CANON 4

A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM BY

INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN LAW REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT
OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

CANON 5
A LAWYER SHALL KEEP ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS, PARTICIPATE IN
CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH
STANDARDS IN LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW
STUDENTS AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE.

Bar Matter No. 850, 02 October 2001

Members of the IBP not exempt under Rule 7 shall complete, every three (3) years, at least thirty-six
(36) hours of continuing legal education activities approved by the MCLE Committee. Of the 36 hours:
(a) At least six (6) hours shall be devoted to legal ethics.
(b) At least (4) hours shall be devoted to trial and pretrial skills.
(c) At least five (5) hours shall be devoted to alternative dispute resolution.
(d) At least nine (9) hours shall be devoted to updates on substantive and procedural laws, and
jurisprudence.
(e) At least four (4) hours shall be devoted to legal writing and oral advocacy.
(f) At least two (2) hours shall be devoted to international law and international conventions.
(g) The remaining six (6) hours shall be devoted to such subjects as may be prescribed by the MCLE
Committee.
-END-

Bongalonta v. Castillo, 240 SCRA 310

Facts:
In a sworn letter-complaint dated February 15, 1995, addressed to the Commission on Bar Discipline, National
Grievance Investigation Office, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, complainant Sally Bongalonta charged
Pablito M. Castillo and Alfonso M. Martija, members of the Philippine Bar, with unjust and unethical conduct,
to wit: representing conflicting interests and abetting a scheme to frustrate the execution or satisfaction of a
judgment which complainant might obtain. The letter-complaint stated that complainant filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Pasig, for estafa, against the Sps. Luisa and Solomer Abuel. She also filed, a separate
civil action, where she was able to obtain a writ of preliminary attachment and by virtue thereof, a piece of
real property situated in Pasig, Rizal and registered in the name of the Sps. Abuel. Atty. Pablito Castillo was
the counsel of the Sps. Abuel in the aforesaid criminal and civil cases.
During the pendency of these cases, one Gregorio Lantin filed a civil case for collection of a sum of
money based on a promissory note, also with the Pasig Regional Trial Court, against the Sps. Abuel. In the
said case Gregorio Lantin was represented by Atty. Alfonso Martija. In this case, the Sps. Abuel were declared
in default for their failure to file the necessary responsive pleading and evidence ex-parte was received against
them followed by a judgment by default rendered in favor of Gregorio Lantin. A writ of execution was, in due
time, issued and the same property previously attached by complainant was levied upon. It is further alleged
that in all the pleadings filed in these three (3) aforementioned cases, Atty. Pablito Castillo and Atty. Alfonso
Martija placed the same address, the same PTR and the same IBP receipt number. Thus, complainant
concluded that the civil case filed by Gregorio Lantin was merely a part of the scheme of the Sps. Abuel to
frustrate the satisfaction of the money judgment which complainant might obtain in the civil case he filed.
After hearing, the IBP Board of Governors issued it Resolution with the following findings and
recommendations.
Among the several documentary exhibits submitted by Bongalonta and attached to the records is a
xerox copy of TCT No. 38374, which Bongalonta and the respondents admitted to be a faithful reproduction
of the original. And it clearly appears under the Memorandum of Encumbrances on aid TCT that the Notice
of Levy in favor of Bongalonta and her husband was registered and annotated in said title of February 7, 1989,
whereas, that in favor of Gregorio Lantin, on October 18, 1989. Needless to state, the notice of levy in favor
of Bongalonta and her husband is a superior lien on the said registered property of the Abuel spouses over that
of Gregorio Lantin. Consequently, the charge against the two respondents (i.e. representing conflicting
interests and abetting a scheme to frustrate the execution or satisfaction of a judgment which Bongalonta and
her husband might obtain against the Abuel spouses) has no leg to stand on. However, as to the fact that indeed
the two respondents placed in their appearances and in their pleadings the same IBP No., respondent Atty.
Pablito M. Castillo deserves to be SUSPENDED for using, apparently thru his negligence, the IBP official
receipt number of respondent Atty. Alfonso M. Martija. The explanation of Atty. Castillo's Cashier-Secretary
by the name of Ester Fraginal who alleged in her affidavit dated March 4, 1993, that it was all her fault in
placing the IBP official receipt number pertaining to Atty. Alfonso M. Martija in the appearance and pleadings
Atty. Castillo and in failing to pay in due time the IBP membership dues of her employer, deserves scant
consideration, for it is the bounded duty and obligation of every lawyer to see to it that he pays his IBP
membership dues on time, especially when he practices before the courts, as required by the Supreme Court.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Pablito M. Castillo be SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of six (6) months for using the IBP Official Receipt No. of his co-respondent
Atty. Alfonso M. Martija.
The complaint against Atty. Martija is hereby DISMISSED for lack of evidence.

Held:
The Court agrees with the foregoing findings and recommendations. It is well to stress again that the practice
of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue
to possess, the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. One of these requirements
is the observance of honesty and candor. Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from
the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. A lawyer, on the other hand, has the fundamental duty to
satisfy that expectation. For this reason, he is required to swear to do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing
of any in court. WHEREFORE, finding respondent Atty. Pablito M. Castillo guilty committing a falsehood in
violation of his lawyer's oath and of the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND
him from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months, with a warning that commission of the same or
similar offense in the future will result in the imposition of a more severe penalty.
-END-

Cayetano v. Monsod, et al., 201 SCRA 210

FACTS:
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 86.55%.
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.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Monsod qualifies as chairman of the COMELEC. 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.
Justice Padilla dissenting:
Monsod did not practice law. Justice Padilla emphasized the following criteria in determining what constitutes
practice of law:

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).

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 N.Y.S. 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)

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)
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.
-END-

Philippine Lawyers Association v. Agrava, 105 Phil. 173

FACTS:
Herein petitioner filed for prohibition and injunction against respondent Agrava, the Director of
Philippines Patent Office due to a circular the latter issued scheduling an examination for determining who
are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the Philippines Patent Office.

Petitioner contended 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 Agrava is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law for requiring such
examination as condition precedent before members of the bar may be allowed to represent applicants in the
preparation and prosecution of applications for patents. Undaunted, Agrava argued that that the prosecution
of patent cases does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law and that the Rules of Court do not
prohibit the Patent Office from requiring further condition or qualification from those who would wish to
handle cases before the Patent Office.

ISSUE:
Whether appearance before the Patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution of patent
applications, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law

HELD:
Yes. 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 oppositions
thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. Although the transaction of business in the Patent
Office involves the use and application of technical and scientific knowledge and training, still, all such
business has to be rendered in accordance with the Patent Law, as well as other laws, including the Rules and
Regulations promulgated by the Patent Office in accordance with law. All these things involve the applications
of laws, legal principles, practice and procedure. They call for legal knowledge, training and experience for
which a member of the bar has been prepared.
As stated in 5 Am. Jur,
“The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it embraces the preparation
of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and social proceedings, the management of such actions and
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to
clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law corporation services, assessment and
condemnation services contemplating an appearance before a judicial body, the foreclosure of a mortgage,
enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in
attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice as do the
preparation and drafting of legal instruments, where the work done involves the determination by the trained
legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions.”
The Supreme Court ruled that under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by the
Supreme Court to practice law, and in good standing, may practice their profession before the Patent Office,
since much of the business in said office involves the interpretation and determination of the scope and
application of the Patent Law and other laws applicable, as well as the presentation of evidence to establish
facts involved; that part of the functions of the Patent director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that
appeals from his orders and decisions are, taken to the Supreme Court.
-END-

Hernandez v. Atty. Padilla, A.C. No. 9387, 20 June 2012

FACTS:
On may 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had scheduled an
examination for the purpose of determining who are qualified to practice as patent attorneys before the
Philippines Patent Office. According to the circular, members of the Philippine Bar, engineers and other
persons with sufficient scientific and technical training are qualified to take the said examination. The
petitioner contends that one who has passed the bar examination sand 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.
-END-
Sps. Williams v. Atty. Enriquez, A.C. No. 6353, 27 February 2006
FACTS:
The respondent is the counsel of record of the plaintiffs in the case pending before the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 33, Dumaguete City where complainants are the defendants. According to the complainant-
spouses, Marisa Williams bought the lot subject of the controversy. In the case at bar, complainant argued that
the counsel of the spouses acted in malicious violation of the rules governing the practice of law, the counsel
cited outdated material in his complaint-affidavit and in his comments to counter-affidavit. He then knowingly
applied this stale law in a perverse fashion to argue that Marisa Batacan Williams automatically lost her
Filipino citizenship when she married an American, and was thus prohibited to own land in the Philippines,
thereby making her guilty of falsification in the Deed she executed to buy property in Negros Oriental. As
such, Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez was charged with "unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful acts in violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Canons of Professional Ethics, and with conduct
unbecoming an attorney." On December 1, 2004, the case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation. Forthwith, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline
scheduled the case for mandatory conference/hearing. However, only the respondent appeared. The parties
were then directed to submit their verified position papers.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent is guilt of violation of Canon 5 of the code of professional responsibility

HELD:
Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that a lawyer be updated in the latest laws
and jurisprudence. Indeed, when the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it
constitutes gross ignorance of the law. As a retired judge, respondent should have known that it is his duty to
keep himself well-informed of the latest rulings of the Court on the issues and legal problems confronting a
client. In this case, the law he apparently misconstrued is no less than the Constitution, the most basic law of
the land. Implicit in a lawyer’s mandate to protect a client’s interest to the best of his/her ability and with
utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law and legal developments, and participate in continuing
legal education programs. Thus, in championing the interest of clients and defending cases, a lawyer must not
only be guided by the strict standards imposed by the lawyer’s oath, but should likewise espouse legally sound
arguments for clients, lest the latter’s cause be dismissed on a technical ground. As such, for gross ignorance
of the law, Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez is REPRIMANDED and ADVISED to carefully study the opinions he may
give to his clients. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more
severely.