Renato Cayetano Vs Christian Monsod

Renato Cayetano vs Christian Monsod
In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission on Elections.
His appointment was affirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Monsods appointment
was opposed by Renato Cayetano on the ground that he does not qualify for he failed to
meet the Constitutional requirement which provides that the chairman of the COMELEC
should have been engaged in the practice law for at least ten years.
Monsods track record as a lawyer:
1.
Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%.
2.
Immediately after passing, worked in his fathers law firm for one year.
3.
Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he had a degree in economics and
held various positions in various foreign corporations.
4.
In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for various local
corporations until 1986.
5.
In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.

ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the COMELEC. What constitutes
practice of law?
HELD: Yes. Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyermanager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyerlegislator 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.
As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to court appearances. The
members of the bench and bar and the informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in
most developed societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted in law offices
than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do both litigation and non-litigation
work also know that in most cases they find themselves spending more time doing what is
loosely described as business counseling than in trying cases. In the course of a working
day the average general practitioner wig engage in a number of legal tasks, each involving
different legal doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other
interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized practice wig
usually perform at least some legal services outside their specialty. By no means will most
of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is one of the relatively rare types a
litigator who specializes in this work to the exclusion of much else. Instead, the work will
require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of traditional lawyer skills of client
counseling, advice-giving, document drafting, and negotiation.
Justice Padilla dissenting:
Monsod did not practice law. Justice Padilla emphasized the following
determining what constitutes practice of law:
criteria in
1. Habituality. The term practice of law implies customarily or habitually holding ones self
out to the public as a lawyer (People vs. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109 citing State v. Boyen, 4
S.E. 522, 98 N.C. 644) such as when one sends a circular announcing the establishment of
a law office for the general practice of law (U.S. v. Ney Bosque, 8 Phil. 146), or when one
takes the oath of office as a lawyer before a notary public, and files a manifestation with the
Supreme Court informing it of his intention to practice law in all courts in the country (People
v. De Luna, 102 Phil. 968).
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 a habitual exercise (People v.
Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109 citing State v. Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan, 864).
2. Compensation. Practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the
active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are
available to the public for compensation, as a service of his livelihood or in consideration of
his said services. (People v. Villanueva, supra). Hence, charging for services such as
preparation of documents involving the use of legal knowledge and skill is within the term
practice of law (Ernani Pao, Bar Reviewer in Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1988 ed., p. 8
citing People v. Peoples Stockyards State Bank, 176 N.B. 901) and, one who renders an
opinion as to the proper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is to that extent,
practicing law (Martin, supra, p. 806 citing Mendelaun v. Gilbert and Barket Mfg. Co., 290
N.Y.S. 462) If compensation is expected, all advice to clients and all action taken for them in
matters connected with the law; are practicing law. (Elwood Fitchette et al., v. Arthur C.
Taylor, 94A-L.R. 356-359)
3. Application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure which calls for legal knowledge,
training and experience is within the term practice of law. (Martin supra)
4. Attorney-client relationship. Engaging in the practice of law presupposes the existence of
lawyer-client relationship. Hence, where a lawyer undertakes an activity which requires
knowledge of law but involves no attorney-client relationship, such as teaching law or
writing law books or articles, he cannot be said to be engaged in the practice of his
profession or a lawyer (Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1989 ed., p. 30).
Monsod did not habitually practice law. It may be granted that he performed activities which
are related to the practice of law like drafting legal documents and giving legal advice, but
he only did so as isolated incidents.
Justice Gutierrez dissenting:
Monsod did not practice law save for the one year he spent in his fathers law office. The
Chairman of the COMELEC should have engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years. The deliberate choice of words shows that the practice envisioned is active and
regular, not isolated, occasional, accidental, intermittent, incidental, seasonal, or
extemporaneous. To be engaged in an activity for ten years requires committed
participation in something which is the result of ones decisive choice. It means that one is
occupied and involved in the enterprise; one is obliged or pledged to carry it out with intent
and attention during the ten-year period.
What kind of Judges or Justices will we have if their main occupation is selling real estate,
managing a business corporation, serving in fact-finding committee, working in media, or
operating a farm with no active involvement in the law, whether in Government or private
practice, except that in one joyful moment in the distant past, they happened to pass the bar
examinations?
There is nothing in Monsods track record which will show that he Monsod has given the
law enough attention or a certain degree of commitment and participation as would support
in all sincerity and candor the claim of having engaged in its practice for at least ten years.
Instead of working as a lawyer, he has lawyers working for him. Instead of giving receiving
that legal advice of legal services, he was the one adviced and those services as an
executive but not as a lawyer.

Renato Cayetano Vs Christian Monsod

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renato Cayetano Vs Christian Monsod

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renato Cayetano Vs Christian Monsod

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renato Cayetano vs Christian Monsod

Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of 86.55%.

In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.

You might also like