OCA vs. Ladaga OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. ATTY. MISAEL M. LADAGAA.M. No.

P-99-1287 January 26, 2001 Facts:Atty. Misael Ladaga, Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, appeared as counsel for and in behalf of his cousin, Narcisa Naldoza Ladaga, an accused in Criminal Case No. 84-885 for Falsification of Public Documents before the METC of Quezon City. It is also denied that the appearance of said respondent in said case was without the previous permission of the Court. During the occasions that the respondent appeared as such counsel before the METC of Quezon City, he was on official leave of absence. Moreover, his Presiding Judge, Judge Napoleon Inoturan was aware of the case he was handling. Respondent appeared as pro bono counsel for his cousin-client Narcisa Ladaga. Respondent did not receive a single centavo from her. Helpless as she was and respondent being the only lawyer in the family, he agreed to represent her out of his compassion and high regard for her. This is the first time that respondent ever handled a case for a member of his family who is like a big sister to him. He appeared for free and for the purpose of settling the case amicably. Furthermore, his Presiding Judge was aware of his appearance as counsel for his cousin. On top of this, during all the years that hehas been in government service, he has maintained his integrity and independence. He failed to obtain a prior permission from the head of the Department. The presiding judge of the court to which respondent is assigned is not the head of the Department contemplated by law. Issue: Whether or not Atty. Ladaga, upon such several appearances, was engages into private practice? NO Held: Respondent is charged under Sec. 7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees which prohibits civil servants from engaging in the private practice of their profession. A similar prohibition is found under Sec. 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court which disallows certain attorneys from engaging in the private practice of their profession.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. LADAGA 350 SCRA 326 [2001]
FACTS: Atty. Ladaga, an RTC Branch Clerk of Court, acted as pro bono counsel for a relative in a criminal case, without the previous authority from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as required by the Administrative Code. An administrative complaint was filed against Atty. Ladaga for practicing law without permission from the Department Head (CJ) as required by law. Atty. Ladaga justified his appearance as he merely gave a free legal assistance to a relative and that he was on an approved leave of absence during his appearances as such counsel. Moreover, the presiding judge of the court to which he is assigned knew his appearances as such counsel. ISSUE:

Whether Atty. Ladagas appearances as a pro bono counsel for a relative constitutes practice of law as prohibited by the Administrative Code.

HELD: No. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of the statute should be customarily or habitually holding ones self to the public as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services. It does not pertain to isolated court appearances as in this case. Nevertheless, for his failure to obtain a prior permission from the head of the Department (CJ) as required by law, respondent was reprimanded.

CAYETANO VS. MONSOD 201 SCRA 210, 1991

FACTS

Monsod was nominated by President Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC on April 25, 1991. Cayetano 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. Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsods nomination, petitioner filed a 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 because Monsod did not meet the requirement of having practiced law for the last ten years.

ISSUE: Whether or not Monsod satisfies the requirement of the position of Chairman of the COMELEC.

HELD: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. A person is also considered to be in the practice of law when he: . . . for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by law or authorized to settle controversies.

Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising clients as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law.

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. Atty. Monsods 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.

PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION VS AGRAVA Case Digest PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION VS AGRAVA G. R. No. L-12426 February 16, 1959

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 Directors 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.

In re: David 93 Phil 461

Respondent was suspended for bad practices in the exercise of his profession as a lawyer for a period of five years from the November 9, 1949. The defendant admits this suspension in `his written report filed on March 17, 1951, yet he continued to exercise the profession within the period of suspension, November 9, 1949 to November 8, 1954. On Feb 28 1950 the respondent file a claim in the case of Tan Tek vs Sy not as a lawyer but as an agent. (For and in behalf of Tan Tek Sy) CFI decided in favor of Tan Tek, subsequently Atty Felix David filed a motion for execution. In another civil case of the CFI called Malayan Saw Mill, Inc vs Tolentino, defendant filed a brief for an order to demolish homes. In order - says the appeal - to show That I did not Have the intention to disregard the suspension of the Supreme Court, I did not With The Knowledge of Tan Tek Identified Sy Even myself as the attorney for the Appelles But In Good Faith, I signed for and in Behalf of the appellee Without Designating That I am Practicing as attorney-at-law.

ISSUE: Whether the acts of Atty Felix David is tantamount to practice of law.

HELD: Yes. Neither can he allow his name to appear in such pleading by itself or as part of firm name under the signature of another qualified lawyer because the signature of an agent amounts to signing of a non-qualified senator or congressman, the office of an attorney being originally an agency, and because he will, by such act, be appearing in court or quasi-judicial or administrative body in violation of the constitutional restriction. He cannot do indirectly what the Constitution prohibits directly.

Atty. Prieto vs. Atty Corpus and Judge Fe

Attorney Ferdinand Fe was the respondent counsel in the civil case which was dismissed for the respondent party was not a real party in interest since her right of action has still to ripen upon the death of her mother. Respondent Fe was appointed as the presiding judge, By reason of his appointment, he completely detached all his professional relationships with his clients, and relinquished all case records of his office to all his clients. The previous client of Judge Ferdinand Fe again filed Civil Case in the counsel of Atty Corpus in the court of Judge Ferdinand Fe. Being the previous lawyer of the complainant in the civil case Judge Fe inhibiting himself from the case and ordered that the record of said case be transferred to the RTC Branch 33. The complainant Attorney Prieto file administrative case against respondent Judge Ferdinand Fe and Atty Corpuz all are members of the Bar and Bench, for dishonesty, serious misconduct prejudicial to the integrity and dignity of the Judiciary. Complainant implies that not only did the respondent lawyer have free access to the records of through the help of respondent Judge Fe which was the former counsel of the plaintiff. Another reason for his objection is that, allegedly, some paragraphs in the complaint in Civil Case were obviously copied from previous case wherein the complaint was prepared by respondent Judge in his capacity as then lawyer. Complainant claims that the foregoing constitute misconduct which imply malice or wrongful intent, not just mere errors of judgment. Complaint not written by Atty Corpus respondent lawyer committed deceit, which serves as a ground for his disbarment. Issue: Whether or not complainant violated Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for filing a frivolous suit against respondents. Held: The court held that the complaint against the respondents is baseless, as they are mere allegations founded on pure speculation and conjecture. Sans evidence, his petition was purposely written to mislead the Court and cast a doubt on the integrity and dignity of the respondents. Petitioner made the said administrative case as a vehicle to unduly harass or otherwise prejudice the respondents. Worse, in selfishly satisfying his own desire to vex the respondents, he had tarnished the integrity of the entire judiciary and the bar. it is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the Court a respectful attitude. Moreover, in filing a frivolous suit against his opposing counsel, petitioner violated Canons 8 and 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that all lawyers must conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor towards their colleagues and should avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel and commands all lawyers to observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. The complaint against respondent is dismissed. Complainant Attorney is fined 5,000.00 for filing frivolous suit.