CAYETANO vs.

MONSOD

G.R. No. 100113, September 3, 1991

Facts: Renato Cayetano questioned Christian Monsod’s nomination by President Corazon Aquino as
Chairman of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Cayetano stated that Monsod allegedly lacked the
necessary requirement of practicing law for at least 10 years. However, despite Cayetano’s objection, the
Commission on Appointments (COA) still confirmed Monsod’s appointment.

Issue: Whether or not the Commission on Appointments committed grave abuse of discretion in
confirming Monsod’s appointment.

Held: No. COA’s power to give consent to the nomination of the COMELEC chairman by the President is
mandated by the Constitution under Article IX, Section 1 (2), Sub Article C. It provides:

“The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment. Of those first appointed,
three Members shall hold office for seven years, two Members for five years, and the last Members for
three years, without reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of
the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting
capacity.”

The power of appointment is essentially within the discretion to whom it is so vested subject to the only
condition that the appointee should possess the qualification required by law. Therefore, there is no
occasion for the Supreme Court to exercise its corrective power since COA did not commit grave abuse of
discretion based on the evidence presented.
 Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210

FACTS:

Atty. Christian Monsod was appointed as Chairman of the Commission of Elections. His appointment was
contested by Atty. Renato Cayetano citing that his years of experience cannot be considered that which
constitutes the “practice of law”. Atty. Monsod was a member of good standing in the Bar for more than
ten (10) years. He worked:

– As a lawyer in the law office of his father (1960-1963);

– As an operations officer with the World Bank Group (1963-1970);

– As a Chief Executive Officer of an investment bank (1970-1986);

– As a legal or economic consultant on various companies (1986);

– As Secretary General of NAMFREL (1986);

– As a member of Constitutional Commission (1986-1987);

– As National Chairman of NAMFREL (1987); and,

– As a member of the quasi-judicial Davide Commission (1990).

ISSUE:

Whether or not the above mentioned activities may be considered to constitute the “practice of law”.

HELD:

YES. By majority vote.

RATIO:

Definition of “practice of law” by:

Black’s Legal Dictionary: The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal
principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent.

Philippine Lawyer’s Association v. Agrava (105 Phil. 173, 176-177): 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 special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients
before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying.

Further, records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission show that it has adopted a liberal interpretation
of the term “practice of law”.
In Cayetano v. Monsod, [2] the Court held that "practice of law" means any activity, in or out of court,
which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To engage in
the practice of law is to perform acts which are usually performed by members of the legal profession.
Generally, to practice law is to render any kind of service which requires the use of legal knowledge or
skill.

Verily, respondent was engaged in the practice of law when he appeared in the proceedings before the
MBEC and filed various pleadings, without license to do so. Evidence clearly supports the charge of
unauthorized practice of law. Respondent called himself "counsel" knowing fully well that he was not a
member of the Bar. Having held himself out as "counsel" knowing that he had no authority to practice
law, respondent has shown moral unfitness to be a member of the Philippine Bar. [3]

The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is a privilege. It is limited to persons
of good moral character with special qualifications duly ascertained and certified. The exercise of this
privilege presupposes possession of integrity, legal knowledge, educational attainment, and even public
trust [4] since a lawyer is an officer of the court. A bar candidate does not acquire the right to practice
law simply by passing the bar examinations. The practice of law is a privilege that can be withheld even
from one who has passed the bar examinations, if the person seeking admission had practiced law without
a license. [5]

Practice of Law – any activity, in or out of court which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to give notice or render any kind
of service, which or devise or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill (Cayetano
v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210).