You are on page 1of 9

a) Duty to the Legal Profession

i. In Re: Climaco, A.C. No. 134-L, January 21, 1974

Title: The Hon. Rafael C. Climaco, Judge Of the Court of First Instance of
Negros Occidental, Branch I, Silay City., A.C. No. 134-J, Resolution, En Banc,
Antonio, J., January 21, 1974
Doctrine:
Elements of inexcusable negligence in rendering an unjust judgment.—To hold a
judge liable for the rendition of a manifestly unjust judgment by reason of inexcusable
negligence or ignorance, it must be shown, according to Groizard, that although he
has acted without malice, he failed to observe in the performance of his duty, that
diligence, prudence, and care which the law is entitled to exact in the rendering of any
public service. Negligence and ignorance are inexcusable if they imply a manifest
injustice which cannot be explained by a reasonable interpretation. Inexcusable
mistake only exists in the legal concept when it implies a manifest injustice, that is to
say, such injustice which cannot be explained by a reasonable interpretation, even
though there is a misunderstanding or error of the law applied, yet in the contrary it
results, logically and reasonably, and in a very clear and indisputable manner, in the
notorious violation of the legal precept.

Duty of counsel to uphold the dignity of the court by not using offensive
languages.—A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is, “like the court itself, an
instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice.” His duty is to uphold the dignity
and authority of the courts to which he owes fidelity, “not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice.” It bears emphasis that the use in pleadings of language
disrespectful to the court or containing offensive personalities serves no useful
purpose and on the contrary constitutes direct contempt.
Issue:
Whether Acting City Fiscal Norberto L. Zulueta, of Cadiz, Negros
Occidental,use in pleadings of language disrespectful to the court or containing
offensive personalities constitutes direct contempt?
Ruling:
Yes, the petitioner on this case is liable for failure to observe conduct in
petitions and pleadings submitted to the court.
Section 20 (f) of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, states that, “To abstain from
all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or
reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with
which he is charged.”
On this case, the language used by the acting fiscal is with flare of anger
while mouthing the accused instead of professional focus on the case. Such act is
against the professional conducted expected from a lawyers and fiscals.

Title: Atty. Bonifacio T. Barandon, Jr. vs. Atty. Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr., A.C. No.
5768, Second Division, Abad, J., March 26, 2010
Doctrine:
The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet the high standards of
legal proficiency and morality. Any violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to
administrative liability. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
commands all lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor
towards their fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the Code provides: Rule 8.01.—A lawyer shall not, in his
professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Atty. Ferrer’s actions do not measure up to this Canon. The evidence shows that he
imputed to Atty. Barandon the falsification of the Salaysay Affidavit of the plaintiff in
Civil Case 7040. He made this imputation with pure malice for he had no evidence
that the affidavit had been falsified and that Atty. Barandon authored the same.

The use of intemperate language and unkind ascription has no place in the dignity of
judicial forum.—Though a lawyer’s language may be forceful and emphatic, it should
always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The
use of intemperate language and unkind ascription has no place in the dignity of
judicial forum. Atty. Ferrer ought to have realized that this sort of public behavior can
only bring down the legal profession in the public estimation and erode public respect
for it. Whatever moral righteousness Atty. Ferrer had was negated by the way he
chose to express his indignation.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the IBP Board of Governors and the IBP Investigating
Commissioner erred in finding respondent Atty. Ferrer guilty of the charges against
him; and
2. If in the affirmative, whether or not the penalty imposed on him is justified.
Ruling:
1. No, the decision of IBP of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner are
well founded.
Practice of law is a privilege which requires a continuous observance of high
standard of legal proficiency and morality, in the Code of Professional conduct, it
states that:
Canon 8- of the Code of Professional Responsibility commands all lawyers
to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their
fellow lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the Code provides:
Rule 8.01. – A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Atty. Ferrer’s action violated this observed and well established conduct
among practicing lawyers, for filing a case of falsification of public document
against Atty. Barandon for a request that is equally not allowed in law the
administration of office when he requested the falsification of his son’s DTR.
More so, the filed case against the petitioner is also not well-founded, his use of
language in the petition:
That the answer is fraught with grave and culpable
misrepresentation and "FALSIFICATION" of documents, committed to
mislead this Honorable Court, but with concomitant grave responsibility
of counsel for Defendants, for distortion and serious misrepresentation
to the court, for presenting a grossly "FALSIFIED" document, in
violation of his oath of office as a government employee and as member
of the Bar, for the reason, that, Plaintiff, IMELDA PALATOLON, has
never executed the "SALAYSAY AFFIDAVIT", wherein her fingerprint
has been falsified, in view whereof, hereby DENY the same including the
affirmative defenses, there being no knowledge or information to form a
belief as to the truth of the same, from pars. (1) to par. (15) which are all
lies and mere fabrications, sufficient ground for "DISBARMENT" of the
one responsible for said falsification and distortions."
The defendant-lawyer was also not able o observe the rules in Canon 7.3,
which states, “A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflect on his
fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life behave in
scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.”
Even when Atty. Ferrer denied the allegation for misbehaving shortly before
the trial began, Atty. Barandon presented a blotter report to the police of the
incident, where he threatened the lawyer while drunk. Such language and
unbecoming a member of legal profession, which the court can not countenance.
2. Yes, the penalty imposed to the defendant is justified.
The decision on this case of the IBP of Governors and the IBP Investigating
Commissioner are well founded, and can not merely decide without
administrative discipline imposed to the liable counsel for misconduct. In
Section 1, Rule 139-B of Rules of Court, “ The IBP Board of Governors may,
motu proprio or upon referral by the Supreme Court or by a Chapter Board of
Officers, or at the instance of any person, initiate and prosecute proper charges
against erring attorneys including those in the government service…”
Wherefore, after careful consideration of the evidence the decision of IBP
of Governors and the IBP Investigating Commissioner is hereby affirmed, Atty.
Edwin Z. Ferrer is hereby suspended for a year from practice of law, let the copy
of this decision be entered into his personal record as an Attorney.

3. Duty to Courts
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, 416 SCRA 465,
G.R. Nos. 159486-88
November 25, 2003
Doctrines:
The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will not denounce criticism made
by anyone against the Court for, if well-founded can truly have constructive effects in
the task of the Court, but it will not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the
erosion of our people’s faith in the judicial system, let alone, by those who have been
privileged by it to practice law in the Philippines.
A lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial
officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others.—Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the lawyer should observe and
maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and, indeed, should insist
on similar conduct by others. In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and
questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty.
Paguia has only succeeded seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of
justice.

Issue:
Whether Atty. Paguia violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Ruling:
Yes, Atty. Paguia had been warned repeatedly on the conduct that should be
observed along with the privilege of a practicing law.

In Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility it mandates that the


lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers
and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others. While Rule 13.02 of Code of
Professional Responsibility states that, “A lawyer shall not make public statements in
the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party.”

In this case the Atty. Paguia was repeatedly warned, however feeling passionate
about the case, he failed to observe the etiquette that is expected from a lawyer when
he repeatedly filed several cases which are already a forum shopping in nature,
responded with an unfounded claim that some justices violated of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, when the law is clear on the definition of partisan political activity, and
going out to the media stating again his unfounded claim, when the Code of
Professional Responsibility is clear on the limitation on issuance of statements on a
pending case which will arouse public opinion that may affect the people’s trust and
confidence on the legal and judicial system.

Wherefore, for the violation of Rule 11 and 13.2 the Code of Professional
Responsibility, Mr. Allan Paguia is indefinitely suspended of practice of law, inside
and outside of the Halls of Justice. Let the copy of this resolution be furnished the
Office of the Bar Confidant, the Integrated Bat of the Philippines, and Office of the
Court Administrator.
4. Duty To The Client

DONALD DEE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and AMELITO MUTUC,


respondents.
176 SCRA 651, G.R. No. 77439
Regalado,
August 24, 1989

Doctrine:

Documentary formalism is not an essential element in the employment of an attorney,


the contract may be express or implied.

Generally, an attorney is prohibited from representing parties with contending


position unless with their consent
A lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and reasonable compensation for
services rendered.—A lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and reasonable
compensation for services rendered at the special instance and request of his client
and as long as he is honestly and in good faith trying to serve and represent the
interests of his client, the latter is bound to pay his just fees.

Issue: Whether Atty. Mutuc can render services for two contrary party.

Ruling:

Yes, on this case considering the conduct of Atty. Mutuc, he was able to serve the
interest of both of his clients.

Under Canon 15 - A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all his
dealings and transactions with his clients. Thus, regularly a legal counsel are
prohibited to serve two contracting parties, to ensure that the strength and weakness of
the case of both parties will be protected.
On this case Donald Dee seek the assistance of Atty. Mutuc due to indebtedness to
Ceasar’s Palace, the legal counsel was able to prove that Ramon Sy was the real
debtor and not his client, which is not a conflict of interest to Cesar’s Palace and to
that of Donald Dee in trying to save his son.

Wherefore, Atty. Mutuc acting in good faith and in accordance to the interest of his
clients did not violate Canon 15, petitioner on this case should pay the legal counsel,
the May 9, 1986 decision is hereby affirmed with cost against petitioner.

MABINI COLLEGES, INC. represented by MARCEL N. LUKBAN,


ALBERTO I. GARCIA, JR., and MA. PAMELA ROSSANA A. APUYA,
complainant, vs. ATTY. JOSE D. PAJARILLO, respondent.
763 SCRA 288, A.C. No. 10687
Villamar Jr.
July 22, 2015

Doctrine:

Respondent represented conflicting interests in violation of Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of


the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) which provides that “[a] lawyer shall
not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given
after a full disclosure of the facts.”

The rule prohibiting conflict of interest applies to situations wherein a lawyer would
be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his present or
former clients.—The rule prohibiting conflict of interest applies to situations wherein
a lawyer would be representing a client whose interest is directly adverse to any of his
present or former clients. It also applies when the lawyer represents a client against a
former client in a controversy that is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject mater
of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former client. This rule applies
regardless of the degree of adverse interests. What a lawyer owes his former client is
to maintain inviolate the client’s confidence or to refrain from doing anything which
will injuriously affect him in any matter in which he previously represented him. A
lawyer may only be allowed to represent a client involving the same or a substantially
related matter that is materially adverse to the former client only if the former client
consents to it after consultation.
Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Conflict of Interest; The nature and extent of the information
received by the lawyer from his client is irrelevant in determining the existence of
conflict of interest.—The nature and extent of the information received by the lawyer
from his client is irrelevant in determining the existence of conflict of interest.

Attorneys; Disbarment; Suspension; Under Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of


Court, “[p]roceedings for the disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be
taken by the Supreme Court (SC) motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person.”

Issue:
1. Whether Lukban group have a a legal standing to file a complaint against Atty.
Pajarillo;
2. Whether Atty. Pajarillo served as a legal counsel for the conflicting interest of RBP
and Mabini Colleges Inc.

Ruling:
1. Yes, Lukabn group can file a complaint.
Following the guideline of Rule 139-B, Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys,
the Supreme Court or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines may proceed with
discipline, suspension, or disbarment of attorneys upon receiving a verified complaint
of any person.
In this case Lukban group may be not the group of people that seek the services
of the respondent but such cause is immaterial for as long as they have the personal
knowledge, material and substantial facts of evidence for their allegation/s.

2. Yes, Atty. Pajarillo served as a legal counsel for two conflicting parties which is
prohibited in the practice of law.
In Canon 15, Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that “[a] lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.”
In this case, Atty. Pajarillo contrary to evidence served as a legal counsel for
Mabini Colleges Inc., proof is the three vouchers that was issued for his services as a
legal counsel. Being the legal counsel for the Rural Bank of Paracale he is reponsible
in securing the loan of the other party. Having this knowledge he would also know the
weakness and strength of both party specially when he moved for the foreclosure of
the petitioners property.
Therefore, evidence and circumstances considered the Resolution of the IBP
imposing penalty to Atty. Jose D. Pajarillo of suspension of practice of law for one
year is hereby affirmed.

G. Where Lawyers are prohibited to practice:

1. Small Claims (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, The 2016 Revised Rules of Procedure for
Small Claims Cases)
SEC. 18. Appearance.– The parties shall personally appear on the designated
date of hearing.
Appearance through a representative must be for a valid cause.The representative
of an individual-party must not be a lawyer, and must
be related to or next-of-kin of the individual-party. Juridical entities shall not be
represented by a lawyer in any capacity.
The representative must be authorized under a Special Power of Attorney (Form
7-SCC) to enter into an amicable settlement of the dispute and to enter into
stipulations or admissions of facts and of documentary exhibits.
SEC. 19. Appearance of Attorneys Not Allowed.– No attorney shall appear in
behalf of or represent a party at the hearing, unless the attorney is the plaintiff or
defendant.
If the court determines that a party cannot properly present his/her claim or
defense and needs assistance, the court may, in its discretion, allow another individual
who is not an attorney to assist that party upon the latter’s consent.
2. Katarunang Pambarangay:
Section 415. R.A No. 7160: Appearance of Parties in Person. - In all katarungang
pambarangay proceedings, the parties must appear in person without the assistance of
counsel or representative, except for minors and incompetents who may be assisted by
their next-of-kin who are not lawyers.

You might also like