1. AGUIRRE vs. RANA B. M. No.

1036

June 10, 2003

FACTS: Respondent Edwin L. Rana was among those who passed the 2000 Bar Examinations.
Respondent, while not yet a lawyer, appeared as counsel for a candidate in the May 2001
elections before the Municipal Board of Election Canvassers of Mandaon, Masbate and filed with
the MBEC a pleading dated 19 May 2001 entitled Formal Objection to the Inclusion in the
Canvassing of Votes in some Precincts for the Office of Vice-Mayor. In this pleading, respondent
represented himself as "counsel for and in behalf of Vice Mayoralty Candidate, George Bunan,"
and signed the pleading as counsel for George Bunan. Furthermore, respondent also signed as
counsel for Emily Estipona-Hao on 19 May 2001 in the petition filed before the MBEC praying for
the proclamation of Estipona-Hao as the winning candidate for mayor of Mandaon, Masbate. On
21 May 2001, one day before the scheduled mass oath-taking of successful bar examinees as
members of the Philippine Bar, complainant Donna Marie Aguirre filed against respondent a
Petition for Denial of Admission to the Bar. On 22 May 2001, respondent was allowed to take the
lawyer’s oath but was disallowed from signing the Roll of Attorneys until he is cleared of the
charges against him. ISSUE: Whether or not respondent shall be denied Admission to the Bar.
RULING: 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. 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 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. True, respondent here passed the 2000
Bar Examinations and took the lawyer’s oath. However, it is the signing in the Roll of Attorneys that
finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. The fact that respondent passed the bar examinations is
immaterial. Passing the bar is not the only qualification to become an attorney-at-law. Respondent
should know that two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer

still had to be performed, namely: his lawyer’s oath to be administered by this Court and his
signature in the Roll of Attorneys.

2. CAYETANO V. MONSOD (201 SCRA 210) G.R. No. 100113 September 3, 1991

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. PARAS, J.: FACTS: Christian Monsod was
nominated by President Corazon C. Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC in a
letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991. Renato
Cayetano opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required
qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. On June 5, 1991,
the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination of Monsod as Chairman of the
COMELEC. On June 18, 1991, he took his oath of office. On the same day, he assumed office as
Chairman of the COMELEC. Pertinent provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution regarding the
required qualifications for COMELEC is as follows: There shall be a Commission on Elections
composed of a Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the
Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a
college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective position in the immediately
preceding -elections. However, a majority thereof, including the Chairman, shall be members of
the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Challenging
the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod's nomination,
petitioner as a citizen and taxpayer, filed the instant petition for certiorari and Prohibition praying
that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the
Commission on Elections be declared null and void. 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. After
graduating from the College of Law (U.P.) and passing the bar, Atty. Monsod worked in the law
office of his father. During his stint in the World Bank Group (19631970), Monsod worked as an
operations officer for about two years in Costa Rica and Panama, which involved getting
acquainted with the laws of member-countries negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic,
and project work of the Bank. Upon returning to the Philippines in 1970, he worked with the
Meralco Group, served as chief executive officer of an investment bank and subsequently of a
business conglomerate, and since

1986, has rendered services to various companies as a legal and economic consultant or chief
executive officer. As former Secretary-General (1986) and National Chairman (1987) of
NAMFREL, Monsod's work involved being knowledgeable in election law. He appeared for
NAMFREL in its accreditation hearings before the Comelec. In the field of advocacy, Monsod, in
his personal capacity and as former Co-Chairman of the Bishops Businessmen's Conference for
Human Development, has worked with the under privileged sectors, such as the farmer and urban
poor groups, in initiating, lobbying for and engaging in affirmative action for the agrarian reform law
and lately the urban land reform bill. Monsod also made use of his legal knowledge as a member
of the Davide Commission, a quasi judicial body, which conducted numerous hearings (1990) and
as a member of the Constitutional Commission (1986-1987), and Chairman of its Committee on
Accountability of Public Officers, for which he was cited by the President of the Commission,
Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma for "innumerable amendments to reconcile government functions
with individual freedoms and public accountability and the party-list system for the House of
Representative. ISSUE: Whether or not Christian Monsod possesses the required qualification of
having been in the practice of law for at least ten years. RULING: Yes. In the light of the various
definitions of the term “Practice of law" and taking into consideration the liberal construction
intended by the framers of the Constitution, Atty. Monsod's past work experiences as a lawyer-
economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyerentrepreneur 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.

Additional Notes: Nasa kaso po ang mga ampagkahabang definitions ng “practice of law.” 
Impractical na siguro kung isulat pa natin. 
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/sep1991/gr_100113_1991.html Eto po yung ilan: 1. The
rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique
to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to appearing in court, or advising
and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other
papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal
instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients
and all actions taken for them in matters

connected with the law. An attorney engages in the practice of law by maintaining an office where
he is held out to be-an attorney, using a letterhead describing himself as an attorney, counseling
clients in legal matters, negotiating with opposing counsel about pending litigation, and fixing and
collecting fees for services rendered by his associate. (Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd ed.) 2. A person
is also considered to be in the practice of law when he: “... for valuable consideration engages in
the business of advising person, firms, associations or corporations as to their rights under the law,
or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings pending or prospective,
before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted by
law or authorized to settle controversies and there, in such representative capacity performs any
act or acts for the purpose of obtaining or defending the rights of their clients under the law.
Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the business of advising
clients as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court
or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law.” (State ex. rel. Mckittrick
v..C.S. Dudley and Co., 102 S.W. 2d 895, 340 Mo. 852) 3. Practice of law under modem
conditions consists in no small part of work performed outside of any court and having no
immediate relation to proceedings in court. 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. Although these transactions may
have no direct connection with court proceedings, they are always subject to become involved in
litigation. They require in many aspects a high degree of legal skill, a wide experience with men
and affairs, and great capacity for adaptation to difficult and complex situations. These customary
functions of an attorney or counselor at law bear an intimate relation to the administration of justice
by the courts. No valid distinction, so far as concerns the question set forth in the order, can be
drawn between that part of the work of the lawyer which involves appearance in court and that part
which involves advice and drafting of instruments in his office. It is of importance to the welfare of
the public that these manifold customary functions be performed by persons possessed of
adequate learning and skill, of sound moral character, and acting at all times under the heavy trust
obligations to clients which rests upon all attorneys. (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol.
3 [1953 ed.] , p. 665-666, citing In re Opinion of the Justices [Mass.], 194 N.E. 313, quoted in
Rhode Is. Bar Assoc. v. Automobile Service Assoc. [R.I.] 179 A. 139,144).

3. CRUZ VS CABRERA

SECOND DIVISION[ A.C. No. 5737, October 25, 2004 ]

FERDINAND A. CRUZ, COMPLAINANT,
VS.
ATTY. STANLEY CABRERA, RESPONDENT.

Facts:Complainant alleges that he is a fourth year law student; since the latter part of 2001, he instituted several
actions against his neighbors; he appeared for and in his behalf in his own cases; he met respondent who acted as
the counsel of his neighbors; during a hearing on January 14, 2002, in one case before the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 112, Pasay City, presided by Judge Caridad Cuerdo.

Respondent’s imputations were uncalled for and the latter’s act of compelling the court to ask complainant whether
he is a lawyer or not was intended to malign him before the public, inasmuch as respondent knew that complainant
is not a lawyer, having appeared for and in his behalf as a party litigant in prior cases; respondent’s imputations of
complainant’s misrepresentation as a lawyer was patently with malice to discredit his honor, with the intention to
threaten him not to appear anymore in cases respondent was handling; the manner, substance, tone of voice and
how the words “appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna!” were uttered were totally with the intention to annoy, vex
and humiliate, malign, ridicule, incriminate and discredit complainant before the public.

Issue:Whether or not respondent violated Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

Whether or not complainant is not precluded from litigating personally his cases

Whether or not complainant is engaged in the practice of law 

Ruling:

 1. We hold that respondent’s outburst of “appear ka ng appear, pumasa ka muna” does not amount to a violation of
Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such single outburst, though uncalled for, is not of such
magnitude as to warrant respondent’s suspension or reproof. It is but a product of impulsiveness or the heat of the
moment in the course of an argument between them. It has been said that lawyers should not be held to too strict
an account for words said in the heat of the moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is for
the court to condone even contemptuous language.
 2. Nonetheless, we remind respondent that complainant is not precluded from litigating personally his cases. A
party’s right to conduct litigation personally is recognized by Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court: SEC. 34. By
whom litigation conducted. — In the court of a justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with
the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a
party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal or by
a duly authorized member of the bar.

 3. The practice of law, though impossible to define exactly, involves the exercise of a profession or vocation usually
for gain, mainly as attorney by acting in a representative capacity and as counsel by rendering legal advise to others.
Private practice has been defined by this Court as follows:
x x x. 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 frequent habitual exercise. Practice of law to fall within the prohibition of
statute [referring to the prohibition for judges and other officials or employees of the superior courts or of the Office
of the Solicitor General from engaging in private practice] has been interpreted as customarily or habitually holding
one’s self out to the public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services. x x x.

 Clearly, in appearing for herself, complainant was not customarily or habitually holding herself out to the public as a
lawyer. Neither was she demanding payment for such services. Hence, she cannot be said to be in the practice of
law.

 On the other hand, all lawyers should take heed that lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered
to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law
as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Mandated to maintain the dignity
of the legal profession, they must conduct themselves honorably and fairly. Though a lawyer’s language may be
forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The
use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial forum.

4. CRUZ v. MINA – G.R. No. 154207, April 27, 2007

Fact:
Ferdinand A. Cruz (petitioner) filed before the MeTC a formal Entry of Appearance, as private
prosecutor for Grave Threats, where his father, Mariano Cruz, is the complaining witness. The
petitioner, describing himself as a third year law student, justifies his appearance as private
prosecutor on the bases of Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the ruling of the Court
En Banc in Cantimbuhan v. Judge Cruz, Jr.2 that a non-lawyer may appear before the inferior
courts as an agent or friend of0020a party litigant. The petitioner furthermore avers that his
appearance was with the prior conformity of the public prosecutor and a written authority of
Mariano Cruz appointing him to be his agent in the prosecution of the said criminal case.
However the MeTC denied permission for petitioner to appear as private prosecutor on the ground
that Circular No. 19 governing limited law student practice in conjunction with Rule 138-A of the
Rules of Court (Law Student Practice Rule) should take precedence over the ruling of the Court
laid down in Cantimbuhan. Petitioner filed before the MeTC a Motion for Reconsideration seeking
to reverse the February 1, 2002 Order alleging that Rule 138-A, or the Law Student Practice Rule,
does not have the effect of superseding Section 34 of Rule 138, for the authority to interpret the
rule is the source itself of the rule, which is the Supreme Court alone. The MeTC denied the
Motion for Reconsideration.
The petitioner filed before the RTC a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with Prayer for
Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order against the private respondent and the
public respondent MeTC. RTC denied the petition of the petitioner and its Motion for
Reconsideration.
Issue:
Whether the petitioner, a law student, may appear before an inferior court as an agent or friend of
a party litigant.

Held:
Yes, Section 34, Rule 138 is clear that appearance before the inferior courts by a non-lawyer is
allowed, irrespective of whether or not he is a law student. As succinctly clarified in Bar Matter No.
730, by virtue of Section 34, Rule 138, a law student may appear, as an agent or a friend of a party
litigant, without the supervision of a lawyer before inferior courts. There is really no problem as to
the application of Section 34 of Rule 138 and Rule 138-A. In the former, the appearance of a non-
lawyer, as an agent or friend of a party litigant, is expressly allowed, while the latter rule provides
for conditions when a law student, not as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, may appear before
the courts.

5. ATTY. ISMAEL G. KHAN, JR. vs. ATTY. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO

Facts:
The administrative complaint arose from the paid advertisement that appeared in the July 5, 2000
issue of Philippine
Daily Inquirer which read: Annulment of Marriage Specialist 532-4333/521-2667. Ms. Ma. Theresa
Espeleta, a staff
member of the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court, took notice of the advertisement
and inquired by
pretending as an interested party. After such inquiry, confirming that Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is
actually promoting
himself as an expert in handling annulment cases and is guaranteeing a court decree within four to
six months with a
fee of P48,000 to be paid in installment basis, further research was conducted by the
Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA). The research revealed other similar advertisements published in two other
newspapers –
August 2 and 6, 2000 issues of Manila Bulletin and August 5, 2000 issue of The Philippine Star.
Atty. Ismael Khan,
Jr., afterwards, in his capacity as Assistant Court Administrator and Chief of the Public Information
Office filed an
administrative complaint against Atty. Simbillo for improper advertising and solicitation in violation
of Rule
2.03 and Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and Rule 138, Section 27 of
the Rules of Court.
The IBP, taking cognizance of the referral to investigate, report and recommend, found the
respondent guilty.
Respondent, then, filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied. Hence, this
petition for certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not Atty. Rizalino Simbillo is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and Rule 3.01 of CPR.
Held:
Yes. The Court agreed with the IBP’s resolution, holding that the practice of law is not a business
but a profession in
which duty to public service and not money is the primary consideration. By advertising himself as
an “Annulment
Specialist,” he undermined the stability and sanctity of marriage —encouraging people who might
have otherwise
been disinclined and would have refrained from dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so. In
addition, although
solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed, for solicitation to be proper, it must be
compatible with the
dignity of the legal profession which the petitioner failed to do. Therefore, the Court suspended the
petitioner from
the practice of law for one year and sternly warned him that a repetition of the same or similar
offense will be dealt
with more severely.
6. In re: Michael A. Medado (In re: Petition to Sign the Roll of Attorneys) Medado graduated from UP in
1979 with a Bachelor of Laws degree. In the same year he passed the bar exams. May, 1980, he took the
Attorney's Oath at the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC). He was scheduled to sign the Roll
on May 13, but failed to do so because allegedly he misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorney given
by the Bar Office. Several years later, he found the Notice. It was here he realized he had not signed the
Roll and what he signed at the PICC was just an attendance record. When he found such Notice, he was
already working, specifically doing corporate and taxation work. During this course, he operated "under the
mistaken belief that since he had already taken the oath, the signing of the Roll was not as urgent, nor as
crucial to his status as a lawyer". When Medado attended MCLE in 2005, he was required to provide his
Roll number, he was unable to provide his roll number. Seven years later, on Feb. 6, 2012, he filed the
instant petition that he be allowed to sign the Roll. Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) submitted a Report
and Recommendation to this Court stating that the petition be denied because of Medado's gross
negligence, gross misconduct and utter lack of merit, and that he has no valid justification for his negligence
in signing the Roll. Supreme Court granted Medado's prayer, subject to a fine and the imposition of a
penalty equivalent to suspension from the practice of law. SC noted that if they deny Medado to sign the
Roll, it would be tantamount to imposing upon him disbarment, which is only reserved to the most serious
ethical transgressions of Bar members. In this case, the records do not show that this action is warranted.
First, Medado exercised good faith and good moral character because it was not a third party but he himself
called the Court's attention for his omission and acknowledged his own lapse. Second, Medado has not
been subject to any action for disqualification. Third, Medado appears to be competent as he was able to
hold various positions at the Laurel Law Office, Petron, Petrophil Corporation, the Philippine National Oil
Company, and the Energy Development Corporation. All aforementioned demonstrate Medado's worth to
become a full-fledged lawyer.