RENATO L. CAYETANO v.

CHRISTIAN MONSOD

G.R. No. 100113

September 3, 1991

FACTS:

On June 5, 1991, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of

Christian 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.

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 Election s 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 College of Law and having hurdled the bar, Atty. Monsod
worked in the law office of his father. During his stint in the World Bank Group (1963-
1970), 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 cording 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 and National
Chairman 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 bill. Monsod also used his legal knowledge as a member of the

1
Davide Commission, a quasi-judicial body, which conducted numerous hearings and as a
member of the Constitutional Commission, and Chairman of its Committee on
Accountability of Public Officers, for which he was cited by the President of the
Commission, Justice Cecila Munoz-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 Monsod has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten (10)
years prior to his appointment as COMELEC Chairman.

RULING:

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. “To engage in
the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession.
Generally, to practice law is to give notice or renderany kind of service, which device or
service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.”

x x x Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term “practice of

law,” particularly the modern concept of law practice, and taking into consideration the
liberal construction intented by the framers of the Constitution, Atty. Monsod’s past
work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of
industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and 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.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HON. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA, Presiding Judge of

Branch 12, Regional Trial Court of Antique, and AVELINO T. JAVELLANA

2
 G.R. No. 89591-96,

January 24, 2000

FACTS:

On September 8, 1999, the Supreme Court denied the People's motion seeking
reconsideration of our August 13, 1990 decision in these cases. Judge Bonifacio Sanz
Maceda committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of August 8, 1989
giving custody over private respondent Avelino T. Javellana to the Clerk of Court of the
Antique RTC, Atty. Deogracias del Rosario, during the pendency of Criminal Cases Nos.
3350-3355. The trial court's order specifically provided for private respondent's
detention at the residence of Atty. del Rosario and not to be allowed liberty to roam
around. However, the order was not strictly complied with because Javellana was not
detained in the residence of Atty. Del Rosario. He went about his normal activities as if
he were a free man, including engaging in the practice of law.

ISSUE:

Whether Avelino Javellana can practice law under detention.

RULING:

As a detention prisoner private respondent Javellana is not allowed to practice

his profession as a necessary consequence of his status as a detention prisoner. The
trial court's order was clear that private respondent "is not to be allowed liberty to
roam around but is to be held as a detention prisoner.” As a matter of law, when a
person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed placed under the custody of the
law. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer
for the commission of the offense. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of
the case against him, unless he is authorized by the court to be released on bail or on
recognizance. Let it be stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive detention
or serving final sentence cannot practice their profession nor engage in any business or
occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention. This is a necessary
consequence of arrest and detention.