Cayetano vs.

Monsod
201 SCRA 210, September 1991

FACTS:
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of chairman of the
COMELEC. Petitioner opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not posses required qualification of having
been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The 1987 constitution provides in Section 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.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years.

RULING:
In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association vs. Agrava, stated: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct
of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special
proceeding, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition,
conveying. In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation
services, assessment and condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body, the foreclosure of
mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice. Practice of law means any
activity, in or out court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.

The contention that Atty. Monsod does not posses the required qualification of having engaged in the practice of law for at
least ten years is incorrect since Atty. Monsod’s past work experience as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-
entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both rich and the poor – verily more
than satisfy the constitutional requirement for the position of COMELEC chairman, The respondent has been engaged in
the practice of law for at least ten years does In the view of the foregoing, the petition is DISMISSED.

Aguirre v Rana
Bar Matter No. 1036, June 10, 2003

FACTS:
Respondent Edwin L. Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations.

On May 19, 2001, respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as a counsel for a candidate in the May 2001
elections before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers of Mandaon, Masbate and filed with MBEC a pleading. In this
pleading, respondent represented himself as “counsel for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan,” and
signed the pleading as counsel. Furthermore, respondent also signed as counsel for Emily Estipona-Hao on 19 May 2001 in
the petition filed before MBEC praying for the proclamation of Estipona-Hao as the winning mayor of Mandaon, Masbate.

On May 21, 2001, one day before the mass oath-taking of successful bar examinees as members of the Philippine
Bar, this complaint was filed as Petition for respondent's Denial of Admission to the Bar. Complainant alleged that
respondent committed:
● Violation of law- complainant contends that the law does not allow respondent to act as counsel for a private client
in any court or administrative body since respondent is the secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan. However, respondent
tendered his resignation as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan prior to the acts complained of as constituting unauthorized
practice of law. Thus, the evidence does not support the charge that respondent acted as counsel for a client while serving
as secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan.

● Grave misconduct and misrepresentation- evidence shows that Bunan indeed authorized respondent to represent
him as his counsel before the MBEC and similar bodies. While there was no misrepresentation, respondent nonetheless had
no authority to practice law.

On May 22, 2001, respondent was allowed to take lawyer's oath but was disallowed rom signing the Roll of
Attorneys until he is cleared of the charges against him.

ISSUE:
1. WON respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law (YES)
2. WON deserve admission to the Philippine bar. (NO)

RULING:

1. YES. The Court held that "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 acts which are
usually performed by members of the legal profession. Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of service which
requires the use of legal knowledge or skill.

Verily, respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the proceedings before the MBEC and filed
various pleadings, without license to do so. Evidence clearly supports the charge of unauthorized practice of law.
Respondent called himself "counsel" knowing fully well that he was not a member of the Bar.

2. NO. Having held himself out as "counsel" knowing that he had no authority to practice law, respondent has shown
moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar.

True, respondent here passed the 2000 Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll
of Attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is immaterial.
Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent should know that two essential
requisites for becoming a lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and
his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.

Victor Lingan VS. Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmu P. Baliga

FACTS:
A complaint for disbarment was filed by Victor Lingan against Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy Baliga on
November 16, 2000. Complainant alleged that respondents, both notaries public, falsified certain public documents, as
follows:

1. A complaint for annulment of title with damages filed by Isaac Villegas against complainant with the Regional
Trial Court of Tuguegarao, Cagayan. Respondent Calubaquib signed the verification and certification of non-
forum shopping of the complaint as notary public and entered the same as Doc. No. 182; Page No. 38; Book
 No. CLXXII; Series of 1996, which according to the records of the National Archives, the document entered as
Doc. No. 182; Page 38; Book No. CLXXII; Series of 1996 in respondent Calubaquib’s notarial register was an
affidavit of one Daniel Malayao.

2. A special power of attorney dated September 10, 1996 executed by Isaac Villegas appointing respondent
Calubaquib as his attorney-in-fact to “enter into a compromise agreement under such terms and conditions
acceptable to him” which was notarized by respondent Baliga and entered as Doc. No. 548, Page No. 110; Book
No. VIII; Series of 1996, which according to respondent Baliga’s notarial register, Doc. No. 548; Page No. 110;
Book No. VIII; Series of 1996 pertains to an affidavit of loss of one Pedro Telan, dated August 26, 1996.

3. A petition for reappointment as notary public for and in Tuguegarao,Cagayan by respondent Baliga, which was
notarized by respondent Calubaquib and entered in his notarial register as Doc. No. 31, Page No. 08, Book No.
CXXX, Series of 1995. However, Notarial Register Book No. CXXX was for the year 1996 and entered there
as Doc. No. 31, Page No. 08 was a cancellation of real estate mortgage dated January 11, 1996.

Respondents Calubaquib and Baliga both admitted the incorrectness of the entries and simply attributed them to the
inadvertence in good faith of their secretary and legal assistants to whom they had left the task of entering all his notarial
documents.

ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents violated the Notarial Practice Law

RULING:
It is abundantly clear that the notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register. Section
245 of the Notarial Law provides that every notary public shall keep a register to be known as the notarial register, wherein
record shall be made of all his official acts as notary; and he shall supply a certified copy of such record, or any part thereof,
to any person applying for it and paying the legal fees therefore.

Section 246 of the same law also provides that the notary public shall enter in such register, in chronological order,
the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him, the person executing, swearing to, or
acknowledging the instrument, the witnesses, if any, to the signature, the date of execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the
instrument, the fees collected by him for his services as notary in connection therewith, and, when the instrument is a
contract, he shall keep a correct copy thereof as part of his records, and shall likewise enter in said records a brief description
of the substance thereof and shall give to each entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar
year.
The notary shall give to each instrument executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding
to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument the page or pages of his register on which the same is
recorded. No blank line shall be left between entries.

In this connection, Section 249(b) provides that the failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in his notarial
register touching his notarial acts in the manner required by law shall, in the discretion of the proper judge of first instance,
be sufficient ground for the revocation of his commission:

Respondents cannot be relieved of responsibility for the violation of the aforesaid sections by passing the buck to their
secretaries, a reprehensible practice which to this day persists despite our open condemnation.

Notarization is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest, such that only
those who are qualified or authorized to do so may act as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires
that those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from inflicting themselves upon the public, the courts and
the administrative offices in general.

Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public one and makes it admissible in evidence without
further proof of its authenticity. Notaries public must therefore observe utmost care with respect to the basic requirements
of their duties.

FALLO:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondents Atty. Romeo I. Calubaquib and Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga are
hereby found guilty of violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and of their lawyer’s oath.
They are both ordered SUSPENDED from the practice of law for ONE YEAR effective immediately, with a warning that
another infraction shall be dealt with more severely.

Their present commissions as notaries public, if any, are hereby REVOKED, with DISQUALIFICATION from
reappointment as notaries public for a period of two years. Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personal records
of Atty. Romeo I. Calubaquib and Atty. Jimmy P. Baliga, and copies furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the
Office of the Court Administrator and Office of the Bar Confidant for dissemination to all courts nationwide.

Feliciano v. Atty. Bautista-Lozada

FACTS:
Alvin Feliciano filed an injunction and TRO against Atty. Carmencita Bautista – Lozada in representing his husband
Edilberto Lozada in the latter’s case against the complainant on June 5, 2007. Feliciano alleged that Atty. Bautista – Lozada
appeared as a counsel for his husband and actively participated in the court proceedings while she is still suspended from
the practice of law in reference to a court judgment on December 15, 2005. Feliciano argued that the act of the respondent
constitutes willful disobedience to a court order. In her reply, Atty Bautista – Lozada claims that she was only forced by the
situation that she needed to defend the right of his husband who is embroiled in a legal dispute. She believes that since she
is representing his husband and not a client, it is not within the prohibition of the law. The case was referred to the IBP for
investigation and the IBP Investigating Officer recommended disbarment for Atty. Bautista – Lozada in violation of Rule
1.01, 1.02 and Rule 18.01 of the CPR. The IBP-BOG adopted the recommendation with modification to suspension of only
3 months.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the acts of Atty. Bautista – Lozada warrant disciplinary action?

RULING:
Yes. Atty. Bautista – Lozada’s act of representing his husband in court proceedings while still serving her
suspension is an act prohibited by law that should warrant disciplinary action. Sec 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court clearly stated that a willful disobedience of any lawful order of the superior court, or for corruptly or willfully
appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority to do so is a ground for disbarment or suspension from the
practice of law. The practice of law is defined as any activity, in or out of the court, which requires that application of law,
legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. In the case at bar, Atty. Bautista-Lozada in appearing, signing for and
in behalf of his husband in pleadings and court proceedings constitutes practice of law where she should desist herself from
engaging during the period of her suspension. The prior judgement of her suspension was promulgated on December 15,
2005, therefore she cannot engage in the practice of law until December 2007.
BONGALONTA vs CASTILLO and MARTIJA
CBD Case No. 176 January 20, 1995

FACTS:
Complainant Bongalonta charged respondents Castillo and Martija, both members of the Philippine Bar, with unjust
and unethical conduct, to wit: representing conflicting interests and abetting a scheme to frustrate the execution or
satisfaction of a judgment which complainant might obtain.

The letter-complaint stated that complainant filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, for estafa, against the Sps.
Abuel. She also filed a separate civil action, where she was able to obtain a writ of preliminary attachment and by virtue
thereof, a piece of real property registered in the name of the Sps. Abuel under TCT No. 38374 was attached. Atty. Pablito
Castillo was the counsel of the Sps. Abuel in the aforesaid criminal and civil cases.

During the pendency of these cases, one Gregorio Lantin filed for collection of a sum of money based on a
promissory note, also with the Pasig Regional Trial Court, against the Sps. Abuel. In the said case Gregorio Lantin was
represented by Atty. Alfonso Martija. In this case, the Sps. Abuel were declared in default for their failure to file the
necessary responsive pleading and evidence ex-parte was received against them followed by a judgment by default rendered
in favor of Gregorio Lantin. A writ of execution was, in due time, issued and the same property previously attached by
complainant was levied upon.

Complainant further alleged that, in all the pleadings filed in the three (3) aforementioned cases, Atty. Pablito
Castillo and Atty. Alfonso Martija placed the same address, the same PTR and the same IBP receipt number. The IBP Board
of Governors dismissed the case against Martija, and recommended that Atty. Pablito M. Castillo be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of six (6) months for using the IBP Official Receipt No. of his co-respondent Atty. Alfonso M.
Martija.

ISSUE:
Whether the IBP Board of Governors recommendation of Castillo’s suspension be granted.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP Board of Governors’ findings.

The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and
continue to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. One of these requirements is
the observance of honesty and candor. Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers
appearing and pleading before them. A lawyer, on the other hand, has the fundamental duty to satisfy that expectation. For
this reason, he is required to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court.

In Re: Al C. Argosino 246 SCRA 14 (1995)

FACTS:
On February 4, 1992 ,Argosino, together with 13 others, was charged with the crime of homicide in connection
with the death of one Raul Camaligan. The death of Camaligan stemmed from the affliction of severe physical injuries
uponhim in course of "hazing" conducted as part of the university fraternity initiation rites. On February 11, 1993, the
accused were consequently sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months and
one (1) day to four (4) years.Eleven (11) days later, Mr. Argosino and his colleagues filed an application for probation with
the lower court. The application was granted on June 18 1993.
 The period of probation was set at two (2) years, counted from the probationer's initial report to the probation officer
assigned to supervise him. Less than a month later, Argosino filed a petition to take the bar exam. He was allowed and he
passed the exam, but was not allowed to take the lawyer's oath of office.On April 15, 1994, Argosino filed a petition to
allow him to take the attorney's oath and be admitted to the practice of law. He averred that his probation period had been
terminated. It is noted that his probation 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

RULING:
Mr. Argosino must submit to this Court evidence that he may now be regarded as complying with the requirement
of good moral character imposed upon those who are seeking admission to the bar. He should show to the Court how he has
tried to make up for the senseless killing of a helpless student to the family of the deceased student and to the community
at large. In short, he mustshow evidence that he is a different person now, that he has become morally fitfor admission to
the profession of law.

He is already directed to inform the Court, by appropriate written manifestation, of the names of the parents or
brothers and sisters of Camaligan from notice.

NOTES:

qualifications, duly ascertained and certified.

c and proper administration of

seek admission to the bar must be a necessity

that moral duty and was totally irresponsible behavior, which makes impossible a finding that the participant was possessed
of good moral character.

permission to take the bar examinations and more importantly at the time of application for admission to the bar and to take
the attorney's oath of office.