Renato Cayetano vs Christian Monsod

written by Howard

G.R. No. 100113 – 278 Phil. 235 – 201 SCRA 210 – Legal Ethics – Practice of Law 

In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission on Elections. His appointment was affirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Monsod’s appointment was opposed by Renato Cayetano on the ground that he does not qualify for he failed to meet the Constitutional requirement which provides that the chairman of the COMELEC should have been engaged in the practice law for at least ten years.

Monsod’s track record as a lawyer:

  1. Passed the bar in 1960 with a rating of %.
  2. Immediately after passing, worked in his father’s law firm for one year.
  3. Thereafter, until 1970, he went  abroad where he had a degree in economics and held various positions in various foreign corporations.
  4. In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for various local corporations until 1986.
  5. In 1986, he became a member of the Constitutional Commission.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Monsod qualifies as  chairman of the COMELEC.

2. What constitutes practice of law?

HELD: Yes. 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.

As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to court appearances. The members of the bench and bar and the informed laymen such as businessmen, know that in most developed societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted in law offices than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do both litigation and non-litigation work also know that in most cases they find themselves spending more time doing what is loosely described as business counseling than in trying cases.  In the course of a working day the average general practitioner wig engage in a number of legal tasks, each involving different legal doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal institutions, clients, and other interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers in specialized practice wig usually perform at least some legal services outside their specialty. By no means will most of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is one of the relatively rare types – a litigator who specializes in this work to the exclusion of much else. Instead, the work will require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of traditional lawyer skills of client counseling, advice-giving, document drafting, and negotiation.

Read full text

Justice Padilla dissenting:

Monsod did not practice law. Justice Padilla emphasized the following criteria in determining what constitutes practice of law:

1. Habituality. The term “practice of law” implies customarily or habitually holding one’s self out to the public as a lawyer (People vs. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109 citing State v. Boyen, 4 S.E. 522, 98 N.C. 644) such as when one sends a circular announcing the establishment of a law office for the general practice of law (U.S. v. Ney Bosque, 8 Phil. 146), or when one takes the oath of office as a lawyer before a notary public, and files a manifestation with the Supreme Court informing it of his intention to practice law in all courts in the country (People v. De Luna, 102 Phil. 968).

Practice is more than an isolated appearance for it consists in frequent or customary action, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is a habitual exercise (People v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109 citing State v. Cotner, 127, p. 1, 87 Kan, 864).

2. Compensation. Practice of 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 service of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. (People v. Villanueva, supra). Hence, charging for services such as preparation of documents involving the use of legal knowledge and skill is within the term “practice of law” (Ernani Paño, Bar Reviewer in Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1988 ed., p. 8 citing People v. People’s Stockyards State Bank, 176 N.B. 901) and, one who renders an opinion as to the proper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is to that extent, practicing law (Martin, supra, p. 806 citing Mendelaun v. Gilbert and Barket Mfg. Co., 290 . 462) If compensation is expected, all advice to clients and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law; are practicing law. (Elwood Fitchette et al., v. Arthur C. Taylor, 94A-L.R. 356-359)

3. Application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure which calls for legal knowledge, training and experience is within the term “practice of law”. (Martin supra)

4. Attorney-client relationship. Engaging in the practice of law presupposes the existence of lawyer-client relationship. Hence, where a lawyer undertakes an activity which requires knowledge of law but involves no attorney-client relationship, such as teaching law or writing law books or articles, he cannot be said to be engaged in the practice of his profession or a lawyer (Agpalo, Legal Ethics, 1989 ed., p. 30).

Monsod did not habitually practice law. It may be granted that he performed activities which are related to the practice of law like drafting legal documents and giving legal advice, but he only did so as isolated incidents.

Justice Gutierrez dissenting:

Monsod did not practice law save for the one year he spent in his father’s law office. The Chairman of the COMELEC should have engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. The deliberate choice of words shows that the practice envisioned is active and regular, not isolated, occasional, accidental, intermittent, incidental, seasonal, or extemporaneous. To be “engaged” in an activity for ten years requires committed participation in something which is the result of one’s decisive choice. It means that one is occupied and involved in the enterprise; one is obliged or pledged to carry it out with intent and attention during the ten-year period.

What kind of Judges or Justices will we have if their main occupation is selling real estate, managing a business corporation, serving in fact-finding committee, working in media, or operating a farm with no active involvement in the law, whether in Government or private practice, except that in one joyful moment in the distant past, they happened to pass the bar examinations?

There is nothing in Monsod’s track record which will show that he has given the law enough attention or a certain degree of commitment and participation as would support in all sincerity and candor the claim of having engaged in its practice for at least ten years. Instead of working as a lawyer, he has lawyers working for him. Instead of giving receiving that legal advice of legal services, he was the one advised and those services as an executive but not as a lawyer.

Read full text