Thus, the Court found that the respondent failed to exercise the required diligence in handling complainant’s cause since he: (1) failed to represent her competently and diligently by acting and proffering professional advice beyond the proper bounds of law; and, (2) abandoned his client’s cause while the grave coercion case against them was pending.  

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES Atty. EDGARDO O. ERA guilty of violating Rule 15.03 of Canon 15, and Canon 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for two years effective upon his receipt of the decision, with a warning that his commission of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

Issue:

Whether respondent should be suspended from practice of law for using intemperate language in his pleadings

Held:

NO. There is no doubt that Atty. Flores failed to obey the trial court's order to submit proof of his MCLE compliance notwithstanding the several opportunities given him. Atty. Flores also employed intemperate language in his pleadings. As an officer of the court, Atty. Flores is expected to be circumspect in his language. 

However, the court found the recommended penalty too harsh and not commensurate with the infractions committed by the respondent. It appears that this is the first infraction committed by respondent. Also, the court is not prepared to impose on the respondent the penalty of one-year suspension for humanitarian reasons. Respondent manifested before this Court that he has been in the practice of law for half a century.  Thus, he is already in his twilight years. Considering the foregoing, the court deem it proper to fine respondent and to remind him to be more circumspect in his acts and to obey and respect court processes.

CAYETANO V MONSOD

201 SCRA 210, 1991

FACTS

Monsod was nominated by President Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC on April 25, 1991. 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. Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of Monsod’s nomination, petitioner filed a 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 because Monsod did not meet the requirement of having practiced law for the last ten years.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Monsod satisfies the requirement of the position of Chairman of the COMELEC.

HELD:

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. 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. 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.”

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. 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.