1. PHILIPPINE LAWYER’S ASSOCIATION VS.

CELEDONIO AGRAVA, in his capacity

as Director of the Philippines Patent Office

FACTS:
A petition was filed by the petitioner for prohibition and injunction against Celedonio
Agrava, in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office. On May 27, 1957, respondent
Director issued a circular announcing that he had scheduled for June 27, 1957 an examination for
the purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the
Philippines Patent Office. The petitioner contends that one who has passed the bar examinations
and is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good
standing, is duly qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office and that the respondent
Director’s holding an examination for the purpose is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation
of the law.
The respondent, in reply, maintains the prosecution of patent cases “ does not involve
entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the application of scientific and technical
knowledge and training as a matter of actual practice so as to include engineers and other
individuals who passed the examination can practice before the Patent office. Furthermore, he
stressed that for the long time he is holding tests, this is the first time that his right has been
questioned formally.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the
prosecution of patent application, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law.

HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes such appearance before the
Patent Office, the representation of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the
prosecution of their applications for patent, their opposition thereto, or the enforcement of their
rights in patent cases. Moreover, the practice before the patent Office involves the interpretation
and application of other laws and legal principles, as well as the existence of facts to be
established in accordance with the law of evidence and procedure. The practice of law is not
limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court but also embraces all other matters connected
with the law and any work involving the determination by the legal mind of the legal effects of
facts and conditions. Furthermore, the law provides that any party may appeal to the Supreme
Court from any final order or decision of the director. Thus, if the transactions of business in the
Patent Office involved exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge and training, then
logically, the appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial body, but rather to a board of
scientists, engineers or technical men, which is not the case.

CMNR2010

2. RENATO CAYETANO VS. CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R. SALONGA,

COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENT, AND HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his
capacity as Secretary of Budget and Management

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 as provided in the 1987 Constitution, Section 1 (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.
Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of
Monsod’s nomination, petitioner, as 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. On the other hand, Monsod,
in his defense, is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examination of 1960. 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
and has experience on fields of negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic, and project
work of the Bank in other countries. He was also a former Secretary-General and National
Chairman of NAMFREL which made him knowledgeable in election law.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod is in
accordance with the requirement of law as having been engaged in the practice of law for at least
ten years.

HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the appointment of Monsod is in accordance with the
requirement of law as having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. 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. Again, in the case of Philippine Lawyer’s Association vs. Agrava, the
practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases and litigation in court; it embraces the
preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and social proceedings and other
similar work which involves the determination by a legal mind the legal effects of facts and
conditions.

CMNR2010

3. PEOPLE VS. VILLANUEVA

FACTS:
The Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged Simplicio Villanueva with the crime of
Malicious Mischief before the Justice of the Peace Court of said municipality. The complainant
was represented by City Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City, having entered his appearance
as private prosecutor in the case, after securing the permission of the Secretary of Justice. The
condition of his appearance as such, was that he would not receive any payment for his services.
Such appearance by Atty. Fule was questioned by the counsel of the accused, invoking the case
of Aquino vs. Blanco, wherein it was ruled that “when an attorney had been appointed to the
position of Assistant Provincial Fiscal or City Fiscal and therein qualified, by operation of law, he
ceased to engage in private law practice.” The counsel argued that the JP Court in entertaining
the appearance of City Attorney Fule is a violation of the above ruling. The JP Court issued an
order is sustaining the legality of the appearance of Atty. Fule and ruled, in a “Motion to Inhibit
Fiscal Rule from Acting as Private Prosecutor in this Case”, by upholding the right of Fule to
appear and further stating the Fule was not actually engaged in private law practice. The counsel
of the accused appealed to the CFI of Laguna which affirmed the decision of the JP Court finding
the appeal as not in violation of the law since his appearance is such as an agent or friend of the
offended party. It also does not appear that he was being paid for his services or that his
appearance was in a professional capacity. Furthermore, Atty. Fule has no control or intervention
whatsoever on the prosecution of crimes committed in the municipality of Alaminos, Laguna,
because the prosecution of criminal cases coming frim Alaminos are handled by the Office of the
Provincial Fiscal and not by the City Attorney of San Pablo to point out that there could be no
possible conflict in the duties of City Attorney Fule as City Attorney and private prosecutor. And
so an appeal to Supreme Court was passed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the capacity of City Attorney Fule in appearing before a court in a trial is
in violation of the law which says that City Fiscal, after being appointed, shall cease to engage in
private law practice.

HELD:
The Supreme Court held that the isolate appearance of City Attorney Fule did not
constitute private practice within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. Practice is more
than an isolated appearance, for it consists of frequents or customary actions, a succession of
facts of the same kind or frequent habitual exercise. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of
statute has been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding one’s self out to the public, as
customarily and demanding payment for such services. The mere appearance as counsel on one
occasion is not conclusive as determinative of engagement in the private practice of law. It is also
worth noted that, it has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been given permission by
his immediate superior to represent the complainant in the case at bar, who is a relative.

CMNR2010