THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

I. Canon 14 Service to the Needy

1. Availability of Services Regardless of Status – Rule 14.01

Rule 138, Sec. 20 Rules of Court

Section 20. Duties of attorneys. — It is the duty of an attorney:

(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey
the laws of the Philippines.

(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;

(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such
defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.

(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are
consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice
or false statement of fact or law;

(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his
client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or with
his knowledge and approval;

(f) 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;

(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay
any man's cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;

(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed;

(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his
personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the
end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.

Francisco vs. Atty. Portugal

Facts: SPO1 Francisco, Tan and PO3 Joaquin engaged the services of Atty. Portugal.

Atty. Portugal withdrew as counsel of the complainants after filing an Urgent Motion for Leave
to File Second Motion for Reconsideration, without their knowledge. He stopped answering the
complainants’ calls, and when they visited his address they found out that he moved out. He did nothing
to prevent the reglementary period for seeking reconsideration from lapsing.

Defense: Atty. Portugal claimed that there was no formal engagement undertaken by the parties. He
contended that it was a case he inherited from the original counsel, the case was affecting his other
professional obligations, that there’s a lack of adequate financial consideration, and he planned to travel
to the US to explore further professional opportunities. So, he decided to withdraw as counsel.

Ruling: The Court also rejects respondent’s claim that there was no formal engagement between the
parties and that he made all his efforts for the case without adequate and proper consideration. In the
words of then Justice Panganiban in Burbe v. Atty. Magulta:

After agreeing to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to both cause and client, even if
the client never paid any fee for the attorney-client relationship. Lawyering is not a business; it is a
profession in which duty of public service, not money, is the primary consideration.

SUSPENDED for 3 months.

2. Providing Counsel de Oficio – Rule 14.02

Rule 138, Sec. 31 Rules of Court

Section 31. Attorneys for destitute litigants. — A court may assign an attorney to render
professional aid free of charge to any party in a case, if upon investigation it appears that the party is
destitute and unable to employ an attorney, and that the services of counsel are necessary to secure the
ends of justice and to protect the rights of the party. It shall be the duty of the attorney so assigned to
render the required service, unless he is excused therefrom by the court for sufficient cause shown.

Rule 138, Sec. 20 (h) Rules of Court

(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed;

Rule 116, Sec. 6 – 8

Section 6. Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel. — Before arraignment, the court
shall inform the accused of his right to counsel and ask him if he desires to have one. Unless the accused
is allowed to defend himself in person or has employed a counsel of his choice, the court must assign a
counsel de oficio to defend him. (6a)

Section 7. Appointment of counsel de oficio. — The court, considering the gravity of the offense
and the difficulty of the questions that may arise, shall appoint as counsel de oficio only such members
of the bar in good standing who, by reason of their experience and ability, can competently defend the
accused. But in localities where such members of the bar are not available, the court may appoint any
person, resident of the province and of good repute for probity and ability, to defend the accused. (7a)
Section 8. Time for counsel de oficio to prepare for arraignment. — Whenever a counsel de oficio
is appointed by the court to defend the accused at the arraignment, he shall be given a reasonable time
to consult with the accused as to his plea before proceeding with the arraignment. (8)

Rule 124, Sec. 2

Section 2. Appointment of counsel de oficio for the accused. — If it appears from the record of the
case as transmitted that (a) the accused is confined in prison, (b) is without counsel de parte on appeal,
or (c) has signed the notice of appeal himself, the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals shall designate a
counsel de oficio.

An appellant who is not confined in prison may, upon request, be assigned a counsel de oficio within ten
(10) days from receipt of the notice to file brief and he establishes his right thereto. (2a)

PD 543

In re: Atty. Adriano

Facts: Atty. Adriano was appointed as counsel de officio for a rape case. He was given 30 days to file a
brief and later sought 30, 20, 15, 15, 10, and 5 days extension. All were granted but no brief was filed.
He did not bother to give any explanation. He was fined by the court, and still he paid no heed.

SC: As counsel de oficio, he has as high a duty to the accused as one employed and paid by defendant
himself. We do not accept the paradox that responsibility is less where the defended party is poor. It has
been said that courts should "have no hesitancy in demanding high standards of duty of attorneys
appointed to defend indigent persons charged with crime." A lawyer who is a vanguard in the bastion of
justice is expected to have a bigger dose of social conscience and a little less of self interest. Because of
this, a lawyer should remain ever conscious of his duties to the indigent he defends.

SUSPENDED for 1 year.

3. Valid Ground for Refusal – Rule 14.03

Perez vs Atty. Dela Torre, AC 6160, March 30, 2006

Facts: Pere,z, the brgy captain of Binanuaanan, Calabanga, Camarines Sur alleged that several suspects
for murder and kidnapping for ransom were apprehended and jailed by the police authorities; that Atty.
de la Torre went to the municipal building where the suspects were being detained and made
representations that he could secure their freedom if they sign the prepared extrajudicial confessions;
that unknown to the two accused, Atty. de la Torre was representing the heirs of the murder victim; that
on the strength of the extrajudicial confessions, cases were filed against them

Defense: Atty de la Torre explained that while being detained, Avila (one of the accused) sought his
assistance in drafting an extrajudicial confession regarding his involvement in the crimes of kidnapping
for ransom, murder and robbery.
Held: Atty. Danilo de la Torre is found GUILTY of violation of Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility for representing conflicting interests. He is SUSPENDED for THREE YEARS from the
practice of law

The prohibition against representing conflicting interest is founded on principles of public policy and
good taste. In the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with
the clients case, including the weak and strong points of the case. The nature of that relationship is,
therefore, one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. It behooves lawyers not only to keep
inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of impropriety and double-dealing for
only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount
importance in the administration of justice.

Canoy vs. Atty. Ortiz

Facts: In a complaint of illegal dismissal by elmer canoy against his former employer filed with the NLRC,
atty ortiz failed to submit the required position papers requested by the labor arbiter resulting to the
dismissal of the complaint.

Def of atty ortiz: for more than ten years, he catered to indigent and low income clients, because of too
much workload as radio host and councilor(bacolod) he was preoccupied with both his functions as a
local government official and a practicing lawyer.

Issue: WON atty ortiz is not in a position to carry out his work effectively or competently in this case
(14.03 a)

Held: No. His workload as a councilor and a practicing lawyer is not a reason for him to refuse offering
proper legal service to indigent litigants. (**Canon 14.03 of the CPR enumerated the valid grounds for
such refusal**)

there are no good reasons that would justify a lawyer virtually abandoning the cause of a client in the
midst of litigation without informing the client of the fact or cause of desertion. That the lawyer forsook
his legal practice on account of what might be perceived as a higher calling, election to public office,
does not mitigate the dereliction of professional duty.

lawyers who devote their professional practice in representing litigants who could ill afford legal
services deserve commendation. However, this mantle of public service will not deliver the lawyer, no
matter how well- meaning, from the consequences of negligent acts. It is not enough to say that all
pauper litigants should be assured of legal representation. They deserve quality representation as well.

Suspended for 1 month.

 4. Same Standard of Conduct for Paying and Non-paying Clients – Rule 14.04

In re: Atty. Adriano

Facts: Atty. Adriano was appointed as counsel de officio for a rape case. He was given 30 days to file a
brief and later sought 30, 20, 15, 15, 10, and 5 days extension. All were granted but no brief was filed.
He did not bother to give any explanation. He was fined by the court, and still he paid no heed.

SC: As counsel de oficio, he has as high a duty to the accused as one employed and paid by defendant
himself. We do not accept the paradox that responsibility is less where the defended party is poor. It has
been said that courts should "have no hesitancy in demanding high standards of duty of attorneys
appointed to defend indigent persons charged with crime." A lawyer who is a vanguard in the bastion of
justice is expected to have a bigger dose of social conscience and a little less of self interest. Because of
this, a lawyer should remain ever conscious of his duties to the indigent he defends.

Ruling:

RA 6003

RA 6043

RA 6035