Lao vs.

Causing
A.C. No. 13453

Facts:

The case involves a complaint by Jackiya A. Lao against Atty. Berteni C. Causing for violating the Lawyer's Oath and the
Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

On January 18, 2019, Atty. Causing posted a draft of his Complaint-Affidavit for Plunder on Facebook, accusing Lao and
others of plunder.

The post was allegedly made to promote his sister, Lyndale Causing, a candidate for Representative of the 2nd District of
South Cotabato.

The defamatory post subjected Lao to public hate, contempt, and ridicule, damaging her reputation.

Atty. Causing repeated the false accusations on January 31, 2019, claiming to have filed the complaint with the Office of
the Ombudsman.

Lao asserted that the accusations were false.

Atty. Causing admitted to the posts but argued they were based on investigative reports and were an exercise of his
freedom of expression and press.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially recommended a six-month suspension, later modified to a reprimand.

The Supreme Court ultimately decided to disbar Atty. Causing.

Issue:

Did Atty. Causing violate the CPR and the Lawyer's Oath by posting his Complaint for Plunder on his Facebook account to
the detriment of Jackiya A. Lao?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court found Atty. Berteni C. Causing guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

He was disbarred from the practice of law.

His name was ordered to be removed from the Roll of Attorneys.

Ratio:

Atty. Causing's actions violated Rules 1.01 (Section 1 Canon 2 CPRA) and 7.03 (Secntion 2.2 Canon 2 CPRA) of the CPR,
which prohibit unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct and conduct that adversely reflects on a lawyer's
fitness to practice law.

Substantial evidence supported Lao's allegations.

Atty. Causing's defense of freedom of expression and press was deemed untenable; these rights must be exercised with
justice, honesty, and good faith.

Facebook is not a proper forum for airing grievances, and Atty. Causing's posts were intended to damage Lao's
reputation.

The subsequent filing of the complaint with the Ombudsman did not mitigate the harm caused.

Atty. Causing's previous suspension for similar misconduct indicated a pattern of behavior warranting disbarment.

The decision serves as a reminder to lawyers to exercise restraint in their conduct, both online and offline, to maintain
public confidence in the legal profession.
 Pimentel vs. Legal Education Board
G.R. No. 230642
Facts:

Multiple petitioners, including Oscar B. Pimentel, contested the constitutionality of provisions in Republic Act No. 7662 (RA 7662)
and actions by the Legal Education Board (LEB).

Respondents were LEB Chair Hon. Emerson B. Aquende and member Hon. Zenaida N. Elepaño.

The case was consolidated with another petition by Francis Jose Lean L. Abayata against Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea and
the LEB.

Petitioners argued that the LEB's imposition of the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT) and other regulations infringed
on the academic freedom of law schools and the Supreme Court's authority over legal education and the practice of law.

On November 9, 2021, the Supreme Court declared certain provisions of RA 7662 unconstitutional while upholding others.

Issue:

Invalidation of RA 7662 and LEBMO No. 7-2016: Should these be declared unconstitutional?

LEB's Jurisdiction: Was the LEB's jurisdiction over legal education correctly upheld?

PhiLSAT Requirement: Is the requirement to pass the PhiLSAT or have a valid certificate of exemption within two years prior to
application in law school, with a passing score of 55%, unconstitutional for violating academic freedom?

Optional PhiLSAT: Did the Court's ruling make the PhiLSAT optional?

Permanent TRO: Did the Court err in making permanent the TRO issued on March 12, 2019, allowing law schools to decide on the
regular admission of conditionally admitted students?

Invalidation of LEBMO Sections: Did the Court err in invalidating Sections 15, 16, and 17 of LEBMO No. 1-2011?

Amendment or Reversal of Declaration: Is there a cogent reason to amend or reverse the Court's declaration regarding the
unconstitutionality of LEB's issuances on minimum requirements for faculty and deans?

Unconstitutionality of LEB Issuances: Are LEBMO No. 22-2019, LEBMC No. 6-2017, and LEB Resolution No. 2012-02 unconstitutional
for unduly infringing on law schools' administration of graduating students and burdening the graduating class?

Ruling:

Invalidation of LEBMO No. 7-2016: The Court declared LEBMO No. 7-2016 unconstitutional and vacated all related LEB issuances.

LEB's Jurisdiction: The Court upheld the LEB's jurisdiction over legal education.

PhiLSAT Requirement: The PhiLSAT requirement was declared unconstitutional for violating academic freedom.

Optional PhiLSAT: The Court's ruling rendered the PhiLSAT optional.

Permanent TRO: The Court made permanent the TRO from March 12, 2019, allowing law schools to decide on the admission of
conditionally admitted students.

Invalidation of LEBMO Sections: The Court invalidated Sections 15, 16, and 17 of LEBMO No. 1-2011.

No Cogent Reason to Amend/Reversal: The Court found no reason to amend or reverse its declaration on the unconstitutionality of
LEB's issuances on minimum requirements for faculty and deans.

Unconstitutionality of LEB Issuances: The Court declared LEBMO No. 22-2019, LEBMC No. 6-2017, and LEB Resolution No. 2012-02
unconstitutional for unduly infringing on law schools' administration and burdening the graduating class.

Ratio:

State Interest: The Court acknowledged the State's interest in improving legal education to meet global standards.

Reasonable Exercise of Police Power: The exercise of police power must be reasonable and should not infringe on academic
freedom.

PhiLSAT Requirement: The mandatory PhiLSAT and passing score encroached on the academic freedom of law schools to determine
admissions.

Qualifications and Classifications of Faculty and Deans: The LEB's actions in dictating these qualifications violated academic freedom.

State Authority: While the State may supervise and regulate legal education, such authority should not amount to control.

Balancing Interests: The decision sought to balance the State's interest in promoting quality education with the protection of
academic freedom.
 Cayetano vs. Monsod
G.R. No. 100113

Facts:

The case involves a legal challenge to Christian Monsod's appointment as Chairman of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC).

Renato L. Cayetano opposed Monsod's nomination, arguing that Monsod did not meet the constitutional requirement of
having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.

The 1987 Constitution, Section 1(1), Article IX-C, mandates that the Chairman and a majority of the COMELEC
Commissioners must be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years.

Monsod's nomination was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on June 5, 1991, and he assumed office on
June 18, 1991.

Cayetano, acting as a citizen and taxpayer, filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition to nullify Monsod's
appointment.

Monsod's professional background includes working in his father's law office, serving as an operations officer for the
World Bank, holding executive positions in various companies, and participating in legal and economic consultancy roles.

He was also involved in advocacy work, including serving as Secretary-General and National Chairman of NAMFREL, and
as a member of the Constitutional Commission and the Davide Commission.

Issue:

Did Christian Monsod meet the constitutional requirement of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten
years to qualify for the position of Chairman of the COMELEC?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that Christian Monsod met the constitutional requirement of having been engaged in the
practice of law for at least ten years.

The petition filed by Renato L. Cayetano was dismissed.

Ratio:

The Court's decision was based on a liberal interpretation of the term "practice of law."

Various definitions and precedents, including those from Black's Law Dictionary and previous Philippine jurisprudence,
indicate that the practice of law is not limited to court appearances or litigation.

The practice of law encompasses a wide range of activities requiring legal knowledge and skills, such as preparing legal
documents, giving legal advice, and representing clients in various capacities.

Monsod's professional activities, including his roles in the World Bank, Meralco Group, and as a legal and economic
consultant, involved the application of legal principles and techniques.

His work with NAMFREL, the Constitutional Commission, and the Davide Commission further demonstrated his
engagement in the practice of law.

The framers of the 1987 Constitution intended a liberal interpretation of the term "practice of law," which includes non-
traditional legal roles.

The Commission on Appointments had confirmed Monsod's nomination, and there was no clear showing of grave abuse
of discretion in their decision.

Therefore, Monsod's appointment as Chairman of the COMELEC was upheld.