LEGAL PROFESSION

USC Law 410

KHAN VS SIMBILLO
Nick: Advertising Facts: Res. Atty. Simbillo publicized his legal services in 3 major newpapers, the PDI, MB, and the PhilStar, which read "Annulment of Marriage Specialist," and claimed as an expert in handling annulment cases, and that he can guarantee courts decree within 4 to 6 months time and that the fee was Php 48,000. Then petitioner Khan filed administrative charges in IBP against the respondent for improper advertising and soliciting legal business, in which the IBP found the respondent guilty. Issue: WON the respondent is guilty of violating Rule 2.03 and 3.01 of CPR. Held: Yes. The practice of law is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for 1 year and was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt more severely.
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily to solicit legal business. Rule 3.01 A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of x x x self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.

BORJA VS SULYAP
Nick: Private practice Facts: Petitioner Borja, as lessor, and respondent Sulyap, Inc., as lessee, entered into a contract of lease involving a onestorey office building owned by Borja located at New Manila, Quezon City. Respondent paid advance rentals, association dues and deposits pursuant to lease. Upon the expiration of the contract of lease, respondent demanded for the return of the same, but Borja refused to do so. Thus, Sulyap filed with the RTC of QC a complaint for sum of money against Borja. Subsequently, both parties entered into and submitted to the trial court a Compromise agreements stating that Borja is bound to return the advances and deposit and in case any amount due not paid within the period stated shall earn interest until fully paid plus the attorneys fee. However, Borja failed to the amounts stated. He then contended that there was fraud in the execution of the compromise agreement when he was assisted by Atty. Cruz, who was then an employee of Quezon City government, and that the agreement is void. Issue: WON the petitioner is bound by the penalty clause in the compromise agreement. Held: Yes. x x x we find no merit in petitione rs contention that the compromise agreement should be annulled because Atty. Leonardo Cruz, who assisted him in entering into such agreement, was then an employee of the Quezon City government, and is thus prohibited from engaging in the private practice of his profession. Suffice it to state that the isolated assistance provided by Atty. Cruz to the petitioner in entering into a compromise agreement does not constitute a prohibited private practice of law by a public official. Private practice of a profession, specifically the law profession does not pertain to an isolated court appearance; rather, it contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding ones self to the public as a lawyer. Such was never established in the instant case x x x. Wherefore, instant petition is denied.

CANOY VS ORTIZ
Nick: Illegally dismissed Facts: Res. Atty. Ortiz appeared as counsel for petitioner Canoy for illegal dismissal case against the latters former employer. In 1998, the labor arbiter hearing the complaint ordered the parties to submit their respective position paper. Canoy submitted all the necessary documents and records to respondent Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of such position paper. Thereafter, he made several visit to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow up the progress of the case until 2000, but his visits was unfruitful. Canoy decided to follow up the case himself, and was shocked to learn that the same was actually dismissed way back in 1998 for failure to prosecute. The respondent claimed that "he was frankly preoccupied with both his functions as a local government official and as a practicing lawyer. x x x he withdrew from his cases and his free legal services." Hence, this petition. Issue: WON there is a grave misconduct and malpractice on part of the respondent. Held: Yes. The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the client to be adequately and fully informed of the developments of the case and should not be left in the dark as to the mode and manner in which his/her interests are being defended. x x x it was his duty as lawyer to inform his clients of the status of cases entrusted to him. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for 1 month and was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt more severely.
Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable period of time to the clients request for information.

SCHULZ VS FLORES
Nick: Negligence and incompetence Facts: Schulz filed a verified complaint for disbarment against Atty. Flores. Sometime in 1992, complainant Schulz engaged the services of the respondent for the purpose of filing a complaint against Wilson Ong for revocation and damages for the latters failure to deliver the jeep which he sold to Schulz. Complainant argued that the respondent's delay in acting upon his case resulted in his being a defendant rather than a complainant. He also charged the respondent for collective excessive and unreasonable fees. In support of his charges against the respondent, he pointed out that he was a Municipal Judge of Negros Oriental who was dismissed from service after the Marcos Regime. Issue: WON Atty. Flores is guilty of negligence and incompetence. Held: The Supreme Court ruled that respondent Atty. Marcelo Flores is found guilty of negligence and

LEGAL PROFESSION
USC Law 410

incompetence, and is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months effective immediately. He is ordered to return to Schulz the amount of 12,000.00 plus legal interest, and he is ordered to return the papers of complainant which had been under his custody as a result of his counselling for the complainant.

LEDESMA VS CLIMACO
Nick: Counsel de oficio vs Election registrar job Facts: Prior to his appointment as election registrar for Cadiz, Negros Occ. on Oct 30, 1964, petitioner was counsel de parte as an accused in a pending case in the sala of the respondent. Citing the demands of his appointive post and the conflict that may arise between the discharge of his duties as election registrar and officer of the court, petitioner moved to withdraw as counsel. Respondent not only denied the motion, but appointed petitioner as counsel de oficio for the two other accused. Petitioner now comes before the SC to have the order of the respondent judge reversed on certiorari. Issue: WON respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion. Held: NO. The principal reason behind respondents denial of the motion to withdraw of petitioner is because of its effect to delay the case further. The criminal proceeding had already been postponed several times, and to grant the petitioners motion would have been tantamount to a denial of the accuseds rights. The fact that the respondent already appointed the petitioner as counsel de oficio other than the de parte, renders the latters excuse of the demand of his job as registrar inutile. There is no reason for him to compromise the accused; defense for want of time with the demands on the time of counsel de oficio is less than that of de parte. It is thus, clear that petitioner is merely reluctant to represent the accused, membership in the Bar requires the responsibility to live up to its exacting standard, which includes assisting the state when called upon to administer justice, the law is not a trade or a craft, but a profession. As such, the facts that petitioner will not be compensated for his trouble should not hinder him from defending the accused to the best of his ability. The right of the accused to counsel is a constitutionally protected right, such that any frustration thereof by petitioner amounts to a serious affront to the profession. Petition is dismissed. Petitioner is admonished.

Held: Yes. Respondent violated Rule 18.03 and 18.04 of Cannon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for having neglected a legal matter entrusted to him and did not inform complainant the status of his case but also disregarded the orders of the Commission without reasons which amounted to utter disrespect of authority and unethical conduct in the practice of his profession, thus, should be sanctioned. Respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months effective upon notice of this Decision. He is ordered to return to complainant within five (5) days from notice the sum of P17, 000.00 with interest of 12% per annum from the date of the promulgation of this Decision until the full amount shall have been returned.
Rule 18.03 A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable period of time to the clients request for information.

OLBES VS DECIEMBRE
Nick: Four 50k checks 1.01 Facts: Atty. Victor V. Deciembre was given five blank checks by Spouses Olbes for security of a loan. After the loan was paid and a receipt issued, Atty. Deciembre filled up four of the five checks for P50, 000 with different maturity date. All checks were dishonored. Thus, Atty. Deciembre fled a case for estafa against the spouses Olbes. This prompted the spouses Olbes to file a disbarment case against Atty. Deciembre with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court. In the report, Commissioner Dulay recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years for violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Issue: WON the suspension of Atty. Deciembre was in accord with his fault. Held: Yes. Membership in the legal profession is a special privilege burdened with conditions. It is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law, but also known to possess good moral character. A lawyer is an oathbound servant of society whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for which he has sworn to be a fearless crusader. By taking the lawyers oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice. Lawyers should act and comport themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order to promote the publics faith in the legal profession. It is also glaringly clear that the Code of Professional Responsibility was seriously transgressed by his malevolent act of filling up the blank checks by indicating amounts that had not been agreed upon at all and despite respondents full knowledge that the loan supposed to be secured by the checks had already been paid. His was a brazen act of falsification of a commercial document, resorted to for his material gain. Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable practices

REYES VS VITAN
Nick: Dawlimps! Facts: Complainant hired the service of the respondent Atty. For the purpose of filing the appropriate complaint or charge against the complainants sister-in-law and its niece. The respondent after receiving the amount of P.17, 000 did not take any action on the complainants case. Issue: WON respondent violated Cannon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

LEGAL PROFESSION
USC Law 410

that are disgraceful and dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral flaw. The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by conduct that merely enables one to escape the penalties of criminal laws. Considering the depravity of the offense committed by respondent, we find the penalty recommended by the IBP of suspension for two years from the practice of law to be too mild. His propensity for employing deceit and misrepresentation is reprehensible. His misuse of the filled-up checks that led to the detention of one petitioner is loathsome. Thus, he is sentenced suspended indefinitely from the practice of law effective immediately.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

UI VS BONIFACIO
Nick: Immorality Facts: An administrative complaint for disbarment was filed against Atty. Iris Bonifacio for allegedly carrying on an immoral relationship with Carlos L. Ui, husband of complainant, Leslie Ui. Issue: WON she has conducted herself in an immoral manner for which she deserves to be barred from the practice of law. Held: The respondent was imprudent in managing her personal affairs. For instance, respondent admitted that she knew that Carlos Ui had children with a woman from Amoy, China, yet it appeared that she never exerted the slightest effort to find out if Carlos Ui and this woman were indeed unmarried. Also, despite their marriage in 1987, Carlos Ui never lived with respondent and their first child, a circumstance that is simply incomprehensible considering respondents allegation that Carlos Ui was very open in courting her. However, the fact remains that her relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members of community. Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be grossly immoral,: that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. Respondents act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal profession Wherefore, complaint for disbarment against the respondent, for alleged immorality is DENIED.

When required to answer, not only did he deny the complaint but he would also hold respondent Risma accountable for having instigating his client, the complainant, Flora Narido, to file a false and malicious complaint resulting in what respondent Linsangan called embarrassment, humiliation and defamation of a brother in a profession. Issue: WON Complaint for instigating the client to file an administrative case against another attorney will have merit Held: It seems unkind to allude evil motive to the attorney. It is perhaps more apt to state that his missionary zeal to fight for the rights of his clients triggered him into filing the administrative case. He should be admired for his dedication in championing the cause of the poor. His client is a destitute woman. She needed every centavo of the award. To her, any delay in the payment thereof meant grave injustice; it meant deprivation and starvation. Faced with the dilemma of his client, the attorney had to rise to the challenge. In view of this, it is more in keeping with Christian precept to say that it must have been the plight of his client- rather than his alleged financial interest- that compelled him to advise his client to file the case against the other attorney.

LAPUT VS REMOTIQUE
Nick: Employment Held: It is, however, the right of a lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. He may properly accept employment to handle a matter which has been previously handled by another lawyer, provided that the other lawyer has been given notice by the client that his services have been terminate.
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of the lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. A lawyer should not steal the other lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his services. Neither should he disparage another, make comparisons or publicize his talent as a means to feather his law practice.

BLANZA VS ARCANGEL
Nick: Volunteer / Photostat Facts: Complainants Olegaria Blanza and Maria Pasion ask this Court to take disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Agustin Arcangel, who volunteered to be their counsel to file pension claims, for professional non-feasance for (1) his failure to attend to complainants' pension claims for six years; (2) his failure to immediately return the documents despite repeated demands upon him, and (3) his failure to return to complainant Pasion, allegedly, all of her documents. Respondent contended that the complainants failed to cooperate and pay for photostat services, and explained that there were no agreement for his compensation as their counsel. Issue: WON respondent can be held liable. Held: No. x x x complainants themselves are partly to blame for the delay in filing their respective claims for their failure

NARIDO VS LINSANGAN
Nick: Championing the cause of the poor Facts: Two administrative cases wherein respondents Jaime S. Linsangan and Rufino B. Risma who represented adverse parties in a workmens compensation case, did mutually hurl accusation at each other. The charge against respondent Linsangan filed by a certain Flora Narido is that he violated the attorneys oath by submitting a perjured statement.

LEGAL PROFESSION
USC Law 410

to cooperate and pay for the photostat services. But while we are constrained to dismiss the charges against respondent for being legally insufficient, yet we cannot but counsel against his actuations as a member of the bar. A lawyer has a more dynamic and positive role in the community than merely complying with the minimal technicalities of the statute. As a man of law, he is necessarily a leader of the community, looked up to as a model citizen. His conduct must, perforce, be par excellence, especially so when, as in this case, he volunteers his professional services. Respondent here has not lived up to that ideal standard. It was unnecessary to have complainants wait, and hope, for six long years on their pension claims. Upon their refusal to co-operate, respondent should have forthwith terminated their professional relationship instead of keeping them hanging indefinitely. x x x let this be a reminder to Atty. Arcangel of what the high standards of his chosen profession require of him. Accordingly, the case against respondent is dismissed. So ordered.

should characterize a lawyer's efforts as when he is defending the rights of property. As it is, there is even the fear that a lawyer works harder when he appears for men of substance. To show how unfounded is such a suspicion, he must exert his utmost, whoever be his client. At any rate, with complainant having been satisfied with the explanation of respondent, he could not be justly charged of being recreant to his trust for personal gain. The dismissal of this case is therefore warranted. Petition is dismissed.

T H E L AW Y ER S O A TH I do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to do doing of any court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and I will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the court as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

OPERAL VS ABARIA
Nick: Whoever be your client Facts: This administrative proceeding was started by Pedro Oparel, Sr., who identified himself as a pauper in his complaint filed with this Court on August 27, 1970 against respondent Dominador Abaria, a member of the Philippine Bar. The charge was that respondent, whose services were retained to assist complainant recover damages from his employer for injuries suffered, acted dishonestly. Apparently, a settlement was reached, complainant having been made to sign a receipt in the sum of P500.00 for his claim, out of which was deducted P55.00 as attorney's fees, when the truth, according to the complaint, was that respondent did receive the much larger amount of P5,000.00. He accounted for the alleged sum of P5,000.00 by stating that P3,500 was spent by the employer for plaintiff's operation and medical bills, another P1,000.00 given to complainant's family during his confinement in the hospital, and then the P500.00 received in cash by way of additional settlement. He prayed that the complaint be dismissed. However, when investigated, Operal admitted that the administrative charge arose out of a misunderstanding between him and respondent. Issue: WON the respondent can be held liable. Held: No. While it would appear that under the circumstances no case lies against respondent Dominador Abaria, it is not amiss to impress on members of the Bar that the utmost care be taken to minimize occasions for any misunderstanding between them and their clients. The relationship being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the latter being adequately and fully informed of the mode and manner in which their interest is defended. They should not be left in the dark. They are entitled to the fullest disclosure of why certain steps are taken and why certain matters are either included or excluded from the documents they are made to sign. It is only thus that their faith in counsel may remain unimpaired. x x x the same zeal