, invoking that members of
the Philippine Bar, do not need to
pass any test, based on the
constitutional qualifications which
only require persons to pass the bar
and be licensed by the SC and who
is in good standing is duly qualified
to practice in all venues, private or
public, which involves the practice of
law, and that includes the PPO.
Issue:
- Whether or not, appearance before
the PPO, and the preparation and
prosecution of patent applications,
constitutes or is included the
“practice of law”.
Held:
 - The practice of law, again, is not
only limited to the litigation in courts.
The nature of work in the PPO, In
the processing and prosecuting of
the patent applications, involve
interpretation and promulgation of
applicable laws, and also the
establishment of facts in accordance
with the law of evidence and
procedure.
- Furthermore, anyone can appeal the
decision of the PPO Chairman
before the SC, but matters related to
transactions involving technical and
scientific knowledge should be
presented to boards of scientists,
engineers, or any technical
professional, not to the judicial
courts.
IN RE: AL ARGOSINO, 246 SCRA 14
Facts:
- Argosino was charged for homicide,
but then he applied for probation and
was granted by the lower court 2
years of probation. Less than a
month later, he filed a petition to
take the bar exam and he was also
allowed to. Subsequently, he passed
the bar, but was not allowed to take
the attorney’s oath and be admitted
to the practice of law.
- He averred that his probationary
period had been terminated. It is
noted that his probationary period
did not last for more than 10 months.
Issue:
- Whether Argosino should be allowed
to take the oath of attorney and be
admitted to the practice of law.
Held:
- Argosino must submit evidence that
he now may be regarded as a
person of good moral character, a
constitutional requirement to be
admitted at the bar, and show the
Court that he was remorseful and
tried to make up for the senseless
killing to the victim’s family and to
the community as well. Therefore he
must show that he change, and is
now morally fit to be admitted to the
practice of law.
IN RE: AL AROGOSINO, BAR MATTER
NO. 1678, DECEMBER 17, 2007
Facts:
IN RE: BORROMEO, 241 SCRA 405
Facts:
The respondent in this case, Joaquin T.
Borromeo, is not a lawyer but has
apparently read some law books, and
ostensibly come to possess some
superficial awareness of a few substantive
legal principles and procedural rules.
Incredibly, with nothing more than this
smattering of learning, the respondent has,
for some sixteen (16) years now, from 1978
to the present, been instituting and
prosecuting legal proceedings in various
courts, dogmatically pontificating on errors
supposedly committed by the courts,
including the Supreme Court.
Case 1: Cases involving Traders Royal
Bank (TRB).
The first bank that Joaquin T. Borromeo
appears to have dealt with was the Traders
Royal Bank (TRB). On June 2, 1978, he got
a loan from it in the sum of P45,000.00. This
he secured by a real estate mortgage
created over two parcels of land covered by
TCT No. 59596 and TCT No. 59755 owned,
respectively, by Socorro Borromeo-Thakuria
(his sister) and Teresita Winniefred
Lavarino. On June 16, 1978, Borromeo
obtained a second loan from TRB in the
amount of P10,000.00, this time giving as
security a mortgage over a parcel of land
owned by the Heirs of Vicente V. Borromeo,
covered by TCT No. RT-7634. Authority to
mortgage these three lots was vested in him
by a Special Power of Attorney executed by
their respective owners.
Case 2: Cases involving United Coconut
Planters Bank (UCPB).
Borromeo (together with a certain
Mercader) also borrowed money from the
United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) and
executed a real estate mortgage to secure
repayment thereof. The mortgage was
constituted over a 122-square-meter
commercial lot covered by TCT No. 75680
in Borromeo's name. This same lot was
afterwards sold on August 7, 1980 by
Borromeo to one Samson K. Lao for
P170,000.00, with a stipulation for its
repurchase (pacto de retro) by him
(Borromeo, as the vendor). The sale was
made without the knowledge and consent of
UCPB.
Case 3: Cases involving Security Bank and
Trust Co. (SBTC).
The third banking institution which Joaquin
T. Borromeo engaged in running court
battles, was the Security Bank & Trust
Company (SBTC). From it Borromeo had
obtained five (5) loans in the aggregate sum
of P189,126.19, consolidated in a single
Promissory Note on May 31, 1979. To
secure payment thereof, Summa Insurance
Corp. (Summa) issued a performance bond
which set a limit of P200,000.00 on its
liability thereunder. Again, as in the case of
his obligations to Traders Royal Bank and
UCPB, Borromeo failed to discharge his
contractual obligations. Hence, SBTC
brought an action in the Cebu City RTC
against Borromeo and Summa for
collection.
Issue:
Whether the respondent-accused is liable
for constructive contempt?
Held:
Joaquin T. Borromeo is found and declared
GUILTY of constructive contempt
repeatedly committed over time, despite
warnings and instructions given to him, and
to the end that he may ponder his serious
errors and grave misconduct and learn due
respect for the Courts and their authority, he
is hereby sentenced to serve a term of
imprisonment of TEN (10) DAYS in the City
Jail of Cebu City and to pay a fine of ONE
THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00). He is
warned that a repetition of any of the
offenses of which he is herein found guilty,
or any similar or other offense against
courts, judges or court employees, will merit
further and more serious sanctions.