G.R. No.
100113 September 3, 1991 consideration the liberal construction intended
RENATO CAYETANO, petitioner,
vs.
CHRISTIAN MONSOD, HON. JOVITO R.
SALONGA, COMMISSION ON
APPOINTMENT, and HON. GUILLERMO
CARAGUE, in his capacity as Secretary of
Budget and Management, respondents.
FACTS:
Respondent Monsod was nominated by then
Pres. Corazon Aquino as Chairman of the
COMELEC. Petitioner opposed such nomination
on the basis that respondent failed to comply
with the requirement stated in Section 1(1) of
Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution that the
Chairman of the COMELEC should be a
member of the Philippine who have been
engaged in the practice of law for at least 10
years.
Consequently, the Commission on Appointments
confirmed Monsod’s appointment and the latter
assumed office on June 18, 1991 after taking
oath the same day.
Petitioner continues to challenge the validity of
respondent’s appointment and alleges that the
latter has not been engaged in the practice of
law for at least 10 years.
ISSUE:
WON respondent past work complies with the
requirement of “engaging in the practice of law
for at least 10 years”
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the past work
of respondent Atty. Monsod qualifies as “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.
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions
of the term Practice of law". particularly the
modern concept of law practice, and taking into
by the framers of the Constitution, 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.
The Commission on the basis of evidence
submitted doling the public hearings on
Monsod's confirmation, implicitly determined that
he possessed the necessary qualifications as
required by law. The judgment rendered by the
Commission in the exercise of such an
acknowledged power is beyond judicial
interference except only upon a clear showing of
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
In view of the foregoing, this petition is hereby
DISMISSED.
A.C. No. 6492 November 18, 2004
MELANIO L. ZORETA, complainant,
vs.
ATTY. HEHERSON ALNOR G.
SIMPLICIANO, respondent.
FACTS:
In August 2001, Complainant Zoreta filed a
complaint against SPAC where Atty.
Simpliciano was the latter’s counsel. During
the pendency of cases, Atty. Simpliciano
performed acts of notarization despite not
being a commissioned notary public since
January 2002.
Respondent was required by the IBP to
submit an answer upon receipt of the Order
containing such allegations. Atty. Simpliciano
failed to do so despite his request to file an
extension was granted. On July 2003,
Commissioner Navarro gave respondent a
last chance to file an answer otherwise the
case shall be submitted for resolution.
Respondent’s failure to do so resulted to a
resolution permanently disbarring him as a
notary public and suspending him to practice
law for 3 months. The Board of Governorns
modified Commissioner’s report and
increased suspension to 6 months.
ISSUE:
WON respondent violated the notarial law and
Canons 1 and 7 of Code of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
RULING:
Yes. The Court concurs with Commissioner’s
findings that he was not commissioned as
notary public, which was in violation of the
Notarial Law; for having notarized the 590
documents after the expiration of his
commission as notary public without having
renewed said commission amounting to gross
misconduct as a member of the legal
profession
in Maligsa v. Cabanting21 that "[t]he bar should
maintain a high standard of legal proficiency
as well as of honesty and fair dealing. A
lawyer brings honor to the legal profession by
faithfully performing his duties to society, to
the bar, to the courts and to his clients. To this
end a member of the legal fraternity should
refrain from doing any act which might lessen
in any degree the confidence and trust
reposed by the public in the fidelity, honesty
and integrity of the legal profession."22 Towards
this end, an attorney may be disbarred, or
suspended for any violation of his oath or of
his duties as an attorney and counselor, which
include statutory grounds enumerated in
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, all
of these being broad enough to cover
practically any misconduct of a lawyer in his
professional or private capacity.
For one, performing a notarial without such
commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath
to obey the laws, more specifically, the
Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear
that he is duly commissioned when he is not,
he is, for all legal intents and purposes,
indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the
lawyer's oath similarly proscribes. These
violations fall squarely within the prohibition of
Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which provides:
"A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
By such misconduct as a notary public, the
lawyer likewise violates Canon 7 of the same
Code, which directs every lawyer to uphold at
all times the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession.
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby adopts the
findings of Investigating Commissioner Lydia
A. Navarro, which the Board of Governors of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines adopted
and approved, but hereby MODIFIES the
penalty recommended by the Board of
Governors. As modified, respondent ATTY.
HEHERSON ALNOR G. SIMPLICIANO is
hereby BARRED PERMANENTLY from being
commissioned as Notary Public. He is
furthermore SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for two (2) years, effective upon receipt of
a copy of this Decision.
A.C. No. 6288 June 16, 2006
MARILI C. RONQUILLO, ALEXANDER
RONQUILLO and JON ALEXANDER
RONQUILLO, represented by their
Attorney-in-Fact SERVILLANO A.
CABUNGCAL, Complainants,
vs.
ATTY. HOMOBONO T. CEZAR, Respondent.
FACTS:
Respondent and complainant entered into a
Deed of assignment to transfer the rights and
ownership of a townhouse amounting P 1.5 M
from the former to the latter. Respondent
received P 750,000.00 from the complainants
upon execution of the deed and agreed to pay
the balance in four equal quarterly
installments of P 187,500.00 each through
checks. Respondent was able to encash the
first check.
Respondent also obligated himself to deliver
to complainants a copy of the Contract to Sell
he executed with Crown Asia, the townhouse
developer. However, Crown Asia informed the
complainants that respondent has not paid in
full the price of the townhouse at the time of
the execution of the Deed of Assignment.
Respondent also failed to deliver the Contract
to Sell that he promised.
one of its officers. The only question for
determination in these proceedings is whether
or not the attorney is still fit to be allowed to
continue as a member of the Bar.13 Thus, this
Court cannot rule on the issue of the amount
of money that should be returned to the
complainants.

Because of this complainant ordered the bank IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Atty.
to stop the payment on the second check and Homobono T. Cezar is SUSPENDED from the
to return the initial payment including the first practice of law for a period of THREE (3)
quarterly installment. Respondent failed to YEARS, effective immediately.
return the same.
A.C. No. 8390 July 2, 2010
An admin complaint was filed against Atty. [Formerly CBD 06-1641]
Cezar for violating his oath under Rule 1.01,
Canon 1 of the Code of Professional A-1 FINANCIAL SERVICES,
Responsibility. IBP found him guilty and INC., Complainant,
approved the 3 years suspension from vs.
practice of law. ATTY. LAARNI N. VALERIO, Respondent.

ISSUE: FACTS:

WON respondent’s acts violated Rule 1.01,

Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

RULING;

Yes. Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility provides that "A
lawyer shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct." "Conduct," as used in this rule,
does not refer exclusively to the performance
of a lawyer’s professional duties. In the
instant case, respondent may have acted in
his private capacity when he entered into a
contract with complainant Marili representing
to have the rights to transfer title over the
townhouse unit and lot in question. When he
failed in his undertaking, respondent fell short
of his duty under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

Be that as it may, we cannot grant

complainants’ prayer that respondent be
directed to return the money he received from
them in the amount of P937,500.00.
Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers do
not involve a trial of an action, but rather
investigations by the court into the conduct of