CAYETANO vs. MONSOD (1991)

I walked in and he waved at me. "Ey take it easy!.. so howdy.. you alright?" I said and smiled when we accidentally caught each other eating at the mall (Chowking)  our tables adjacent to each other.

"Chip help me?" "Haha help you about what? (looking a bit puzzled as I was chewing my food). "This girl pare I've been calling her, doesn't wanna talk to me galit yata eh. I'll dial bro could you please talk to her?" "No no I .. I can't do that (chewing) It wouldn't look good on you. You should be the one doing it. Babae lang yan pre.. you can solve it, take care of it man" "You're right" 

The guy studies in another law school. Met him at a firing range once. His car's almost the same as mine so we've been comparing notes. But he's considerably young. I looked at him while eating and mukang namomroblema talaga.

"Mahal mo ba?" "Ewan ko mahal ko na yata pre" "Take it easy pre.. pag abugado ka na.. mas marami kang mamemeet na mas magaganda, matatalino and well-bread ah este well-bred na babae.. baka magsisi ka.. put the best at the last man.. easy lang." "Right.. when were practicing na no? (he smiled) I can't wait for that 'pañero". "Just remember 3 words and never forget it.. 'control' 'control' and 'control'.. if that thing with your girl can still be fixed then fix it but control your heart man. Make decisions of your own. Grow up and be your own man. Love lang yan, yaan mo sila mamroblema. Kukuha ka ng bar.. di ba? Always think that we're not like them.. we are built differently.. a lot is expected of us so do away with these women if they can't keep up, we are made for a different kind of woman" "You're right..thanks man.. thanks for reminding.. I can't really wait for law practice man..". 

Question: What constitutes law practice.. or Practice of Law?

(I'll make this easy for you.. here's your answer in a nutshell. Think  Statutory Construction. Two birds, one stone, hit one. It's Not Strictly but LIBERALLY Construed. Get it?) 

Here's the case. Again another landmark case. Respondent Atty. Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC through  a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991. 

(The thing was.. the guy though a distinguished member of the Philippine Bar had scarcely an experience in law practice.) 

The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C That majority of the Commissioners 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 10 YEARS.  This is the prerequisite.

(Although correct me if I'm wrong I think back then as far as I can remember Atty. Christian Monsod's professional background had been hugely identified with the private sector.  The guy had been I think a Consultant of some private banks. Had been the Director of MERALCO and served as the Chief Strategist of Benpres Holdings Corp. His other experiences I have no idea. And well I dunno, by the looks of it I think the guy also stood as trustees for a number of private institutions. Bottomline? The guy never appeared in courts and practiced legal profession.. let's see how this will hold)

(Here now comes one of the best fiscalizers of all times. Atty. Renato Cayetano, who I think started his law practice in one of the top law firms in the country, the ACCRA Law) 

Petitioner Atty. 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 10 years. 

(Cayetano was the feisty former senator and father of Sen. Allan Peter Cayetano who I think lived up to that name and followed his father's footsteps together with his sister. The apples never really fell far from the tree huh?)  

The thing was.. The Commission on Appointments confirmed the appointment despite Cayetano's objection. And on June 18, 1991, Monsod took his oath of office and on the same day assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC.

Challenging the validity of the CA confirmation Cayetano as a citizen and taxpayer, filed this 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.

(So.. shall we flip a coin?  Was the appointment of Chairman Monsod of COMELEC violates Section 1, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution?)

ISSUE: 

Whether or not Monsod has been engaged in the practice of law for 10 years.

RULING:

(Don't be surprised.. here's what the high court said..)

YES. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court.

(Again may I remind you, this is a landmark case.. we now have a new definition for the practice of law by virtue of this jurisprudence)

Court said Practice of Law embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients, and other works where the work done involves the determination of the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. Atty. Monsod, who passed the bar in 1960, worked with the World Bank Group from 1963-1970, then worked for an investment bank till 1986, became member of the CONCOM in 1986, and also became a member of the Davide Commission in 1990, can be considered to have been engaged in the practice of law as lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, etc. 

Furthermore Atty. Christian Monsod as a member of the Philippine Bar has been paying dues  like all members 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. 

(So it's clear it is not strictly construed.. we apply liberal construction when we talk of law practice.. listen to this..)

Court said "The records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission show that the interpretation of the term practice of law was LIBERAL  as to consider lawyers employed in the Commission of Audit as engaged in the practice of law provided that they use their legal knowledge or talent in their respective work. 

The court also cited an article in the January 11, 1989 issue of the Business Star, that lawyers nowadays have their own specialized fields such as tax lawyers, prosecutors, etc., that because of the demands of their specialization, lawyers engage in other works or functions to meet them. These days, for example, most corporation lawyers are involved in management policy formulation.

At this point, it might be helpful to define private practice. The term, as commonly understood, means "an individual or organization engaged in the business of delivering legal services." Lawyers who practice alone are often called "sole practitioners." Groups of lawyers are called "firms." The firm is usually a partnership and members of the firm are the partners. Some firms may be organized as professional corporations and the members called shareholders. In either case, the members of the firm are the experienced attorneys. In most firms, there are younger or more inexperienced salaried attorneys called "associates."

And so the petitions for certiorari and prohibition were dismissed. 

(Well.. tsk beautiful.. isn't it? The court never could have said it more beautifully.. there is no need for a strict construction.. period).

VILLAVICENCIO vs. LUKBAN (1919)

Question: Are we a government of laws or a government of men? Would we disregard law just to give way for the most popular leader? Let's see what the Supreme Court will have to say. Lest we forget this long standing jurisprudence.

Again this is a landmark case. In this classic case of Villavicencio vs. Lukban,  the Supreme Court upheld the right of Filipino citizens to Freedom of Domicile.

Brace yourselves. Here's the facts:

Justo Lukban was then the Mayor of the City of Manila. Problem with this dude was he ordered the deportation of 170 agogo dancers and prostitutes to Davao. Which was then not a city yet I guess. This case is dated 1919 so take note, the President wasn't even born yet. Said women were inmates of the houses of prostitution situated in Gardenia Street, in the district of Sampaloc.

(So there was a brothel house in that area during those days)  

The mayor's reason for doing this was to preserve the morals of the people of Manila.

(This guy was probably the biggest hypocrite there ever was during those early days)

He claimed that the prostitutes were sent to Davao, purportedly, to work for an haciendero named Feliciano Ynigo.  He had the prostitutes confined in houses meaning the one in Gardenia Street before boarding them, at the dead of night, in two boats bound for Davao. (If Digong was alive and kicking during those days, this dodgy mayor would have really gonna get it).  The women were under the assumption that they were being transported to another police station while Ynigo, the haciendero from Davao, had no idea that the women being sent to work for him were actually prostitutes. 

(Poor guy. Imagine all the commotion starting to happen in your place and you're still fuckin' totally clueless) 

So the families of the prostitutes came forward to file charges against 3 people. Lukban.  Anton Hohmann, who was the Chief of Police who rounded and took custody of the the dancers and prostitutes, and Francisco Sales, the Governor of Davao. 

(Of course there's a considered conspiracy between these three)

They prayed for a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to be issued against the respondents to compel them to bring back the 170 women who were deported to Mindanao against their knowledge and will. During the trial, it came out that, indeed, the women were deported without their consent. Infact there was no law or order authorizing Lukban's deportation of the 170 prostitutes.

(So in effect, Lukban forcibly assigned them a new domicile. Obviously the guy doesn't know anything about the law and fundamental human rights)

Liberty of abode was raised here versus the power of the executive of the Municipality in deporting the women without their knowledge and consent in his capacity as Mayor.

You know what the mayor did? He got technical.  The guy moved for the dismissal of the case stating that those women were already out of his jurisdiction and that, it should be filed in the city of Davao instead. (what a bastard) 

The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners with the instructions to the respondents giving them 3 options  (1) Produce the bodies of the persons according to the command of the writ. (2) Show by affidavit that on account of sickness or infirmity those persons (170 women subject of the writ of habeas corpus) could not safely be brought before the court, or (3) Present affidavits to show that the parties in question or their attorney waived the right to be present.  

(So the mayor resorted to technicalities in his defense and he was slapped by the court through technicalities as well giving him a dose of his own medicine) 

The three respondents hence appealed to the Supreme Court. 

ISSUE: 

Whether we are a government of laws or a government of men? Was the act of the mayor in deporting these women valid?

RULING:

The Supreme Court said "We are clearly a government of laws". Lukban committed grave abuse of discretion by deporting the prostitutes to a new domicile against their will. 

There is no law expressly authorizing his action. On the contrary, there is a law punishing public officials, not expressly authorized by law or regulation, who compels any person to change his residence.

Furthermore, the prostitutes are still, as citizens of the Philippines, entitled to the same rights, as stipulated in the Bill of Rights, as every other citizen. Their choice of profession should not be a cause for discrimination. It may make some, like Lukban, quite uncomfortable but it does not authorize anyone to compel said prostitutes to isolate themselves from the rest of the human race. These women have been deprived of their liberty by being exiled to Davao without even being given the opportunity to collect their belongings or, worse,without even consenting to being transported to Mindanao. For this, Lukban et al must be severely punished.

Court reasoned further that if the chief executive of any municipality in the Philippines could forcibly and illegally take a private citizen and place him beyond the boundaries of the municipality, and then, when called upon to defend his official action, could calmly fold his hands and claim that the person was under no restraint and that he, the official, had no jurisdiction over this other municipality, then the more the writ of habeas corpus should be enforced.

Even if the party to whom the writ is addressed has illegally parted with the custody of a person before the application for the writ is no reason why the writ should not issue. If the mayor and the chief of police, acting under no authority of law, could deport these women from the city of Manila to Davao, the same officials must necessarily have the same means to return them from Davao to Manila. 

The Supreme Court said that the women were not chattels but Filipino citizens who had the fundamental right not to be forced to change their place of residence. 

The then mayor of Manila Justo Lukban loses this case.