ATTY. DALLONG- GALICINAO V. ATTY.

CASTRO
Facts:
Atty. Dallong-Galicinao is the Clerk of Court of RTC and Atty. Castro was a private practitioner and VP of IBP-Nueva
Vizcaya. Respondent went to complainants office to inquire whether the records of Civil Case No. 784 had already been remanded to
the MCTC. Respondent was not the counsel of either party in that case.
Complainant replied that the record had not yet been transmitted since a certified true copy of the CA decision should first be
presented. To this respondent retorted, You mean to say, I would have to go to Manila to get a copy? Complainant replied that
respondent may show instead the copy sent to the party he represents. Respondent then replied that complainant shouldve notified
him. Complainant explained that it is not her duty to notify the respondent of such duty. Angered, respondent yelled stuff in Ilocano and
left the office, banging the door so loud. He then returned to the office and shouted, Ukinnam nga babai! (Vulva of your mother, you
woman!)
Later, complainant filed a manifestation that she wont appear in the hearing of the case in view of the respondents public
apology, and that the latter was forgiven already.
Held:
Respondent is fined the amount of 10k with a warning.
Respondent was not the counsel of record of Civil Case No. 784. His explanation that he will enter his appearance in the case
when its records were already transmitted to the MCTC is unacceptable. Not being the counsel of record respondent had no right to
impose his will on the clerk of court. He violated Rule 8.02, because this was an act of encroachment. It matters not that he did so in
good faith.
His act of raising his voice and uttering vulgar invectives to the clerk of court was not only ill-mannered but also unbecoming
considering that he did these in front of the complainants subordinates. For these, he violated Rules 7.03 and 8.01 and Canon 8.
The penalty was tempered because respondent apologized to the complainant and the latter accepted it. This is not to say,
however, that respondent should be absolved from his actuations. People are accountable for the consequences of the things they say
and do even if they repent afterwards.
CAYETANO V. MONSOD
FACTS
Respondent Christian Monsod was nominated by then President Aquino for the position of COMELEC Chairman in 1991. This
nomination was opposed by petitioner Cayetano on the ground that Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been
engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years. Apparently, the Constitution requires that the COMELEC Chairperson be a member
of the Philippine Bar who has been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years. Despite Cayetanos opposition, the Commission
on Appointments confirmed the nomination. Thus, Cayetano filed an instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, basically challenging
the confirmation by the CA of Monsods nomination.
ISSUE
Is Monsod qualified to be COMELEC Chairperson?
HELD
YES.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. Practice of law under modem conditions consists in no small
part of work performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to proceedings in court. It embraces conveyancing, the
giving of legal advice on a large variety of subjects, and the preparation and execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field
of business and trust relations and other affairs. Although these transactions may have no direct connection with court proceedings,
they are always subject to become involved in litigation. They require in many aspects a high degree of legal skill, a wide experience
with men and affairs, and great capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These customary functions of an attorney or
counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration of justice by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the
question set forth in the order, can be drawn between that part of the work of the lawyer which involves appearance in court and that
part which involves advice and drafting of instruments in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of the public that these manifold
customary functions be performed by persons possessed of adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all
times under the heavy trust obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys.
The SC, in order to arrive at its decision, presented a brief history of Monsods employment. After passing the bar
exam, Atty. Monsod worked in the law office of his father. From 1963 to 1970, he worked for the World Bank Group, where he was
assigned as operations officer in Costa Rica. His job involved getting acquainted with the laws of member-countries negotiating loans
and coordinating legal, economic and project work of the bank. In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and worked with the Meralco
Group, served as chief executive of an investment bank and a business conglomerate. By 1986, he rendered his services to various
companies as a legal and economic consultant and he also worked as a Chief Executive Officer. He was also the Secretary-General
and National Chairman of NAMFREL in 1986-1987. His position in NAMFREL required his knowledge in election law. Also, he sat as a
member of the Davide Commission in 1990.
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.
PADILLA, J., dissenting:
There are several factors determinative of whether a particular activity constitutes "practice of law."
1. Habituality
2. Compensation
3. Application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure which calls or legal knowledge, training and experience is within the
term "practice of law.
4. Attorney-client relationship.