You are on page 1of 8

FEBRUARY 14, 2019 [2:20:11]

Upon discussion of the merits of the case, we have the sub judice rule (but i can hear it as
sub judizzm rule haha pero sinearch ko sub judice rule siya lol), once the matter is already
in the court, then nobody (the party-litigants, the lawyers, the public) are not supposed to
dicuss the merits of the case in the public.

Right to counsel
- constitutional right of every litigant
- rules when it comes to right to counsel (enumerated)

In our jurisdiction, we have civil, criminal, and administrative cases. The right to counsel
would vary depending on the nature of the case.

What is the rule when it comes to criminal cases?


- In a criminal case, it is always mandatory that the accused must always be represented by
a counsel. Although, you will notice, in your prescribed text book, if the charge against the
accused would consist of less grave offense, it is always mandatory or imperative that one
should be represented by a counsel.

In a case of Cibal, the Supreme Court did not say any qualifications regardless of the nature
of the charge, whether it be grave or less grave offenses, the right to counsel is mandatory.

In the case of Former President Marcos, we all know that he was charged with murder,
together with his father, and some of alleged conspirators, and he was still taking law during
that time and he was the one who represented himself as a counsel all the way to the
Supreme Court. Well, I'm sure that being a law student, during that time, when he was
charged with murder, he was conscious of the consequences when he represented himself
as his own counsel.

He was actually reviewing for the Bar Exams during that time, and he was detained
because the charge against him was murder. Past disclosed that he was a sharp shooter.
He was a member of the rifle team at the UP. Regardless of the tribulations that was in, he
was able to pass the bar and even top it. So, the members of the SC could not actually
believe that he could top the bar, so again, since the SC was surprised of his performance,
he took oral examinations. From 96, his Bar Exam result went down to 91.

-CIBAL CASE-
Although you'll be surprised because he was a detention prisoner, yet he could prepare
pleadings for himself. So, I am pretty sure that he was assisted by legal counsel. Just
probably to dramatize his case, he was the one who signed his pleading. At that time he
was already convicted by Branch 76 of the RTC QC of homicide and initially, he was
assisted by a counsel de parte. However, I think the counsel de parte passed away so it
was the lawyer from the PAO who took over of this case.

And then, there was no appeal filed conformably with his instruction, so he filed a petition
for declaratory relief (it is a remedy available to the accused who was deprived of his
remedy to avail the available recourse under the rule). In this case, he was deprived of his
right to appeal from a decision which convicted him of the crime of homicide.

Up to the CA, he was the one who prepared his pleading.

Petition for certiorari is an original action, that means that you have to attach the necessary
documents in support for the petition.

Here in the case, inasmuch as he was not knowledgeable when it comes to the
jurisdictional requirements, he was not able to attach all the necessary documents. So the
CA, by way of technicality, dismissed the petition.

Appeal not being a matter right - It is only a privilege because you have to comply with the
jurisdictional requirements.

SC (In the case of Cibal): Being an ordinary layman and a detention prisoner, (although
ironic because how could he conceal all this prejudice if he is not well-versed when it comes
to rules of procedures, so obviously, somebody was assisting him by preparing all these
pleadings) But the SC took the decision by way of its face value.
SC said that this is actually not in consonance with the policy to decide as much as possible
based on substantive laws, not merely on technicalities.

SC said that even lawyers get entangled with the web of the intricacies with the rules of
procedures, how much more an ordinary layman?

When you're a lawyer, do you think a client will accept when you lose a case based on
technicalities? But it's alright if you lose a case on the merits because the decision is based
on the officiation by the court from the evidence presented by the parties and you can
confidently tell your client that that's just how it is.

Going back to the case, the SC approved the petition. The SC remanded the case to the
lower court.

Another justification why SC granted the petition is because the lower courts outrightly
dismissed the case based on technicalities and did not take consideration of the fact that
the accused was a detention prisoner and he has nowhere else to go and no prejudice will
be given to the government if they tackle the issue based on the merits of the case. It will be
different if he is out on bail. This is one of the exemptions that the SC would grant the
petition.

With only a little number of justices solving cases from all over the Philippines, what the
court would first look at is if you have complied with the jurisdictional requirements.

What are these jurisdictional requirements?


- In every petition, the counsel of record must indicate his roll number, IBP number, MCLE
compliance number, forum shopping certification, assailed decision or resolution must be
duly certified. If one is missing, the court will immediately dismiss the petition.

In this of Cibal, the SC emphasized that in criminal cases, an accused must always be
represented by a counsel.
Just to complete the discussion... Civil cases, unlike in criminal cases, the right to be
represented is NOT mandatory. However, if he would represent himself and it believes with
his little knowledge of law (Have you ever heard of "Little knowledge is dangerous"?) they
must suffer the consequences to it.

Administrative proceedings will not be invalidated simply because a party is not represented
by a counsel. It is only upon their request that they be represented by a counsel of their
choice.

Consequences of not being represented by a counsel:

- Custodial investigation - a suspect is still in the custody of the investigators. This is where
the Miranda rights would come in. It is the duty of the investigator to apprise the suspect of
this Miranda rights. During custodial investigation, the suspect made confession without
counsel, it would be inadmissible.

- If the one who represented him turns out to be a fake lawyer - his conviction would be set
aside. However, there is a gray area here. What if the accused knew that the one
representing him is not a lawyer? In other words, used as a scheme to set aside his
conviction. That would make him in pari delicto (Partners-in-crime). If both parties are in pari
delicto, they are not entitled to any relief in court.

It only goes to show that the right to counsel is paramount that it cannot be dictated that it
was a scheme.

There is a variation insofar as situation is concerned. What of he is acquitted? - Cannot


question it anymore. That would be double jeopardy.

- The mistake or negligence of the counsel is winding upon the client. That is the general
rule because if it is otherwise, every party-litigant who loses a case would just state that the
counsel was grossly negligent. Nobody is going to accept adverse decision anymore. They
will always put the blame to the lawyer.
Doctrine of hierarchy of courts...

What is an apellant's brief - summation of one's argument. One who interposed an appeal
would argue that the decision is contrary to law, jurisprudence, or the evidence relied upon
was spawned by misappreciation, or the evidence do not exist upon the records.

Once you, as a counsel, failed to file an apellant's brief, the burden of proving of that the
counsel was negligent in filing this is on the accused.

There are several consequences of not being represented by a counsel. So what else did
we discuss last time? (Wow, recap pa lang pala to)

- Brief history of Code of Professional Responsibility-

CPR is nothing more than rules pertaining to good manners and right conduct.

Consists of 22 canons, 77 rules, 4 chapters

[Short recap lang on business is different from the legal profession, I believe nasa ibang
recording ang extensive discussion on this]

Lorenzana v. Austria (Off-shoulder)


- The reason why I included this is because of the changing times.
- Once they become appointed as judges, they have to avoid any appearance of
impropriety. They should avoid any conduct or behavior or any appearance which would
cheapen the judicial position that they have assumed because naturally, if you're going to
project yourself that way, well, what is the impression that you can give?
- A judge does not actually shed off her position even in social media
- Should take into consideration the impression that it will give
- Penalty: Fine and a warning
- P20,000 as a fine for a judge is nothing, but for a judge to be guilty of an administrative
offense, that's something else because that would already affect their chances of
promotion. First thing that the JBC would always inquire from candidates is whether they
have already been charged of an administrative offense. They are particular of the pending
cases of judges, what more if one has been found guilty of such.
- What could be the impression if you saw a picture like that and you know that that person
is judge? It cheapens the judicial position.

Case of Vicki Belo vs. Guevarra


- This case is very significant in the sense that, well, the evidence here is the post which
respondent claim was made while his facebook was set on private. It was a private chat
message. Well, many people were asking, especially in the midst of cybercrime or cyber
libel, whether or not posts made by social media account owners when their facebook is on
private settings, can be used as an evidence. I think this case answers that question.
- Atty. Guevarra was representing a client who happens to be a patient of Dra. Vicki Belo of
the Belo Medical Clinic. Here, patient wanted to make her behind more attractive because it
is a botox augmentation.
- To posts were comical. Example: "Reyna ng Kaplastikan".
- All the posts made were intended to ruin the reputation of Dra. Belo, with the ending view
of closing the clinic. He really said that his intention really is to close the clinic. Initially, there
was a charge of libel against him but it was dismissed. When it was dismissed, Dra. Belo
filed a complaint for disbarment. According to Belo, all he really needs was money. It was
evident by the demand letter when Guevarra was demanding an amount of 200 million
pesos.
- Respondent's defense: His account was set on private, it was never for the public, but only
for a selected few. In other words, he did not deny that he made those posts but he was
contending that it cannot be used against him because that would be a violation of
constitutional right to privacy.
- There is no such thing as private when you talk about facebook.
- Respondent was not even able to establish that his account was really set on private.` But
the SC said that even when you prove that your account was set on private, you cannot
invoke your right to privacy. When you post to a social media site like facebook, there's
always a possibility that it will spread like wildfire.

Case of Burbe
- Lawyer was given an amount of P25,000 to be used for payment of docket fee, he was
pretending that there was already a complaint filed.
- The lawyer here was charged of 180,000 The client told the lawyer that alright i will pay
you but we have to file the complaint first. But there was a docket fee. In order for the court
to take cognizance of the case, You have to pay the filing fee or the docket fee. The amount
of the docket fee would actually depend on how much you are claiming.
- He pretended that a complaint was already filed.
- He discovered that there was no complaint filed, so he filed a complaint of disbarment.
- Respondent said that he never got paid his attorney's fees, but the thing is he already
received the amount of P25,000, but he's using it for the non-payment by the client for his
professional's fees since he was doing all sorts of legal services without him getting paid.
- SC said that the it is not the payment of the attorney's fees that would create the lawyer-
client relationship. As soon as the lawyer starts rendering services to another, there is
already the tie that was created and you cannot neglect your duty.
- What makes this case worse is that the lawyer actually pretended that he already filed a
complaint and if it weren't for the inquiry of the client, he wouldn't discover that there was no
complaint yet.

Case of Millare
- Supreme Court said that lawyers are not guns for hire. They are not supposed to do
anything their clients bid. Let justice run its natural force.

CHAPTER 2 - Admission to practice


- This is where the Supreme Court what constitutes practice of law.
- Open letter of UP & Cayetano v. Monsod cases were mentioned.
- There is no lawyer-client relationship between a student and a professor.
- However, if there is one activity that a lawyer would engage in which would involve
discussion anything and everything about law is teaching. The objective, however, in
teaching law is different from that of representing an actual client in court.

Activity outside of court


- Is preparing pleading considered as an activity outside or inside of court? Inside. Because
outside the court, when it is not filed to the court, it is just a mere scrap of paper.
- Cases are usually won by the submission of pleadings because at the end of the day,
judges would not rely on what transpired during the trial no matter how good the lawyer is.

Notary public
- In order to make sure that you are not a fly by night notary public, you have to apply for a
commission before the Office of the Clerk of Court. You have to submit a picture of your
office.
- Is this considered as a practice of law? - YES. It is not just a mechanical act that you have
to sign and seal the document. You have to examine the document to make sure that it is
not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public policy.You have to
examine if all the elements of a valid contract are there. (Consent, object, consideration)
- What is the significance of notary public? - Private to public document so it can be used as
evidence.

Qualifications
- The legislative department cannot actually diminish or expand the powers of the Supreme
Court. However, they may prescribe additional qualifications.

Admission to the practice of law (Set of previously established rules and principles, concrete
facts affecting individuals, decision as to whether the facts are governed by the Rules of
procedures)

Cases of figueroa, eala were mentioned (There are many cases daw that he wants to
discuss like those two)