CAYETANO, petitioner

vs.
MONSOD, respondent (GR No 100113, 1991)
Facts:
The 1987 Constitution provides in Section 1 (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."
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.
Petitioner 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.
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 a lawyer for more than ten years. (p. 124, Rollo)
After graduating from the College of Law (U.P.) 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 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 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-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.
Issues:
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.
Ruling:
The Commission on the basis of evidence submitted during the public hearings on Monsod's
confirmation, implicitly determined that he possessed the necessary qualifications as required
by law. The judgment rendered by the Commission in the exercise of such an acknowledged...
power is beyond judicial interference except only upon a clear showing of a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1 Constitution). Thus,
only where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the Court... interfere with the
Commission's judgment. In the instant case, there is no occasion for the exercise of the
Court's corrective power, since no abuse, much less a grave abuse of discretion, that would
amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction and would warrant the issuance... of the writs prayed,
for has been clearly shown.
Principles:
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
intended 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 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.
Finally, one significant legal maxim is:
"We must interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by the spirit that giveth life."
Take this hypothetical case of Samson and Delilah. Once, the procurator of Judea asked
Delilah (who was Samson's beloved) for help in capturing Samson. Delilah agreed on condition
that:
"No blade shall touch his skin; No blood shall flow from his veins."
When Samson (his long hair cut by Delilah) was captured, the procurator placed an iron rod
burning white-hot two or three inches away from in front of Samson's eyes. This blinded the
man. Upon hearing of what had happened to her beloved, Delilah was beside herself... with
anger, and fuming with righteous fury, accused the procurator of reneging on his word. The
procurator calmly replied: "Did any blade touch his skin? Did any blood flow from his veins?"
The procurator was clearly relying on the letter, not the spirit of the... agreement.
SPS. GIMENA, complainant
vs.
ATTY. VIJIGA, respondent (AC No. 11828, 2017)
Administrative Case

FACTS: Spouses Vicente and Precywinda Gimena hired Atty. Jojo S. Vijiga to represent them
in a civil case involving eight parcels of land. The RTC dismissed their action, the complainants
then brought the case to the appellate court.

According to the complainants, respondent failed to file the brief required by the CA multiple
times. As a result, the appeal was dismissed. Throughout the proceedings, respondent failed
to notify them of the status of their case. A bulldozer suddenly entered their properties, and
it was only then that they discovered that their appeal was dismissed.

Complainants alleged that respondent violated Canon 17 and 18 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and his oath as a lawyer. They claimed that respondent's lapse is not excusable
and is tantamount to gross ignorance, negligence and dereliction of duty.

For his part, respondent denied the allegations. He averred that Vicente purportedly told
respondent not to pursue the appeal considering that the subject properties are already in the
possession of the bank.

When the dispute was set for mandatory conference, respondent, failed to appear multiple
times. the IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the recommendation of
Investigating Commissioner Arsenio Adriano that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for six (6) months.

Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration, but the IBP denied.

ISSUE: Did the respondent violate his ethical duties as a member of the Bar in his dealings
with the complainants?

RULING OF THE COURT

The Court finds that the suspension of respondent from the practice of law is proper.

The Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) is clear. When a lawyer agrees to act as a
counsel, he guarantees that he will exercise that reasonable degree of care and to protect the
clients' interests and take all steps necessary therefor.

As a lawyer, respondent is presumed to know that dismissal is an inevitable result from failure
to file the requisite brief as stated in the Rules of Court. They lost their case not because of
merits but because of technicalities, specifically the respondent's failure to file the required
pleadings.

As an officer of the court, it was respondent's duty to inform his client of whatever important
information to minimize misunderstanding and loss of trust and confidence in the attorney.

This Court fails to find merit to respondent's claim that complainant Vicente directed him not
to pursue the appeal.

True, for respondent's failure to protect the interest of complainants, respondent indeed
violated Canon 17 and Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent is
reminded that the practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only upon those who are
competent intellectually, academically, and morally.
In this case, the fact that the complaining parties now stand to lose eight parcels of land which
they claim to own due to respondent's failure to perform his professional and ethical duties,
We deemed justified the suspension of respondent from the practice of law for six months.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Atty. Jojo S. Vijiga is SUSPENDED FOR
SIX (6) MONTHS from the practice of law with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. He is ADMONISHED to exercise greater care
and diligence in the performance of his duties.
THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU, FGU
INSURANCE GROUP WORKERS and EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU, and INSULAR
LIFE BUILDING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU, petitioners,

vs.

THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., FGU INSURANCE GROUP, JOSE M. OLBES and
COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, respondents. (GR No. L-25291, 1971)
Facts:
The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association-NATU, FGU Insurance Group
Workers & Employees Association-NATU, and Insular Life Building Employees Association-
NATU (hereinafter referred to as the Unions), while still members of the Federation of Free
Workers
(FFW), entered into separate collective bargaining agreements with the Insular Life Assurance
Co., Ltd. and the FGU Insurance Group (hereinafter referred to as the Companies).
Two of the lawyers of the Unions then were Felipe Enaje and Ramon Garcia
Enaje and Garcia soon left the FFW and secured employment with the Anti-Dummy Board of
the Department of Justice.
Thereafter, the Companies hired Garcia in the latter part of 1956 as assistant corporate
secretary and legal assistant in their Legal Department
Enaje was hired on or about February 19, 1957 as personnel manager of the Companies, and
was likewise made chairman of the negotiating panel for the Companies in the collective
bargaining with the
Unions.
Unions jointly submitted proposals to the Companies for a modified renewal of their
respective collective bargaining contracts which were then due to expire on September
30,1957.
The parties mutually agreed to extend the effectivity... of the agreements to November 16,
1957 and to make whatever benefits could be agreed upon retroactively effective October 1,
1957.
Thereafter... negotiations were conducted on the Unions' proposals, but these were snagged
by a deadlock on the issue of union shop, as a result of which the Unions filed... a notice of
strike for "deadlock on... collective bargaining."
Several conciliation conferences were held.
However, the Companies did not make any counterproposals but, instead, insisted that the
Unions first drop their demand for union security, promising money benefits if this was done.
petitioner Insular Life Building Employees Association-NATU dropped this particular demand,
and requested the Companies to answer its demands, point by point, in toto but the
respondent Insular Life Assurance Co. still refused to make any... counterproposals.
parties negotiated on the labor demands but with no satisfactory result due to a stalemate on
the matter of salary increases.
Unions demanded from the Companies final counter-proposals on their economic demands,...
particularly on salary increases. Instead of giving counterproposals, the Companies...
presented facts and figures and requested the Unions to submit a workable formula which
would justify their own proposals, taking into account the financial position of the... former.
Meanwhile, eighty-seven (87) unionists were reclassified as supervisors without increase in
salary nor in responsibility while negotiations were going on in the Department of Labor after
the notice to strike was served on the Companies. These employees resigned from the Unions.
Unions went on strike and picketed the offices of the Insular Life Building at Plaza Moraga.
Companies... sent to each of the strikers a letter.
The Unions, however, continued on strike, with the exception of a few unionists who were
convinced to desist by the aforesaid letter... a fight ensued between them, in which both
suffered injuries.
Companies, again through the respondent Olbes, sent individually to strikers a letter.
Incidentally, all of the more than 120 criminal charges filed against the members of the Unions,
except three (3), were dismissed by the fiscal's office and by the courts.
At any rate, because of the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction against them as well
as the ultimatum of the Companies giving them until June 2, 1958 to return to their jobs or
else be replaced, the striking employees decided to call off their strike and to report... back to
work
However, before readmitting the strikers, the Companies required them not only to secure
clearances from the City Fiscal's Office of Manila but also to be screened by a management
committee among the members of which were Enage and Garcia.
The screening committee initially... rejected 63 strikers with pending criminal charges.
However, all non-strikers with pending criminal charges which arose from the breakthrough
incident were readmitted immediately by the Companies without being required to secure
clearances from the fiscal's office.
CIR prosecutor filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the Companies.
Court of Industrial Relations... rendered... decision dismissing the Unions' complaint for lack of
merit.
Unions seasonably filed their motion for reconsideration of... the said decision.
This was denied by the Court of Industrial Relations en banc.
Issues:
The petitioners (15 of them) ask this Court to cite for contempt the respondent Presiding
Judge Arsenio Martinez of the Court of Industrial Relations and the counsels for the private
respondents, on the ground that the former wrote the following in his decision subject of...
the instant Petition for Certiorari.
Ruling:
The petitioners (15 of them) ask this Court to cite for contempt the respondent Presiding
Judge Arsenio Martinez of the Court of Industrial Relations and the counsels for the private
respondents, on the ground that the former wrote the following in his decision subject of...
the instant Petition for Certiorari
'"In a proceeding for unfair labor practice, involving a determination as to whether or not the
acts of the employees concerned justified the adoption of the employer of disciplinary
measures against them, the mere fact that the employees may be able to put up a valid
defense... in a criminal prosecution for the same acts, docs not erase or neutralize the
employer's right to impose discipline on said employees. For it is settled that not even the
acquittal of an employee of the criminal charge against him is a bar to the employer's right to
impose... discipline on its employees, should the act upon which the criminal charge was based
constitute nevertheless an activity inimical to the employer's interest. ... The act of the
employees now under consideration maybe considered as a misconduct which is a just cause
for... dismissal. '(Lopez, Sr., et al. vs. Chronicle Publication Employees Ass'n. ct al., G.R. Nos. L-
20179-81, December 28, 1964)"
It is plain to the naked eye that the 60 un-underscored words of the paragraph quoted by the
respondent Judge do not appear in the pertinent paragraph of this Court's decision in L-
20179-81.
This apparent error, however, does not seem to warrant an indictment for contempt against
the respondent Judge and the respondents' counsels.
We are inclined to believe that the misquotation is more a result of clerical ineptitude than a
deliberate attempt on the part of the... respondent Judge to mislead.
Upon the other hand, the... respondents' counsels have the prima facie right to rely on the
quotation as it appears in the respondent Judge's decision, to copy it verbatim, and to
incorporate it in their brief.
Be that as it may, we must articulate our firm view that in citing this Court's decisions and
rulings, it is the bounden duty of courts, judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the same
word-for-word and punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark.
Indeed, there is a... salient and salutary reason why they should do this.
Only from this Tribunal's decisions and rulings do all other courts, as well as lawyers and
litigants, take their bearings.
Thus, ever present is the danger that if not faithfully and exactly quoted, the decisions and
rulings of this Court may lose their proper and correct meaning, to the... detriment of other
courts, lawyers and the public who may thereby be misled.
Happily, for the respondent Judge and the respondents' counsels, there was no substantial
change in the thrust of this Court's particular ruling which they cited. It is our view,
nonetheless, that for their mistake, they should be, as they are hereby, admonished to be
more... careful when citing jurisprudence in the future.
ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations dated August 17, 1965 is
reversed and set aside, and another is entered, ordering the respondents to reinstate the
dismissed members of the petitioning Unions to their former or comparatively... similar
positions, with backwages from June 2, 1958 up to the dates of their actual reinstatements.
Costs against the respondents.
SPS. BAUTISTA, RAGADIO, and GALGALAN, complainants
vs.
ATTY. CEFRA, respondents (AC No. 5530, 2013)

FACTS: The case is about a complaint for disbarment filed by petitioners against respondent,
Atty. Cefra. Respondent was the legal counsel of the petitioners in the Civil Case No. U-
6504. According to the petitioners, they lost the said case because of the negligence of Atty.
Cefra in performing his duties as their counsel. They alleged that: (a) Atty. Cefra disregarded
RTC's orders; (b) he belatedly submitted documentary requirements; and (c) he did not file
any other remedial pleading to contest the RTC's decision.

Thereafter, the Court ordered Atty. Cefra to comment on the complaint, but he failed to do
so, despite the extension of time. He also did not comply with the Court's Minute
Resolutions ordering him to pay a fine and submit the required document. For this reason,
the Court held Atty. Cefra in contempt of court, which ordered his detention for 5 days.
Finally, on August 4, 2008, more than two years after the Court's latest Minute order, Atty.
Cefra filed his comment, denying the allegations of the complainants.

On September 24, 2008, the case was referred to the IBP for investigation, report and
recommendation. The Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the case
stating that there was no sufficient evidence showing that respondent needs disciplinary
action since the claim of the complainants over the properties in the Civil Case No. U-6504
was not affected by the Decision of the court.

However, the IBP Board of Governors reversed the findings of the Investigating Commissioner
and instead found Atty. Cefra guilty. Consequently, they approved his suspension to the
practice of law for 6 months. When Atty. Cefra filed a motion for reconsideration, the IBP
Board of Governors partially granted it by changing his penalty to Reprimanded instead of
Suspension.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Cefra was negligent in the performance his duty as the counsel
of petitioners

RULING: The Court finds Atty. Cefra guilty of negligence in handling the complainants' case.
These acts of negligence can be summed up into four main points. First, he failed to submit a
formal offer of documentary evidence within the period given by the RTC. He only submitted
such 5 months after the order. Second, he failed to comply with 2 orders of the RTC. Neither
did he give reasons.

References:

https://lawyerly.ph/digest/cec31?user=4703

https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/new-era-university/legal-ethics/sps-gimenez-v-vijiga-typewritten-digest/26981928

https://lawyerly.ph/digest/c9db6?user=2315

https://www.scribd.com/document/460775876/SPOUSES-ARCING-V-ATTY-CEFRA-AC-No-5530-Legal-Ethics