NIKKA DORIA ATTY. MARCELINO S.

MARATA
JD-2B

G.R No. 100113

Renato L. Cayetano
Petitioner
-vs-

Christian Monsod, Hon. Jovito R. Salonga,

Commission on Appointments, and
Hon. Guillermo Carague in his capacity
as Secretary of Budget and Management
Respondents

Facts of the case:

Christian Monsod, the herein respondent was nominated to the position of Chairman of the
COMELEC by President Corazon C. Aquino. The nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the
COMELEC was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on June 5, 1991 and consequently
took his oath of office on June 18, 1991 and assumed office on the same day as Chairman of the
COMELEC.

It was made known that, Atty. Monsod after having hurdled the bar, worked in his father’s
law office. Moreover, Monsod worked as an operations officer abroad for about 2 years which work
involved legal matters of the Bank. In 1970, he held executive jobs for various local corporations. In
1986, he worked as a legal and economic consultant and is a former Secretary General and National
Chairman of NAMFREL (1987). In 1986-1987, he was a member of the Constitutional Commission
and a member of the quasi-judicial body-Davide Commission in 1990.

However, the herein petitioner, Renato Cayetano opposed the nomination with the allegation
that Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law
for at least 10 years in violation of Sec. 1(1) Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution. Thus, this petition
challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod’s
nomination praying that the confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of
the COMELEC be declared null and void.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent possess the required qualification of having engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years.

Held:

It was held that Atty. Monsod possesses the required qualification of having engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years. As adduced by the Supreme Court, practice of law means any
activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experience. It embraces conveyancing, the giving of legal advice on a large variety of
subjects and the preparation and execution of legal instruments covering an extensive field of
business and trust relations and other affairs. In the case of Philippine Lawyers Association v.
Agrava, it was held that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court.

Hence, Atty. Monsod’s past work experience as lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a

lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contract, and a layer-legislator of both the
rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement provided by the 1987
Constitution of having engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
B.M No. 1678
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW, BENJAMIN M. DACANAY
Petitioner

Facts of the case:

Benjamin M. Dacanay, the herein petitioner was admitted in the Philippine bar in March
1960. He practiced law until he migrated to Canadian 1998 for medical purposes. He consequently
applied for Canadian citizenship and was approved and became a Canadian citizen in May 2004.
Pursuant to R.A No. 9225 Re: Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003,
petitioner reacquired his Philippine citizenship on July 2006. On the same day, he took his oath of
allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine Consulate in Canada. Upon returning to the
Philippines, he intends to resume his law practice.

Issue: Whether Benjamin M. Dacanay lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his
Philippine citizenship in May 2004.

Held:

Benjamin Dacanay did not lost his membership in the Philippine bar when he gave up his
citizenship. The constitution provides that the practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be
limited to Filipino citizens save in cases prescribed by law. Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement
for admission to the bar, the loss thereof terminates membership in the Philippine bar and,
consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law.

However, there is an exception to the general rule which is when Filipino citizenship is lost by
reason of naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired citizenship
pursuant to R.A No. 9225 shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship. Thus, a
Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine
citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with the aforementioned law.

Hence, he is deemed never to have terminated his membership in the Philippine bar. Before
he can resume his law practice, he must secure from the Court the authority to do so.
G.R No. 180010

Cenita Cariaga
Petitioner

-vs-

People of the Philippines

Respondent

Facts of the case:

Cenita Cariaga, the herein petitioner, is a municipal treasurer of Cabatuan, Isabela charged
with three counts of malversation of public funds before the Regional Trial Court of Isabela and was
convicted for the aforementioned cases.
Petitioner stated that he intended to appeal the trial court’s decision to the Court of Appeals.
However, the Appellate Court through its resolution dismissed petitioner’s appeal for lack of
jurisdiction, holding that it is the Sandiganbayan which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction thereon.
Petitioner, admitting the procedural error committed by her former counsel, implores the
Court to relax the Rules to afford her an opportunity to fully ventilate her appeal on the merits and
requests the Court to endorse and transmit the records of the cases to the Sandiganbayan in the
interest of substantial justice.

Issue:

Whether the appeal of the petitioner which was wrongfully directed to the Court of Appeals
be dismissed outright or be endorsed and transmitted to the Sandiganbayan.

Held:

The Court decided that assailed resolutions of the Court of Appeals are set aside and the
records of the cases be forwarded to the Sandiganbayan for proper disposition. The Court stated that
the appellate jurisdiction in the instant case is the Sandiganbayan provided by the Republic Act No.
8249. The Court also cited the case of Ulep v. People which was remanded to the Sandiganbayan
when it found that:
xxx petitioner’s failure to designate the proper forum for her appeal was inadvertent. The
omission did not appear to be a dilatory tactic on her part. Indeed, petitioner had more to lose had that
been the case as her appeal could be dismissed outright for lack of jurisdiction – which was exactly
what happened in the CA. The trial court, on the other hand, was duty bound to forward the records
of the case to the proper forum, the Sandiganbayan. The judge was expected to know and should have
known the law and the rules of procedure. He should have known when appeals are to be taken to the
CA and when they should be forwarded to the Sandiganbayan. He should have conscientiously and
carefully observed this responsibility specially in cases such as this where a person’s liberty was at
stake.”
The Court granted the petitioner’s plea for the relaxation of the Rules to facilitate the
attainment of justice.
A.C. No. 9860
Josephine L. Orola, Myrna L. Orola,
Manuel L. Orola, Mary Angelyn Orola-Belarga,
Marjorie Melba Orola-Calip, and Karen Orola
Complainants
-vs-

Atty. Joseph Ador Ramos

Respondents

Facts of the case:

Pending case before the RTC is the settlement of Trinidad’s estate against Emilio, the initially
appointed administrator of the estate. Atty. Ramos, the herein respondent, is a collaborating counsel
of Atty. Ely Azarraga counsel of Maricar, Karen, and the other heirs of the late Antonio. In the course
of the proceedings, the herein complainants-Heirs of Trinidad and Heirs of Antonio-moved for the
removal of Emilio and appointed the latter’s son which was granted by the RTC on September 2007.
On October 2007, respondent filed an Entry of Appearance as collaborating counsel for Emilio in the
same case. Subsequently, in response to the respondent’s new engagement, complainants filed the
disbarment complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on the ground that Atty. Ramos
violated Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 20(e), Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court.
On the other hand, Atty. Ramos contended that he never appeared as counsel for complainant
and that he only accommodated Maricar’s request to temporarily appear on her behalf in the absence
of Atty. Azarraga and of free of charge. He also contended that his representation for Emilio was
more of a mediator, rather than a litigator.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of representing conflicting interests in violation of
Rule 15.03 of the Code.

Held:
The Court held that Atty. Ramos represented conflicting interests. Rule 15.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility provides that: “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except
by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.” It is clear that a lawyer
is prohibited from representing new clients whose interest opposes those of a former client in any
manner. In Hornilla v. Salunat, the Court explained the concept of conflict of interest which states
that: There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing parties. Three tests were provided in determining the existence of conflict of interest. First
is the test on “whether or not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or
claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client.”Second, if the acceptance of the new retainer
will require the attorney to perform an act which will injuriously affect his first client in any manner
in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against
his first client any knowledge acquired through their connection. Lastly, whether the acceptance of a
new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to his client.
In the case at bar, records reveal that respondent was the collaborating counsel for all the
Heirs of Antonio, contradicting his contention that he only represents Maricar. The pending case on
the Trinidad’s estate was in favor of the complainants; however, he proceeded to represent Emilio for
the purpose of reinstatement as administrator in the same case which clearly violated the prohibition
against representing conflicting interest.
A.C No. 10135

Edgardo Areola
Complainant

-vs-

Atty. Maria Vilma Mendoza

Respondent

Facts of the case:

The herein petitioner, Edgardo Areola, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Maria
Vilma Mendoza, from the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) for violation of her attorney’s oath of
office, deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct in office under Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court, and for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Areola filed the
complaint in behalf of his co-detainees; Seronda, Arca Mirador, and Spouses Perez.
Edgardo Areola alleged that during Prisoners Week, Atty. Mendoza visited the Antipolo City
Jail and called all detained with pending cases before the Court of her assignment and stated her
speech, to wit:
“O kayong may mga kasong drugs na may pangpiyansa o pang- areglo ay maging praktikal
sana kayo kung gusto ninyong makalaya agad. Upang makatiyak kayo na hindi masasayang ang pera
ninyo ay sa akin ninyo ibigay o ng kamag-anak ninyo ang pera at ako na ang bahalang maglagay kay
Judge Martin at Fiscal banqui; at kayong mga detenidong mga babae na no bail ang kaso sa drugs,
iyak-iyakan lang ninyo si Judge Martin at palalayain na kayo. Malambot ang puso noon."
The complaint also alleged that respondent demanded money from Areola’s co-detainees.

Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Mendoza is guilty of violating Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.

Held:
Atty. Maria Vilmad Mendoza is guilty in violation of Rule 1.02 and Rule 15.07 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility on the ground that she made irresponsible and improper advice to her
clients. Rule 1.02 of the Code mandates that “a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.” Rule 15.07 states that “ a lawyer
shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness.” In view of the
foregoing, the Court states that Atty. Mendoza’s improper advice lessens the confidence of the public
in the legal system. Moreover, the Court emphasized that a lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the
lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his client’s cause, is condemnable and unethical.
A.C. No. 9872

Natividad P. Navarro and Hilda S. Presbitero

Complainants
-vs-

Atty. Ivan M. Solidum, Jr.

Respondent

Facts of the case:

Respondent, Atty. Solidum, signed a retainer agreement with the herein complainant to follow
up the release of the payment for Presbitero’s 2.7-hectare property situated in Bacolod- subject of a
Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) to the DAR. Presbitero’s daughter, Ma. Theresa P. Yulo (Yulo), also
engaged respondent’s services to handle the registration of her 18.85-hectare lot. Yulo, for the
purpose of the land registration case, convinced Navarro to finance the expenses. Respondent
obtained Php 200,000.00 from Navarro who later learned that the property was already registered in
the name of one Teodoro Yulo.
Further, respondent obtained loans from Navarro to finance his business. Both Atty. Solidum
and Navarro executed a MOA and agreed that postdated checks be issued. Solidum was able to pay
complainants a total of Php900,000.00. Thereafter, he failed to pay either the principal amount or the
interest thereon. The checks issued by Solidum to the complainants could no longer be negotiated
because the accounts against which they were drawn were already closed.
Complainant’s contention is that Solidum induced them to grant loans by offering very high
interest rates. The signed checks also turned out to be drawn against his son’s accounts. Complainants
further alleged that respondent deceived them regarding the identity and value of the property he
mortgaged because he showed them a different property from that which he owned.

Issue: Whether or Not Atty. Solidom violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Held:
The Court held that respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically
Rule 1.01, Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and Rule 16.04.
In the instant case, it was established that respondent agreed to pay a high interest rate on the
loan obtained from the complainants. The MOA was drafted by him however; he sought to nullify the
same on the ground that the interest rate was unconscionable. The respondent also deceives his client
as to the real value of the mortgaged property when he mortgaged a property to Presbitero for an
amount higher than the real value of the property. Respondent also made the complainants believed
that the checks belonged to his account. These manifest an unlawful, dishonest and immoral conduct
in violation of Rule 1.01.
Canon 16 provides that – A lawyer shall hold in trust all money and properties of his client
that may come into his possession.
Moreover, Rule 16.01 states that: “A lawyer shall account for all money or property collected
or received for or from the client.”
In the instant case, the respondent failed to account the amounts received from the
complainant hence it is presumed that he has misappropriated the money violating the trust reposed in
him by the client.
The respondent, further violated Rule 16.04 evident on his various loans which were secured
by MOA which was questioned by the respondent, postdated checks not drawn in his account and
misrepresentation of the value of the property he mortgaged.
Thus, respondent failed to uphold high standard of morality and integrity as a member of legal
profession.