practice of law provided that they use their legal knowledge or talent in their respective

Renato Cayetano vs Christian Monsod

201 SCRA 210; G.R. No. 100113; September 3, 1991

work. The court also cited an article in the January 11, 1989 issue of the Business Star,
that lawyers nowadays have their own specialized fields such as tax lawyers, prosecutors,
etc., that because of the demands of their specialization, lawyers engage in other works or
functions to meet them. These days, for example, most corporation lawyers are involved in

Facts:

management policy formulation. Therefore, Monsod, who passed the bar in 1960, worked

Christian Monsod was nominated by then President Corazon C. Aquino as chairman of the

with the World Bank Group from 1963-1970, then worked for an investment bank till 1986,

COMELEC. Cayetano questioned the appointment for Monsod allegedly lacked the necessary
qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.

became member of the CONCOM in 1986, and also became a member of the Davide
Commission in 1990, can be considered to have been engaged in the practice of law as
lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, etc.

The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on
Elections composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born

Ulep vs. Legal Clinic A.C. No. L-533

citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of

Topics:

age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective

A lawyer, making known his legal services shall only use true, honest, fair, dignified and

position in the immediately preceding elections.However, a majority thereof, including the

objective

Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice
of law for at least ten years.
It was established that after graduating from the College of Law and hurdling the Bar,
respondent worked in his fathers law office for a short while, then worked as an Operations
Officer in the World Bank Group for about 2 years, which involved getting acquainted with

Group, served as Chief Executive Officer of an investment bank and has subsequently

or

statement

of

facts.Canon

3,

Code

of

Professional

Responsibility
A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications for legal
services.Rule 3.01., Code of Professional Responsibility
Facts of the Case:

the laws of member-countries, negotiating loans, and coordinating legal, economic and
project work of the Bank. Upon returning to the Philippines, he worked with the Meralco

information

In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according
to Nogales, was to move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the
services of big law firms.
Atty. Ulep files a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of its advertisements

worked either as Chief Executive Officer or Consultant of various companies.

ISSUE:

which states undignified phrases like-- Secret Marriage? P560.00 for a valid marriage.

1. Whether or not Monsod has been engaged in the practice of law for 10 years.

Information on DIVORCE, ANNULMENT, ABSENCE, VISA. The Legal Clinic, Inc. Please call:

HELD:
1. YES. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court. It

5210767, 5217232, 5222041 8:30am to 6:00pm 7 th Floor Victoria Bldg. UN Avenue,

Manila.
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal

embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special

Problems in The Philippine Star because it is composed of specialists that can take care of a

proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients, and

clients situation no matter how complicated it is, especially on marriage problems like

other works where the work done involves the determination of the trained legal mind of

the Sharon and Gabby situation.

the legal effect of facts and conditions (PLA vs. Agrava.) The records of the 1986
constitutional commission show that the interpretation of the term practice of law was
liberal as to consider lawyers employed in the Commission of Audit as engaged in the

seem to promote divorce, secret marriage, bigamous marriage, and other circumventions
of law which their experts can facilitate. Such is highly reprehensible.
The Supreme Court also noted which forms of advertisement are allowed. The best
advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and
fidelity to trust, which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct. Good and
efficient service to a client as well as to the community has a way of publicizing itself and
catching public attention. That publicity is a normal by-product of effective service which is
right and proper. A good and reputable lawyer needs no artificial stimulus to generate it
and to magnify his success. He easily sees the difference between a normal by-product of
able service and the unwholesome result of propaganda. The Supreme Court also
enumerated the following as allowed forms of advertisement:

Citing John Bates vs. The State Bar of Arizona, Atty. Nogales said that it should be
allowed based on this American Jurisprudence. According to him, there is nothing wrong
with making known the legal services his Legal Clinic has to offer.
Issue:
Whether or not such advertisement may be allowed.
Ruling:
The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals, which is undoubtedly beyond the
domain of the paralegals. As stated in a previous jurisprudence, practice of law is only
reserved for the members of the Philippine bar, and not to paralegals. As with the Legal

1.

Advertisement in a reputable law list

Clinics advertisements, the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer in

2.

Use of ordinary simple professional card

making known his legal services must use only honest, fair, dignified and objective

3.

Listing in a phone directory but without designation as to his specialization

information or statement of facts.

A lawyer cannot advertise his talents in a manner that a merchant advertise his
goods. The Legal Clinic promotes divorce, secret marriages, bigamous marriages which are
undoubtedly contrary to law.
The only allowed form of advertisements would be 1. Citing your involvement in a
reputable law list, 2. An ordinary professional card 3. Phone directory listing without

BAUTISTA vs GONZALES
[Per Curiam]
FACTS:

designation to a lawyers specialization.

In a verified complaint filed by Angel L. Bautista, respondent Ramon A. Gonzales was
ISSUE: Whether or not The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law; whether such is
allowed; whether or not its advertisement may be allowed.
HELD: Yes, The Legal Clinic is engaged in the practice of law however, such practice is not
allowed. The Legal Clinic is composed mainly of paralegals. The services it offered include
various legal problems wherein a client may avail of legal services from simple
documentation to complex litigation and corporate undertakings. Most of these services are
undoubtedly beyond the domain of paralegals, but rather, are exclusive functions of lawyers
engaged in the practice of law. Under Philippine jurisdiction however, the services being
offered by Legal Clinic which constitute practice of law cannot be performed by paralegals.
Only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and who is in good and regular
standing, is entitled to practice law.
Anent the issue on the validity of the questioned advertisements, the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true,
honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts. The standards of the
legal profession condemn the lawyers advertisement of his talents. A lawyer cannot,
without violating the ethics of his profession, advertise his talents or skills as in a manner
similar to a merchant advertising his goods. Further, the advertisements of Legal Clinic

charged with malpractice, deceit, gross misconduct and violation of lawyers oath. Required
by this Court to answer the charges against him, respondent filed a motion for a bill of
particulars asking this Court to order complainant to amend his complaint by making his
charges more definite. In a resolution the Court granted respondents motion and required
complainant to file an amended complaint. Complainant submitted an amended complaint
for disbarment, alleging that respondent committed the following acts:
1. Accepting a case wherein he agreed with his clients, namely, Alfaro Fortunado, Nestor
Fortunado and Editha Fortunado [hereinafter referred to as the Fortunados] to pay all
expenses, including court fees, for a contingent fee of fifty percent (50%) of the value of
the property in litigation.
xxx
4. Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a contract with him on
August 30, 1971 for the development into a residential subdivision of the land involved in

Civil Case No. Q-15143, covered by TCT No. T-1929, claiming that he acquired fifty percent
(50%) interest thereof as attorneys fees from the Fortunados, while knowing fully well
that the said property was already sold at a public auction on June 30, 1971, by the
Provincial Sheriff of Lanao del Norte and registered with the Register of Deeds of Iligan
City;
xxx
Pertinent to No. 4 above, the contract, in No. 1 above, reads:
We the [Fortunados] agree on the 50% contingent fee, provided, you [respondent Ramon
Gonzales] defray all expenses, for the suit, including court fees.
ISSUE:

BURBE v. MAGULTA
(A.C. No. 5713, June 10, 2002)
FACTS:
Petitioner Dominador P. Burbe filed a complaint for disbarment, suspension or any
disciplinary action against Atty. Alberto C. Magulta. Respondent agreed to legally represent
the petitioner in a money claim and possible civil case. He prepared the demand letters and
other legal papers; however, he later on suggested that the petitioner must file the
necessary complaint.
Petitioner paid an amount of P25, 000 for lawyers fees and amounts for filing the case.
Months had passed but there was still no feedback regarding the petitioners case.
Petitioner would frequently inquire yet respondent would repeatedly tell him to wait. To
prove that the case was already filed, respondent brought the petitioner to the Hall of
Justice Building at Ecoland, Davao City. He made the petitioner wait for hours at the
prosecutors office and came back with the news that the Clerk of Court was absent that
day. Petitioner personally went to the Office of the Clerk of Court and found out that the
case was not filed. A confrontation took place wherein the respondent denied the
allegation. It was only when the certification was shown that Atty.Magulta admitted that he
spent the money for his own purpose and offered to reimburse the Burbe.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Alberto C. Magulta should be disbarred?

Whether or not respondent committed serious misconduct involving a champertous

contract.
HELD:
YES. Respondent was suspended from practice of law for six (6) months.
RATIO:
The Court finds that the agreement between the respondent and the Fortunados contrary
to Canon 42 of the Canons of Professional Ethics which provides that a lawyer may not
properly agree with a client to pay or bear the expenses of litigation. [See also Rule 16.04,

HELD:
The Court adopted the Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommendation. It is evident
that the petitioner deposited an amount of P25,000 for the filing fees of the Regwill
complaint. There was a lawyer-client relationship established since the respondent agreed
to legally represent the petitioner. Theres an obligation on the part of the respondent to file
the complaint within the time frame. In addition to that, there was misappropriation of
funds of the client. His actions caused damages and prejudice to his clients. His conduct
was dishonest thus unsuitable to be a member of the legal profession. He was not
disbarred; nonetheless, he was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one year.
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
IBP as follows: It is evident that the P25,000 deposited by complainant with the Respicio Law
Office was for the filingfees of the Regwill complaint. With complainants deposit of
the filing fees for the Regwill complaint, a corresponding obligation on the part of respondent
was created and that was to file the Regwill complaint within the time frame contemplated by

Code of Professional Responsibility]. Although a lawyer may in good faith, advance the

his client. The failure of respondent to fulfill this obligation due to his misuse of the filing fees

expenses of litigation, the same should be subject to reimbursement. The agreement

deposited by complainant, and his attempts to cover up this misuse of funds of the client,

between respondent and the Fortunados, however, does not provide for reimbursement to

which caused complainant additional damage and prejudice, constitutes highly dishonest

respondent of litigation expenses paid by him. An agreement whereby an attorney agrees

conduct on his part, unbecoming a member of the law profession. The subsequent

to pay expenses of proceedings to enforce the clients rights is champertous [citation

reimbursement by the respondent of part of the money deposited by complainant

omitted]. Such agreements are against public policy especially where, as in this case, the

for filing fees, does not exculpate the respondent for his misappropriation of said funds.

attorney has agreed to carry on the action at his own expense in consideration of some
bargain to have part of the thing in dispute [citation omitted]. The execution of these
contracts violates the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his client, for which the

JOSE TOLOSA, complainant, vs.ALFREDO CARGO, respondent.

former must incur administrative sanctions.

Facts;
Complainant filed a disbarment case towards respondent claiming immorality. Alleging further

that Atty. Alfredo Cargo and his wife is having an affair and that his wife even left their conjugal
home to live and rent in a place paid by the respondent.
Several issues were also raised alleging immorality and altercations between the complainant
and the respondent.

Issue;

petitioner. If anyone is to blame for the language used by Fernandez, it is Bello himself
who has made insulting remarks in his orders, which must have provoked Fernandez.. If a
judge desires not to be insulted he should start using temperate language himself; he who
sows the wind will reap a storm.
On the issue of attorneys fees, the opinion of a judge as to the capacity of a lawyer is not
the basis of the right to a lawyers fee. It is the contract between the lawyer and client and
the nature of the services rendered.

WON Atty. Alfredo Cargo be disbarred.

Ruling;
The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusion of the Solicitor General in not finding the
respondent guilty of immorality due to lack of sufficient evidence. However, the court ruled
further to WARN Atty. Alfredo Cargo and REPRIMAND him of conduct unbecoming a member
of the Bar and an officer of the court.
ATTY. MANUEL FERNANDEZ vs JUDGE BELLO

107 Phil 1140 Legal Ethics Strong Language by a Lawyer against a Judge
Atty. Manuel Fernandez won a civil case for Florentino Perreyras however, Florentino
died without payingFernandez. Fernandez then assisted the eldest child of Perreyras in a
guardianship proceeding so that the eldest may properly dispose of their property in order
to pay their fathers indebtedness. Eventually, Florentinos nipa land was sold for
P1,000.00. Thereafter, P200.00 was paid to Atty. Fernandez for his legal services both for
Florentino and his heirs. Judge Bello found out about said payment and so directed
Fernandez to explain (because under the guardianship, proceeds of any sale must first
be accounted for and no payment to creditors shall be made without prior authorization
from the court).
In the course of the proceeding however, Judge Bello stated that Fernandez does not
deserve the P200.00 attorneys fees because Fernandez is a below average standard of
a lawyer. Fernandez then responded with strong language (which were not specified).
ISSUE: Whether or not the strong language used by Fernandez against the judge is
proper.
HELD: The Supreme Court seem to say yes. The Supreme Court stated that the strong
language used by Fernandez must have been impelled by the same language used by
Bello in characterizing the act of Fernandez as anomalous and unbecoming and in
charging him of obtaining his fee through maneuvers of documents from the guardian-

LAPUT vs REMOTIGUE

6 SCRA 45 Legal Ethics Client Grabbing

In 1952, Atty. Laput was retained by Nieves Barrera as counsel in a testate proceeding.
He remained as counsel for three years. But in January 1955, Atty. Fortunato
Patalinghug filed his written appearance as new counsel for Barrera. When Laput found
out about Patalinghugs appearance, he voluntarily asked the court to be relieved as
counsel for Barrera on February 5, 1955. On February 7, 1955, Atty. Remotigue also filed
his appearance as additional counsel for Barrera.
Laput is now charging the two lawyers of unethical and improper appearances for
Barrera; that they influenced her to replace Laput as her counsel; that they caused her to
disauthorize him as counsel for her; that the purpose of said lawyers is to embarrass
Laput to the officials and employees of the corporations owned by the estate subject of
the testate proceedings.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is encroachment of client in the case at bar.
HELD: No. It was found out that Barrera herself caused the filing of a pleading to
discharge Laput as her counsel. Barrera did this because she lost trust and confidence in
Laput. She lost trust in Laput because she found out that there were some dividend
checks that were supposed to be sent to her but Laput took said checks as his own hence
she felt cheated.
Thereafter, she went to the law office of Remotigue and Patalinghug where she arranged
a contract. The fact that Laput voluntarily asked the court to discharge him as counsel for
Barrera after Patalinghug filed his entry of appearance showed Laputs acquiescence to
Patalinghugs appearance as counsel for Barrera. This should estop petitioner from now
complaining that the appearance of Atty. Patalinghug was unprofessional. On the part of

Remotigue, there can be no irregularity for he filed his entry of appearance only after
Laput was discharged as counsel for Barrera.