CAYETANO V.
MONSOD
PEOPLE V. VILLANUEVA- DISBARMENT
Legal Ethics
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.
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)
ISSUE:
WN Christian Monsod has engaged in the practice of law for at least 10
years?
HELD:
YES
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 those acts which are
characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice
or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in
any degree of legal knowledge or skill." (111 ALR 23)
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.
CANLAS V. CA
FACTS:
Francisco Herrera executed a mortgage over his 8 parcels of land in favor of
L&R Corporation as a security for the several loans which he obtained from
the financing institution. Upon his failure to pay, L&R extrajudicially
foreclosed the said lots. The lands were disposed of in a public auction and
L&R was the highest bidder.
Pending redemption, with Atty. Canlas as his counsel, Herrera was able to
obtain a preliminary injunction against L&R to prevent it from consolidating
the title in the corporation’s name.
Two years later, the parties entered into a compromise agreement where
L&R gave Herrera another year to redeem the foreclosed properties subject
to payment of P600,000. They also stipulated that Canlas shall be entitled
to attorney’s fees of 100k. The court approved the compromise.
However, Herrera, due to his financial difficulties, was still unable to pay
neither the several loans nor the attorney’s fees which he owed to Canlas.
Canlas moved for execution insofar as his fees were concerned which the
court granted although he was not really able to collect the fees.
Subsequently, Canlas and Herrera met to discuss the relief for Herrera with
respect to his liability to L&R on the one hand, and his obligation to Canlas
on the other. Canlas contends that Herrera earnestly begged him to redeem
the properties. However, Herrera maintains that it was Canlas who offered
to advance the money provided that they executed a transfer of mortgage
over the properties in Canlas’ favor. (SC believes Herrera’s contention more)
They executed a Deed of Sale and Transfer of Rights of Redemption and/or
to Redeem, a document that enabled Canlas to redeem the parcels of land
and to register the same in his name. Herrera only discovered that the said
lawyer registered the lots under his name when he was about to secure a
loan from a bank to finance a wet market project. Herrera contends that the
said document was falsified. The original document only transferred the
rights of Herrera to redeem the property whereas the falsified document
stated that he was transferring all of his rights of the real properties.
Herrera filed for an action for reconveyance of the said lots and a petition to
reform the said document to reflect the true agreement between him and
Canlas.
TC ruled in favor of Canlas. CA reversed.
ISSUE:
W/n Herrera should have filed a petition for certiorari rather than a pleading
for annulment of judgment
W/n the attorney’s fees that Canlas charged Herrera was reasonable
HELD:
Yes.
Judgments can only be annulled if there was a showing that there is extrinsic
fraud. In the case at bar, extrinsic fraud was not proved. (Herrera contends
that The judge in the trial court colluded with Canlas in order for him to sell
his land to Canlas.)
However, the Court was still unable to find merit in his petition/ The court
cannot overlook the unseemlier side of the proceeding in which a member
of the bar would exploit his mastery of procedural law to score a technical
knowckout over his client, of all people.
No.
Even Canlas himself admitted that his client lacks paying capacity and no
financing entity wanted to extend him a loan. This circumstance should have
tempered his demand for his fees.
Lawyering is not a money-making venture and lawyers are not merchants.
Canlas’ claim of attorney’s fees in the sum of P100,000 was unreasonable.
The extent of the services he rendered in the case is not impressive to justify
payment of such amount. The case itself did not involve complex question
fact or law that would have required substantial effort as to research or leg
work for the Canalas to support his demand. The fatc that the properties
subject thereof commanded quite handsome prices in the market should not
be a measure of the importance or non-importance of the case. The
petitioner’s stature does not support such claim. The Court reduced the
petitioner’s fees on a quantum merit basis, to P20,000.00
***the contract is not void for it is not covered by the ban (remember
sales?) but it is voidable because Canlas exerted undue influence over
Herrera (moral ascendancy of the attorney.)
***however, the property was already in the possession of an IPFV so
Canlas was only held liable for actual damages. BUT…Herrera should still
pay for the redemption price that Canlas paid plus attorney’s fees so this
will be set-off against the damages that Canlas has to pay.
IN RE: PETITION TO SIGN IN THE ROLL OF ATTORNEYS MICHAEL A.
MEDADO, PETITIONER. (DIGEST)
B.M. No. 2540
September 24, 2013
TOPIC:
Admission to the Bar, Unauthorized Practice of Law, Canon 9, Signing of the
Roll of Attorneys
FACTS:
Michael A. Medado passed the Philippine bar exams in 1979. On 7 May 1980,
he took the Attorney’s Oath at the PICC. He was scheduled to sign in the
Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980, but failed to do so allegedly because he
had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. Several years later,
while rummaging through his things, he found said Notice. He then realized
that he had not signed in the roll, and that what he had signed at the
entrance of the PICC was probably just an attendance record.
He thought that since he already took the oath, the signing of the Roll of
Attorneys was not as important. The matter of signing in the Roll of
Attorneys was subsequently forgotten.
In 2005, when Medado attended MCLE seminars, he was required to provide
his roll number for his MCLE compliances to be credited. Not having signed
in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to provide his roll number.
About seven years later, in 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition, praying
that he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys. Medado justifies this lapse
by characterizing his acts as “neither willful nor intentional but based on a
mistaken belief and an honest error of judgment.
The Office of the Bar Confidant recommended that the instant petition be
denied for petitioner’s gross negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of
merit, saying that petitioner could offer no valid justification for his
negligence in signing in the Roll of Attorneys.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner may be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys.
RULING:
Yes, the Supreme Court granted the petition subject to the payment of a
fine and the imposition of a penalty equivalent to suspension from the
practice of law.
Not allowing Medado to sign in the Roll of Attorneys would be akin to
imposing upon him the ultimate penalty of disbarment, a penalty reserved
for the most serious ethical transgressions. In this case, said action is not
warranted.
The Court considered Medado’s demonstration of good faith in filing the
petition himself, albeit after the passage of more than 30 years; that he has
shown that he possesses the character required to be a member of the
Philippine Bar; and that he appears to have been a competent and able legal
practitioner, having held various positions at different firms and companies.
However, Medado is not free from all liability for his years of inaction.
A mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because
everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences.
Medado may have at first operated under an honest mistake of fact when
he thought that what he had signed at the PICC entrance before the oath-
taking was already the Roll of Attorneys. However, the moment he realized
that what he had signed was just an attendance record, he could no longer
claim an honest mistake of fact as a valid justification. At that point, he
should have known that he was not a full-fledged member of the Philippine
Bar, as it was the act of signing therein that would have made him so. When,
in spite of this knowledge, he chose to continue practicing law, he willfully
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
Knowingly engaging in unauthorized practice of law likewise transgresses
Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. At the heart of Canon 9
is the lawyer’s duty to prevent the unauthorized practice of law. This duty
likewise applies to law students and Bar candidates. As aspiring members
of the Bar, they are bound to conduct themselves in accordance with the
ethical standards of the legal profession.
Medado cannot be suspended as he is not yet a full-fledged lawyer.
However, the Court imposed upon him a penalty akin to suspension by
allowing him to sign in the Roll of Attorneys one (1) year after receipt of the
Resolution. He was also made to pay a fine of P32,000. Also, during the one-
year period, petitioner was not allowed to engage in the practice of law.