Nature and requirements of membership in the legal profession

Renato L. Cayetano vs. Christian Monsod, et al.

G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991.
Facts:
● Respondent 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.
● 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.
● 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. (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 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 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-
 Nature and requirements of membership in the legal profession

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
Held: Yes. 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.

Mauricio C. Ulep vs. The Legal Clinic, Inc.

223 SCRA 378, Bar Matter No. 553 June 17, 1993
Facts:
● Respondent’s advertisements that are being complained herein are:
○ Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE? P560.00 for a valid marriage. Info on DIVORCE.
ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA. Please call: 521-0767 LEGAL 5217232,
5222041 CLINIC, INC. 8:30 am- 6:00 pm 7-Flr. Victoria Bldg., UN Ave., Mla.
○ Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE. DON PARKINSON, an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE
BOOKS on Guam Divorce through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday
during office hours. Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration
Problems, Visa Ext. Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree's Visa. Declaration
of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil.
US/Foreign Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic. THE 7F Victoria Bldg.
429 UN Ave., LEGAL Ermita, Manila nr. US Embassy CLINIC, INC. 1 Tel. 521-
7232; 521-7251; 522-2041; 521-0767
● It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above reproduced are
champertous, unethical, demeaning of the law profession, and destructive of the
confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar and that, as a
member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the said
advertisements, hence the reliefs sought in his petition as herein before quoted.
● In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of publication of said
advertisement at its instance, but claims that it is not engaged in the practice of law but
in the rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals with the use of modern
computers and electronic machines. Respondent further argues that assuming that the
services advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these services should be
allowed supposedly in the light of the case of John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State
Bar of Arizona, reportedly decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 7, 1977.
 Nature and requirements of membership in the legal profession

Issue: Whether or not the services offered by respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., as advertised
by it constitutes practice of law and, in either case, whether the same can properly be the
subject of the advertisements herein complained of.
Held: Yes. The respondent’s position that the concept in the United States of paralegals as an
occupation separate from the law profession be adopted in this jurisdiction has to be rejected.
Whatever may be its merits, respondent cannot but be aware that this should first be a matter
for judicial rules or legislative action, and not of unilateral adoption as it has done.

It is undeniable that the advertisement in question was a flagrant violation by the respondent of
the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation of business from the public. Section 25
of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law
for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice." It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant
advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his
profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of mercantilism by advertising his services or
offering them to the public. As a member of the bar, he defiles the temple of justice with
mercenary activities as the money-changers of old defiled the temple of Jehovah. "The most
worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, . . . . is the establishment
of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced
but must be the outcome of character and conduct."

Verily, taking into consideration the nature and contents of the advertisements for which
respondent is being taken to task, which even includes a quotation of the fees charged by said
respondent corporation for services rendered, we find and so hold that the same definitely do
not and conclusively cannot fall under any of the above-mentioned exceptions.

In the Matter of the Brewing Controversies in the Election in the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, 638 SCRA 1, A.M. No. 09-5-2-SC December 14, 2010
Issue: The controversies involved herein and should be resolved are the following: (I) the
dispute concerning additional delegates of the QC Chapter to the House of Delegates; (II) the
election of the Governor for the Greater Manila Region (GMR); (III) the election of Governor for
the Western Visayas Region; (IV) the election of Governor for the Western Mindanao Region;
(V) the resolution of the election protests; (VI) the election of the IBP Executive Vice President
for the 2009-2011 term; and, (VII) the administrative complaint against EVP Rogelio Vinluan.
Held:
1. Root cause of the conflicting resolutions of the Bautista and Vinluan groups:
The silence of Sec. 31, Art. V of the IBP By-Laws on who may be elected as additional
delegates and alternates by the remaining members of the Board of Officers of the
Chapter when the Chapter is entitled to more than 2 delegates to the House
a. Bautista Group’s Resolution No. XVIII-2009 dated April 17, 2009: additional
delegate/s shall be elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter only from
among the remaining duly elected officers and members of the Board, in
consideration of their mandate from the general membership.
 Nature and requirements of membership in the legal profession

b. Vinluan Group’s Resolution No. XVIII-2009 (Special-23 April 2009): election of

the additional delegate/s for the Chapters entitled to more than two (2) delegates
shall be elected by the Board of Officers of the Chapter from among the general
membership who are in good standing to include the remaining duly elected
officers and members of the Board
c. For the past four (4) terms (2003-2011), Atty. Loanzon has been an officer and
delegate of the QC Chapter to the House of Delegates, until the Vinluan Group
introduced its own interpretation of the aforementioned provision of the By-Laws
and elected non-officers of the Chapter as delegates to the House of Delegates
in lieu of herself and Atty. Laqui. We find the Vinluan Group’s interpretation of
Sec. 31, Art. V, of the By-Laws in Resolution No. XVIII-2009 (Special – 23 April
2009) to be in error and devoid of rational and historical bases
2. The governor of the Greater Manila Region
Attys. Victoria Loanzon and Marite Laqui were properly recognized as delegates of the
QC Chapter by the Presiding Officer, GMR Governor Marcial Magsino, during the
election on April 25, 2009 of the Governor for the Greater Manila Region, in accordance
with the guideline in Resolution No. XVIII-2009.

Atty. Manuel Maramba (Manila III Chapter) was validly elected as GMR Governor for the
2009-2011 term, not only because he outvoted his rival, Atty. Elpidio Soriano (Quezon
City Chapter), but also because under the principle of rotation of the governorship (Bar
Matter No. 586, May 14, 1991) since the five (5) chapters of the Greater Manila Region
have all represented the region in the Board of Governors during the past five (5) terms.

it is now the turn of the representative of the Manila III Chapter to sit again in the Board
of Governors for the next round which begins in the 2009-2011 term. The Manila III
representative, Atty. Manuel M. Maramba, has every right to the position not only
because he won the election with 13 votes in his favor against 12 for Atty. Soriano, but
also because his election follows the rotation rule decreed by the Supreme Court.
3. The governor of the Western Visayas Region
Atty. Erwin Fortunato of the Romblon Chapter was duly elected as Governor for the
Western Visayas Region for the 2009-2011 term, not only because he obtained the
highest number of votes among the three (3) candidates for the position, but also
because under the rotation rule, it is now the turn of the Romblon Chapter to represent
the Western Visayas Region in the IBP Board of Governors.
4. The governor of the Western Mindanao Region
Neither Atty. Nasser Marohomsalic nor Atty. Benjamin Lanto is qualified to be elected
Governor of Western Mindanao Region. Sec. 39, Art. VI of the IBP By-Laws provides
that: "Starting in 1993-1995, the principle of rotation in the position of governor among
the different chapters to represent the region in the Board of Governors shall be strictly
implemented.

Since both Attys. Nasser Marohomsalic and B(e)njamin Lanto belong to the Lanao del
Sur Chapter (which should wait for 6 other Chapters in the region to have their turn),
 Nature and requirements of membership in the legal profession

both of them are disqualified to be elected as Governor of the Western Mindanao Region
for the 2009-2011 term. With respect to Atty. Benjamin Lanto, his nomination by the
Board of Officers was not only invalid, but also lost credibility after three (3), out of the
thirteen (13) signatories to his nomination, resigned from the Board of Officers, and six
(6) others signed "authorizations" in favor of Atty. Macalawi authorizing him to nominate
and elect the Governor for the Western Mindanao Region. That left only four (4) votes in
favor of his nomination for Governor of the Western Mindanao Region.
5. The resolution of the election protests
There were two (2) simultaneous elections for the Executive Vice President for the 2009-
2011 term – one was called and presided over by EVP Vinluan in the Board Room of the
IBP National Office, while the other election for the same position was presided over by
outgoing IBP Pres. Bautista in another room of the same building, at the same time, 9:00
A.M., on the same date, May 9, 2009. The elections for the IBP Executive Vice President
separately held on May 9, 2009 by the Bautista and Vinluan Groups were null and void
for lack of quorum. The presence of five (5) Governors-elect is needed to constitute a
quorum of the 9-member Board of Governors-elect who shall elect the Executive Vice
President.
6. The election of the IBP EVP for the 2009-2011 term
Since both Attys. Soriano and Lanto were not validly elected as Governors respectively
of the Greater Manila Region and the Western Mindanao Region, they were disqualified
to sit in the incoming Board of Governors and participate in the election of the
succeeding Executive Vice President. The remaining four (4) Governors-elect –
Governors Tolentino, Cabrera, Fortunato, and Inting, did not constitute a quorum of the
Board of Governors to conduct a valid election of the IBP Executive Vice President. The
election of Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano as Executive Vice President by the Vinluan Group
was invalid. Aside from lack of a quorum to conduct the elections, EVP Vinluan wrongly
presided over the election. Thus, Atty. Soriano was not duly elected as Governor of the
Greater Manila Region, hence, he is disqualified to sit in the Board of Governors.

Atty. Marohomsalic’s election as Governor for Western Mindanao was invalid for
violating the rotation rule. The four (4) remaining governors-elect (Attys. Cayosa, Miclat,
Maramba and Libarios) like those in the Vinluan Group, did not constitute a quorum to
conduct the election of the IBP Executive Vice President for the current term. The
election of Governor Roan Libarios as Executive Vice President by this group was
therefore null and void.

Besides that flaw in his election, since the Eastern Visayas Region, represented by
Governor Jose Aguila Grapilon of Biliran, had succeeded to the presidency in 1997-
1999, its next turn will come after the eight (8) other regions shall have also served in the
presidency. That will be after sixteen years, or, in 2015-2017 yet.
7. The administrative complaint against EVP Rogelio Vinluan
The administrative complaint against EVP Rogelio A. Vinluan and his Group of
Governors (Abelardo Estrada of Northern Luzon, Bonifacio Barandon of Bicolandia,
Evergisto Escalon of Eastern Visayas, and Raymund Mercado of Western Visayas) is
 Nature and requirements of membership in the legal profession

meritorious, for their conduct was fractious and high-handed, causing disunity and
acrimonious disagreements in the IBP.

Special meetings called were scheduled unreasonably and disregarded the protesters’
right to due process. The Board Resolution adopted for the election of the IBP EVP was
uncalled and unwarranted and caused disorder and disunity in the IBP. It was in effect a
coup to unseat Pres. Bautista before the end of his term, and prematurely install EVP
Vinluan as president, due to the latter’s overweening desire to propel his fraternity
brother, Atty. Elpidio G. Soriano, to the next presidency of the IBP, smacked of
politicking, which is strongly condemned and strictly prohibited by the IBP By-Laws and
the Bar Integration Rule.

Again, it must be noted that while the pending administrative case against Atty. Vinluan
and his co-respondents has not yet been resolved, Atty. Vinluan was not allowed to
assume his position as President of the IBP for 2009-2011. Instead, the Supreme Court
designated retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Santiago Kapunan as Officer-in-
Charge of the IBP.

Sebastian vs. Bajar, 532 SCRA 435, A.C. No. 3731 September 7, 2007
Facts:

Issue:

Held:

Nakpil vs. Valdes, 286 SCRA 758, Adm. Case No. 2040 March 4, 1998
Facts:

Issue:

Held:

St. Louis University Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) Faculty and Staff vs. Dela Cruz
499 SCRA 614, A.C. No. 6010 August 28, 2006
Facts:

Issue:

Held:

Vitug vs. Rongcal Vitug vs. Rongcal, 501 SCRA 166, A.C. No. 6313 September 7, 2006
 Nature and requirements of membership in the legal profession

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

In the Matter of the Petition for Authority to Continue use of the Firm Name “Ozaeta, Romulo,
etc., 92 SCRA 1, July 30, 1979
Facts:

Issue:

Held:

Cantiller v. Potenciano, A.C. No. 3195, December 18, 1989

Facts:

Issue:

Held:

Evangeline Leda vs. Atty. Trebonian Tabang

A.C. No. 2505, February 21, 1992
Facts:

Issue:

Held:

People of the Philippines vs. Atty. Fe T. Tuanda

A.M. No. 3360, January 30, 1990
Facts:

Issue:

Held:

Samala v. Palaa, A.C. No. 6595, April 15, 2005

Facts:
 Nature and requirements of membership in the legal profession

Issue:

Held:

PCGG vs. SB, et al., G.R. No. 151809-12, April 12, 2005, J. Callejo, dissenting opinion
Facts:

Issue:

Held: