RENATO CAYETANO vs.

CHRISTIAN MONSOD
G.R. No. 100113. September 3, 1991.

FACTS:
Monsod was nominated by President Aquino as Chairman of the Comelec. The Commission on
Appointments confirmed the appointment despite Cayetano's objection, based on Monsod's
alleged lack of the required qualification of 10 year law practice. Cayetano filed this certiorari and
prohibition. 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:
1. Whether or not Monsod has been engaged in the practice of law for 10 years.

2. Whether or not the Commission on Appointments committed grave abuse of discretion in

confirming Monsod’s appointment.

HELD:
1. YES. 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 proceedings, the
management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients, and other works where the
work done involves the determination of the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and
conditions (PLA vs. Agrava.) The records of the 1986 constitutional commission show that the
interpretation of the term practice of law was liberal as to consider lawyers employed in the
Commission of Audit as engaged in the practice of law provided that they use their legal
knowledge or talent in their respective work. The court also cited an article in the January 11,
1989 issue of the Business Star, that lawyers nowadays have their own specialized fields such
as tax lawyers, prosecutors, etc., that because of the demands of their specialization, lawyers
engage in other works or functions to meet them. These days, for example, most corporation
lawyers are involved in management policy formulation. Therefore, Monsod, who passed the bar
in 1960, worked with the World Bank Group from 1963-1970, then worked for an investment
bank till 1986, became member of the CONCOM in 1986, and also became a member of the
Davide Commission in 1990, can be considered to have been engaged in the practice of law as
lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, etc.

2. NO. The power of the COA to give consent to the nomination of the Comelec Chairman by the
president is mandated by the constitution. The power of appointment is essentially within the
discretion of whom it is so vested subject to the only condition that the appointee should possess
the qualification required by law. From the evidence, there is no occasion for the SC to exercise
its corrective power since there is no such grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA.
People v. Villanueva

FACTS:On Sept. 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged

SImplicio Villanueva with crime of Malicious Mischiedf, before the Justice of the
Peace Court of said Municipality. Said accused was represented by counsel de
oficio, but later on replaced by counsel de parte. The complainant in the same case
was representry by City Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City, having entered his
appearance as private-prosecutor, having secuting the permission of the the
Secretary of Justice.

Counsel for the accused presented a “Motion in inhibit Fiscal Fule from Acting as
Private prosecutor in this case, “this time invoking sec. 32, Rule 127, now sec. 35,
Rule 138, Revised Rules, which bars certain attorneys from practicing.

ISSUE: Whether of not Atty. Fule violate sec. 32 of Rule 127 now Sec. 35, Rule 138,
revised Rules of Court, which bars certain attorneys from practicing.

RULING:The Court holds that the appearance of Attorney Fule did not constitute
private practice, within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. Practice is
more than isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a
succession of acts of the same kind. The word private practiceof 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 source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. It
has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been given permission by his
immediate supervisor, the Secretary of Justice, to represent the complainant in the
case at bar, who is a relative.
MAELOTISEA S. GARRIDO vs. ATTYS. ANGEL E. GARRIDO and ROMANA P. VALENCIA A.C. No. 6593
Facts:

Maelotisea Sipin Garrido , filed a complaint-affidavit and a supplemental affidavit for disbarment
against the respondents Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Romana P. Valencia before the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines Committee on Discipline, charging them with gross immorality, in violation of
Canon 1, Rule 1.01, of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Valencia and her legal husband
had been married in Hong Kong and had already a child. On June 1993, her husband left their
conjugal home and joined Atty. Ramona Paguida Valencia at their residence, and has since failed to
render much needed financial support. In their defense, the respondents postulated that they were
not lawyers as of yet when they committed the supposed immorality, so as such, they were not
guilty of a violation of Canon1, Rule 1.01.

Issue:

Whether or not Atty.Garrido‟s and Valencia‟sactions constitute a violation of Canon 1, Rule1.01 and
thus a good enough cause for their disbarment, despite the offense being supposedly committed
when they were not lawyers.

Ruling:

Yes. The Court had resolved to withdraw this privilege from Atty. Angel E. Garrido and Atty. Rowena
P. Valencia for the reason of their blatant violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which commands that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct. Furthermore, the contention of respondent that they were not yet lawyers when
they got married shall not afford them exemption from sanctions; good moral character was already
required as a condition precedent to admission to the Bar.

Garrido‟s

abandonment of paternal responsibility and the fact that Valencia married Garrido despite knowing
of his other marriages to two other women including the petitioner, are clear indications of a lack of
moral values not consistent with the proper conduct of practicing lawyers. As such, their disbarment
is affirmed
MARY MALECDAN vs. PEKAS and KOLLIN

A.C. No. 5830. January 26, 2004

Facts:

Atty Pekas and Kollin substituted Atty. Bustamante as a counsels for the Fanged Spouses.

Petitioner Malecdan bought a parcel of land located in Baguio City from the Fanged spouses.

The money was received by Eliza Fanged and deposited in the account of Atty. Artemio

Bustamante, then counsel for the latter. The complainant later found out, however, that the said

lot was the subject of a controversy between the former owners and the Fanged Spouses.

Then Kollin replaced Bustamante. He filed for a petition for rescission over the contract of sale,

without returning the amount of money to Malecdan. While Malecdan was in the US, the Fanged

spouses, Atty Bustamante and the PCIB (bank) signed a compromised contract, and Malecdan

was not made a signatory to such contract. They caused the transfer of P30K from the account

of Bustamante to a separate account for Kollin and Pekas as attorney’s fees.

Now, Malecdan files a case for disbarment against Kollin and Pekas, because not only was she

prejudiced from such withdrawal of money, but they also committed acts against the IBP in

contravention/violation to the lawyer’s oath that they shall uphold the laws of the land.

Issue:

WON Kollin and Pekas should be suspended? YES

Held:

It is a settled principle that the compensation of a lawyer should be but a mere incident of the

practice of law, the primary purpose of which is to render public service. The practice of law is a

profession and not a money-making trade. The process of imbibing ethical standards can begin

with the simple act of openness and candor in dealing with clients, which would progress

thereafter towards the ideal that a lawyer’s vocation is not synonymous with an ordinary

business proposition but a serious matter of public interest.

DECISION: Pekas suspended for 6 months, Kollin for 3 years

OVERGAARD V. VALDEZ (DISBARMENT)

Lawyer Valdez committed multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility by having taken full retainer's fee and not having done anything regarding
Complainant Overgaard's cases to the latter's prejudice and dismay.

Rule 139, Sec. 27 Grounds for DISBARMENT/suspension: deceit malpractice or other gross
misconduct in such office grossly immoral conduct conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitudeviolation of the lawyer's oath willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court
willful appearance as an attorney for a party without authority. Respondent Valdez had indubitably
fallen below the exacting standards demanded of members of the bar.

The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:

A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness, and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his client.

A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him.

A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.

A lawyer is required to keep the client informed of the status of his case and to respond within a
reasonable time to the client's request for information.

A lawyer shall account for all money and property collected or received for and from the client.

Respondent Valdez did exactly the opposite.

The PRACTICE OF LAW IS NOT A RIGHT, BUT A PRIVILEGE. It is granted only to those of good moral
character. The Bar must maintain a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Lawyers must conduct
themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at
large, and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of
the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.

In this case, SC finds that suspension for 3 years recommended by the IBP is not sufficient
punishment for the unacceptable acts and omissions of Respondent Valdez. For violating elementary
principles of professional ethics and failing to observe the fundamental duties of honesty and good
faith, respondent has proven himself unworthy of membership in this noble profession.

DISBARRED.
A.C. No. 10134 November 26, 2014

PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COURT EMPLOYEES (PACE), represented by its President, ATTY.

VIRGINIA C. RAFAEL, Complainant, vs.

ATTY. EDNA M. ALIBUTDAN-DIAZ, Respondent.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:

This resolves the complaint for suspension or disbarment filed by the Philippine Association of Court
Employees (PACE) through its president, Atty. Virginia C. Rafael (Atty. Rafael), on July 17, 2008
against Atty. Edna M. Alibutdan-Diaz (Atty. Diaz), former National Treasurer of PACE, before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).1

PACE, the umbrella association of 1st and 2nd level court employees in the Judiciary held its 11th
National Convention/Seminar in Davao City from October 6 to 8, 2005. As then National Treasurer of
PACE, Atty. Diaz was entrusted with all the money matters of PACE.

The complainant alleged that the liquidation for the 11th PACE national convention was submitted
by Atty. Diaz only on March 29, 2007, during the 12th PACE national convention in Iloilo City2; that
during the 12th convention, an election of officers was conducted and Atty. Diaz ran for the position
of National Treasurer, but she was not elected; that on the last day of the convention or on March
31, 2007,the outgoing Board of Directors, including Atty. Diaz, passed and approved Resolution No.
1-2007 appropriating the amount of 30,000.00as term-end bonus for each PACE official qualified
thereto; that Atty. Diaz did not submit a liquidation report for the 12th convention; that there was
no turn over of monies belonging to the association as a matter of procedure despite a letter of
demand, dated June 20, 2007 sent to Atty. Diaz;3 and that the new set of PACE officers issued Board
Resolution No. 00-07 directing past president, Rosita D. Amizola; and past treasurer, Atty. Diaz, to
explain why they failed to liquidate the finances of PACE for the Davao and Iloilo conventions.4

In her defense, Atty. Diaz countered that she had filed the Statement of Liquidation for the 11th
national convention in Davao in less than a week after the said convention; that it was duly audited
by the national auditor, Letecia Agbayani; that the net proceeds of that convention was "fully
accounted, liquidated and entirely deposited to PACE accounts;"5 that she also filed the Statement
of Liquidation for the 12th national convention on May 22, 2007; that the report, together with the
cash, checks and original receipts, were received by Rosita Amisola and witnessed by former PACE
officers;6 that she denied running for re-election as PACE national treasurer during the Iloilo
convention as she had already filed her certificate of candidacy for Board Member of the First
District of Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay;7 that the approval of the ₱30,000.00 term-end bonus did not
rest with her solely, rather, it was approved by the previous board of directors; and that she never
sponsored the bonus, as it was initiated by Aliven Maderaza and seconded by Atty. Lourdes Garcia
and Sarah Ampong.
On her part, Atty. Garcia averred that she was not privy to the disbursement of the said term-end
bonus.8

Initially, the case was assigned to IBP Commissioner Elpidio G. Soriano. After an exchange of
pleadings, the mandatory conference was held. Afterwards, the protagonists were directed to
submit their respective position papers. Thereafter, the case was re-assigned to IBP Commissioner
Victor C. Fernandez (Commissioner Fernandez).9

The lone issue here is whether or not Atty. Diaz violated Chapter 1, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR), which reads:

"A lawyer should not engage in an unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

In his Report and Recommendation, dated June 28, 2010, Commissioner Fernandez recommended
the dismissal of the case against Atty. Diaz for lack of merit. Atty. Diaz offered documentary
evidence to show that she was able to submit the liquidation reports for the two aforementioned
conventions of PACE. He also took note that Atty. Rafael herself acknowledged the liquidation report
made by Atty. Diaz with respect to the Davao City convention.10 As to the sufficiency and
completeness of these reports, this would be better resolvedthrough an audit rather than in
disbarment proceedings.1âwphi1 Besides, Commissioner Fernandez did not consider the position of
Atty. Diaz as national treasurer of PACE to have any connection with her being as a lawyer. Thus,
according to him, she should be sanctioned in accordance with the by-laws of PACE instead of a
disbarment case.11

As regards the accusation that Atty. Diaz ran for re-election in the PACE elections even though she
was no longer connected with the Judiciary and therefore disqualified, Commissioner Fernandez
opined that the best evidence, which was the "certificate of candidacy," was never offered,12 and
that Atty. Diaz, being a lawyer, knew that her bid for re-election would be a useless exercise since
she would not beable to assume office if she won.13

Finally, Commissioner Fernandez believed Atty. Diaz’s assertion that she never sponsored the
appropriation of the 30,000.00 term-end bonus and that the approval of Resolution No. 1-2007 was
a collegial action among the Board of Directors. Again, Commissioner Fernandez was of the view that
her participation in the passage of the questioned board resolution was not connected to her being
a lawyer.14

On November 19, 2011, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) passed a resolution adopting and
approving the report and recommendation of Commissioner Fernandez, and dismissed the
complaint against Atty. Diaz.15

On reconsideration, the IBP-BOG issued the Extended Resolution,16 dated June 21, 2013, granting
the complainant’s motion for reconsideration. It reversedand set asideits earlier resolution and
suspended Atty. Diaz from the practice of law for one (1) year.17

The IBP-BOG explained that the questions regarding (i) Atty. Diaz’ liquidation of PACE funds;(ii) her
running for re-election when she was no longer with the Judiciary; and (iii) her entitlement to the
term-end bonus when she was no longer working in the Judiciary, constituted a "triple -whammy" of
questionable actions18 committed by Atty. Diaz in contravention of Rule 1.01 of the CPR.
The Court’s Ruling

This Court agrees with the IBP-BOG and adopts its June 21, 2013 Extended Resolution. Everyone
should keep in mind that the practice of law is only a privilege. It is definitely not a right. Inorder to
enjoy this privilege, one must show that he possesses, and continues to possess, the qualifications
required by law for the conferment of such privilege.

One of those requirements is the observance of honesty and candor. Candor in all their dealings is
the very essence of a practitioner's honorable membership in the legal profession. Lawyers are
required to act with the highest standard of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the conduct of
litigation and in their relations with their clients, the opposing parties, the other counsels and the
courts. They are bound by their oath to speak the truth and to conduct themselves according to the
best of their knowledge and discretion, and with fidelity to the courts and their clients.19 Time and
again, the Court has held that the practice of law is granted only to those of good moral character.
The Bar maintains a high standard of honesty and fair dealing. Thus, lawyers must conduct
themselves beyond reproach at all times, whether they are dealing with their clients or the public at
large, and a violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of
the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.20

It bears stressing that Atty. Diaz is a servant of the law and belongs to that profession which society
entrusts with the administration of law and the dispensation of justice. For this, he or she is an
exemplar for others to emulate and should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. Necessarily, this Court has been exacting in its demand for integrity and good moral
character from members of the Bar. They are always expected to uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession and to refrain from any act or omission which might lessen the trust and
confidence reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of this noble profession.21

Atty. Diaz' delay in the liquidation of the finances of PACE; her running for re-election, including her
non-admission that she ran for said election as shown not by her certificate of candidacy but by the
affidavits of former PACE officers; and her involvement in the approval or passage of the questioned
term-end bonus of PACE officers, including herself even though she was no longer working in the
Judiciary, were definitely not the candor the Court speaks of. There was much to be desired in Atty.
Diaz' actions/ inactions.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Edna M. Alibutdan-Diaz is found GUILTY of violating Chapter 1, Canon 1, Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for a period of three (3) months.

This decision shall be immediately executory.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Court Administrator for its distribution to all courts of the
land; the IBP; and the Office of the Bar Confidant to be entered into respondent's personal records
as a member of the Philippine Bar.

SO ORDERED.