Cayetano v. Monsod G.R. NO.
100113 SEPTEMBER 3, 1991
Petitioner: Renato L. Cayetano
Respondents: Christian Monsod
Hn. Jovito R. Salonga, Commission on Appointments
Hon. Guillermo Carague, in his capacity as Secretary of Budget and
Management
Ponente: PARAS, J.:
Facts
The respondent, Christian Monsod, was nominated to the position of Chairman of the
Commission on Elections by President Cory Aquino. In June 1991 The Commission on
Appointments confirmed Monsod’s nomination as Chairman of the COMELEC. Weeks later the
confirmation of the nomination, he took his oath of office and on the same day assumed office.
Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod's
nomination, the 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. The petitioners 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 pursuant to Article IX-C, Section 1 (1)
of the 1987 Constitution.
Petitioner’s Contention
After graduating from UP Law and passing the 1960 Bar Examinations, He worked in his
father’s law office. In 1963-1970, he worked for the World Bank Group as an operations officer
in Costa Rica and Panama, which involved mainly negotiating loans and coordinating World
Bank projects with member countries. When he returned to the Philippines, he worked as CEO
of an investment bank with the Meralco Group, rendered services as a legal consultant, and
was CEO for various companies. He was also a former Secretary-General and National
Chairman for NAMFREL and he appeared many times before the COMELEC. He also worked
with underprivileged sectors, lobbied for government action in agrarian reform and urban land
reform. He became a member of the Davide Commission, the Constitutional Commission, even
chair of its Committee on Accountability of Public Officers. He has been actively paying
membership dues of the IBP since its inception in 1973 and actively paying his professional
license fees for more than 10 years.
Therefore, he has been engaging in the practice of law and he is qualified for the position of
Chairman of the Commission on Elections
Respondent’s Contention
The respondent does not possess the required qualification of having engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years.
Issue
The issue in the case was whether or not the respondent Monsod, a lawyer, was qualified for
appointment as Chair of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), since Art. IX-C, Sec. 1[1] of
the 1987 Constitution requires that, inter alia, a majority of the COMELEC, “including the
Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years”.
Ruling
Yes. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. “Practice of law means
any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of the law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training, and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts
which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render
any kind of service which device or service requires the use of any degree of legal knowledge or
skill (III ALR 23).”
Interpreted in the light of the various definitions of the term “practice of law," particularly the
modern concept of law practice, 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 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 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 grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. (Art. VIII, Sec. 1 Constitution). Thus, only
where such grave abuse of discretion is clearly shown shall the Court interfere with the
Commission's judgment. In the instant case, there is no occasion for the exercise of the Court's
corrective power, since no abuse, much less a grave abuse of discretion, that would amount to
lack or excess of jurisdiction and would warrant the issuance of the writs prayed, for has been
clearly shown.
It is considered ‘practice of law’ when the work done involves the determination by the trained
legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions. Preparation and execution of legal
documents require a high degree of legal skill – it’s still the practice of law. It means any activity,
whether in or out of court, which requires the application of the law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training, and experience. Generally, it means rendering service of any kind which requires the
use of legal knowledge or skill.
Petition for a writ of certiorari and prohibition is denied.
