CANON 12: Vaflor-Fabroa vs.
Paguinto
- an officer of the Court before an attorney to
your client
Rule 138, Sec. 20 (g)
- assess the problem of the client and see if
there is a basis for filing a case
- “the solution to your problem is outside of
legal remedy”
Rule 12.01 and 18.02
- “adequately prepared”:
1. know the facts of your case
2. now the law applicable to the issue at
hand
3. know existing jurisprudence on that
particular point of law that is being adjudicated
4. prepared with your pieces of evidence
- as a GR, you must prepare the
original documents during the pre-trial
conference
De Espino vs. Presquito
- issued 8 postdated checks which were all dishonored
- can the SC discipline a lawyer for a conduct that does
not arise from an attorney-client relationship? YES, as long
as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity or good demeanor.
- as lawyers, you should prevent the filing of these cases
against yourselves
- assist the Court in the speedy administration of
justice
- be an agent (aid the court), not a cause of delay
Rule 12.02
- forum shopping: purpose is to find the court
that would render a favorable judgment
- filing of multiple cases over the same
cause of action
Rule 12.03
- periods you have to reckon with:
1. period re: laws on procedure
2. periods that the court has granted to you
- causes of delay:
1. lawyer asking for postponement
2. judge
3. when the court requires the presence of
the fiscal
4. absence of the prosecutor
5. lawyer of the other party
6. parties themselves and their witnesses
7. force majeure
LEGAL ETHICS (2017) | FINALS | DE LEON Page 1
- the repeated ignoring of the orders of the Court
constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution and
indicates a high degree of irresponsibility
Mattus vs. Villaseca
- negligence on the part of the counsel
- when you accept a case, you must give it your utmost
fidelity and devotion -- from the start until the end
- had you performed the duties required, it would serve
not only the interest of your client but also to the speedy
administration of justice
Rule 12.04
- not to unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgement or misuse Court processes
Bugaring vs. Espanol
- speaking at liberty whenever he wants in utter disrespect
of the judge
- videotaping of the court proceeding
- threatening the judge
- it was the conduct of the counsel that earned the ire of
the judge
- counsel showed utter disrespect to said counsel and the
court which is a defiance of the court’s system for an
orderly proceeding, and obstructed the administration of
justice
Manila Pest Control vs. WCC
- Atty. Corpuz refused to receive the said decision
alleging that he was no longer handling the case and
instructed him to deliver it to Atty. Camacho
- Atty. Corpuz was the one who prevented his receipt of
the decision
- SC: they are guilty of delay and misuse of processes
- such conduct where out of excess of zeal and out of
desire to rely on every conceivable defense that could
delay if not defeat the satisfaction of an obligation
incumbent on one’s client, a counsel would put on most
favorable light on a course of conduct which certainly
cannot be given the stamp of approval
Malonso vs. Principe
- the decision of the IBP was not in accordance with the
Rules re: disbarment
- respondent was denied of due process
Rule 12.05
- you are not supposed to talk to your client who
is on the witness stand while on recess
 Rule 12.06
- not to knowingly assist a witness to
misrepresent himself or to impersonate another
Rule 12.07
- not to abuse, browbeat or to harass a witness
nor needlessly inconvenience him
Sambajon vs. Suing
- counsel brought 4 complainants who are not the real
complainants in the case
- he tried to coach his client or influence him to answer
questions in an apparent attempt not to discriminate him
- any act on his part that tends to obstruct, perverts or
impedes the administration of justice constitutes
misconduct
PD 1829 - Obstruction of Justice
- only in criminal cases
- when you obstruct the apprehension of suspect
- obstructing the proceeding of the cases by
destroying the evidence material to the cases such as
evidence to the commission of the crime or for the
prosecution of the defense
- penalty: prision correccional
Rule 12.08
- GR: not to testify in behalf of client
XPNs:
1. substantial matters – his testimony is
essential to the ends of justice
- he must entrust the trial of the case
to another counsel
2. formal matters – authentication of an
instrument
PNB vs. Uy Teng Piao
- duty of a witness (simple truth) vs. duty of a counsel
(truth bases on evidence)
Rule 3, Sec. 16, ROC
- inform the court within 30 days of the death
and give the name and addresses of his legal
representative/s
- failure shall be a ground for disciplinary action
- change of the addresses
CANON 13:
- always rely on the merits of your case rather
than influencing the person who adjudicates the case
- refrain from act giving appearance of
influence
- refrain from impropriety which gives
influence to the Court
LEGAL ETHICS (2017) | FINALS | DE LEON Page 2
Nestle vs. Sanchez
- picket
- justices issued subpoenas
- counsel convinced the people to remove the pickets
- SC: the duty and responsibility of advising them rests
primarily and heavily upon the shoulders of their counsel
of record.
In Re: De Vera
- constitutionality of Plunder Law
- he voiced out that the decision re: constitutionality
would lead to mass actions probably more massive than
those led to PP II
- SC: the remarks were far from being constructive
criticisms and served no other purpose than to debase
incumbent justices
- he was found guilty of indirect contempt because
the statements were aimed at influencing and threatening
the Court to decide in favor of the constitutionality of the
Plunder Law
Rule 13.01
- the relationship of lawyers toward the judges
must not be overly close
- not to exceed extraordinary attention or
hospitality
Rule 13.02
- “sub judice rule”
- no public statements to media re: the matter
that is subject to litigation that may arouse unwanted
public opinion (cannot be discussed on the merits)
Cruz vs. Salva
- trial by publicity
- the investigation was conducted not in the fiscal’s office
but in the session hall to accommodate the big crowd that
wanted to witness the proceeding
- fiscal allowed the press to ask questions and he will
reproduce them as his own
- he was re-trying the case by publicity
- actions of the prosecution went beyond the
Martelino vs. Alejandro
- court-martial being inhibited to try the case because of
the massive publicity
- cannot be prohibited because there is absence of
showing of failure of the court-martial to protect the
accused from massive publicity encouraged by those
connected with the conduct of the trial either by a failure to
control the release of information or to remove the trial to
another venue or to postpone it until the deluge of
prejudicial publicity shall have subsided
Re: Request TV Coverage of Estrada’s Trial

- individual right of the accused trumps the right of the
public to be informed
- no matter how impartial a judge is, if he knows that he is
being watched by the public, his demeanor will surely be
affected; he’ll be very reserved and inhibited in making
remarks that may earn him the ire of the public
Foodsphere Inc. vs. Mauricio
- “Batas Mauricio”
- worms in a CDO canned good
- used his position as a radio host to blackmail
Foodsphere by threatening the latter that he’d make
derogatory statements regarding its food products.
- violation of 13.02: for despite of the pendency of the
civil case and the issuance of a status quo order restraining
further publishing, he continued attacks against the
complainant and its products
Rule 13.03
- not to invite outside interference
Maglasang vs. PP
- wrote a complain to the President of the Republic of the
Philippines
- the separation of powers has been lost on Atty.
Castellano
- not even the President of the Philippines as Chief
Executive may pass judgment on any of the Court’s acts
ü Nature of the Attorney-Client Relationship:
- strictly binding upon the parties only
(personal)
- between the lawyer and the client only
- fiduciary and confidential
- undivided allegiance and utmost dedication for
the client must be exercised
ü Rules on Protective Relation
1. advise your client to seek your advice on
any legal problem
2. protect the interest of your client before
your own
- give updates about the status of the case
3. prohibition: lawyers are not allowed to
acquire any property of their client which
is being litigated that is the subject matter
of the case, in any mode
4. keep to inviolate the secrets of your client
(confidentiality)
- exception: law firm (every lawyer should
be privy of the information)
5. prohibition on representation of conflicting
interest
ü Retainer Agreement
LEGAL ETHICS (2017) | FINALS | DE LEON Page 3
- contract between a lawyer and a client
whereby the lawyer agrees to render general legal
services to the client upon the payment of a retainers
fee (Rule 138, Sec. 21)
- effect: prevents the lawyer to accept any other
case that may affect the cause of the client/ in
conflict with the cause of the client
- paid of retainers of fee regardless of there is a
legal service to be rendered
ü Employment of a Law Firm
- personal relationship is between the client and
the law firm
- every lawyer of the firm should be privy of the
information
CANON 14
- not to refuse his services to the needy
Rule 14.01
- same as Rule 138, Sec. 20(h)
- prohibition on discrimination
Francisco v. Portugal
- the lawyer cannot terminate a relationship without just
cause
- abandoning the cause of the client without just cause
- a client has the absolute right to terminate the
attorney-client relationship at any time with or without
cause
- the right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the
relation other than for sufficient cause is, however,
considerably restricted
Rule 14.02 (in re to 14.03)
- Possible grounds for refusal in being counsel
de oficio or amicus curiae:
1. incompetence
2. possible conflict of interest
3. possibility of being a witness
Rule 14.03
- Rule 116: Arraignment and Plea
Sec. 6 – duty of the court to inform
accused of his right to counsel; court must assign a
counsel de oficio
Sec. 7 – appointment of counsel de oficio
Sec 8 – time for counsel de oficio to
prepare for arraignment: “reasonable time”
- PD 543 – judges and court officers are
allowed to be designated as counsel de oficio
- RA 6035 – give TSN for free to pauper
litigants
In Re: Adriano
 - several extensions – appointed as counsel de oficio
- not just a perfunctory rendering of legal services
- representation should not be less just because you are
not being paid
- same standard of conduct is applied for paying and
non-paying clients
- CPR demands that a lawyer should always exert his best
efforts in the indigent’s behalf
Perez vs. Dela Torre
- extra-judicial confession (voluntary, in writing, with the
assistance of an independent and competent counsel)
- representation of conflicting interest (complainant –
accused): Atty. Dela Torre was representing the heirs of the
murder victim
- rationale for the prohibition on conflicting interest:
founded on principles of public policy and good taste
- in the course of a A-C relationship, the lawyer
learns all the facts connected with the client’s case,
including the weak and strong points of the case. It
behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate of the client’s
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.
- Rule 15.03: written consent of all concerned given after
a full disclosure of the facts
Canoy vs. Ortiz
- elected as councilor; lack of time
- remedy: could have informed the client
- equivalent to under-representation: failure of the lawyer
to meet the standards required by the Canon
- utmost zeal and fidelity up to the completion of the
case
Rule 14.04
- same standard for non-paying clients
- responsibility and competence is not less
because you are not paid
CANON 15
- characteristics of dealings with clients: candor,
fairness, and loyalty
- prescription on rule of confidentiality: none
Aromin vs. Boncavil
- failed to file an appeal that resulted to the attainment of
the finality of a decision
- gross negligence = breach of trust
- once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, the
lawyer owes fidelity and must always be mindful of the
trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the
client with competence and diligence and champion the
client’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and
devotion.
LEGAL ETHICS (2017) | FINALS | DE LEON Page 4
Jardin vs. Villar
- the lawyer did not formally offer the evidence
- no evidence – case was decided against his client
- gross negligence = breach of trust repost by the client
upon the lawyer
Rules 15.01, 15.02 & 15.03
- 1. ascertain as soon as possible the existent
of conflict
2. inform the prospective client
- shall not represent conflicting interest except
by written consent of all concerned
ü How to Determine Conflict of Interest:
- if the acceptance of the new client will require the
attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect
his first client in any matter in which he represents
and also whether he will be called upon in his new
relation, to use against his first client any knowledge
acquired through their connection
Jalandoni vs. Villarosa *
- already knows the conflict but it took him a long time to
withdraw as counsel
- two tests to determine if there is conflicting interest:
1. if the acceptance of the new retainer will require
the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his
first client
2. if it will prevent an attorney from the full
discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to
his client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double-dealing in the performance thereof, and also
whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use
against his first client any knowledge acquire in the
previous employment
Hornilla vs. Salunat
- once you are engaged by the corporation, you cannot be
engaged by any stockholder or board member in their
personal capacity against the corporation
- personal: each and every lawyer of the firm is the lawyer
of X
- test: WON in behalf of one client, it is the lawyer’s duty
to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it
for the other client
- whatever dealings or transactions with whomever client
the law firm wishes to enter into, the individual members
thereof are deemed part of the same. Consequently, such
members can’t represent parties who have an adverse claim
to the law firm’s clients under the guise that such
representation is not in behalf of the law firm but one
which is personal.
Gonzales vs. Cabucana
- sheriff case
 - each and every lawyer in that law firm is a lawyer of the
client
- whether the service is pro bono in nature is not an
excuse to represent conflicting interests
San Jose Homeowners Association vs. Romanillos
- subdivision lot case
- lack of opposition does not mean tacit consent
- as long as the lawyer represents inconsistent interests of
two or more opposing clients, he is guilty of violating his
oath
Rule 15.02
- rule of privilege communication
- what is included: all matters
- anything that is disclosed by the client is a
privilege communication
Hadjula vs. Madianda
- Madianda divulged the information that Hadjula told her
in confidentiality and used the information obtained in
cases filed against Hadjula
- a lawyer-client relationship was established from the
very first moment complainant asked respondent for legal
advise regarding the former’s business
- among the burdens of the relationship is that which
enjoins the lawyer to keep inviolate confidential
information acquired or revealed during legal consultations
ü Ethical considerations in deciding WON to take
a case:
1. due process clause and constitutional
presumption of innocence
2. defined by what evidence is available to you
at the time of the filing of the case
3. Rule 138, Sec. 3: oath regarding the client
Rule 15.04
- the lawyer can be a mediator, conciliator, or
arbitrator provided that there is a written consent of
all concerned
Rule 15.05
- duty to give a candid and honest opinion on
the merits and probable results of the case
- do not understate or overstate the chance of
your client
- candid about the prospects of the case
- never assure a client that you will win the case
Rollon vs. Naraval
LEGAL ETHICS (2017) | FINALS | DE LEON Page 5
- decision for the case was already final but the lawyer
still accepted the case
- Naraval should have told the client that there is nothing
left to do but instead he asked for legal fees
- respondent should have given her a candid, honest
opinion on the merits of the case
Yu vs. Bondal
- 4/5 cases duly attended by the attorney
- mere dissatisfaction does not automatically mean that
the lawyer was negligent
- does not automatically mean that the contract
between them is void
- when a lawyer takes a case, he receives an acceptance
fee
- not a contingent fee but an absolute fee arrangement
which entitles a lawyer to get paid for his efforts regardless
of the outcome of the litigation
Rule 15.06
- not to state or imply influence with public
officers tribunal or any legislative body
Reddi vs. Sebrio
- arrangement with the lawyer for the purchase of real
properties
- he convinced the complainant bribe a judge to close the
transaction, that is the common practice in the Philippines
Rule 15.07
- impress upon his client compliance with the
laws and the principles of fairness
Rural Bank of Capale vs. Florido
- forcibly took over the management and the premises of
RBCI
- physically destroyed the bank vault and brought a new
staff
- it is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and
lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain an intentional
wrong to their adversaries
- their duty to protect their clients must be within the
parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth,
the law, and the fair administration of justice
Rule 15.08
- dual profession
- shall make clear to his client whether he is
acting as a lawyer or in another capacity
Gamilla vs. Marino Jr.
 - failed to inform the client of the role he is playing
- should have been more transparent with the role that he
is playing especially when conflict of interest is possible to
arise
CANON 16
- duty to hold trust all moneys and properties of the
client that may come into the lawyer’s possession
- instances:
• money that belongs to your client but paid
to you
• authorized to settle a case/ settlement of the
civil aspect of the case
• rentals for properties leased out by the client
• bond posted in criminal cases
Rule 16.01
- duty to account for all money or property
collected or received for or from the client
Salomon vs. Frial
- supposedly the court should have custody of the cars but
it was retained by the lawyer, and it was alleged that he
used to cars repeatedly (damaged the car due to fire..)
- writ of preliminary attachment: to ensure compliance of
the judgement
- to satisfy judgement rendered
- provisional remedy on the part of the plaintiff
- the duty of the lawyer is to take care of the properties so
that they will retain its highest value for a public auction in
order to satisfy a judgement
- should have turned over the custody to the court
Almandarez vs. Langit *
- lawyer was the one who withdrew the money deposited
to the court
- failure on the part of the lawyer to account immediately
even after a demand letter
- a lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his
client’s money for himself by mere fact that the client owes
him attorney’s fees
- presumption: failure to return the money to the client
despite the demand gives rise to the presumption that he
had converted money for his personal use and benefit
- a gross violation of public morality as well as of
professional ethics, impairing public confidence in the
legal profession
Chua vs. Mesina
- in addition to the A-C relationship, there was also
business dealings
- the business transaction must be of protection of the
interest of the client
- should be with utmost honesty and good faith
LEGAL ETHICS (2017) | FINALS | DE LEON Page 6
- why are business dealings with the client discouraged?
Because of the possibility of the lawyer taking advantage
of the client
- might abuse his position
Viray vs. Sanicas *
- without knowledge of Viray, Atty. Sanicas had been
receiving partial payments from the spouses
- Viray made a demand to return the P95,000 but despite
this, the lawyer failed to return the money
- presumption: when a client demands for the account of
the money and the lawyer failed to account/return such,
there is presumption that the lawyer misappropriated the
money
Rule 16.02
- prohibition on co-mingling of funds
- each client separate and apart from his own
and those of others kept by him
Hernandez vs. Go
- instruction: use the properties, sell them and generate
proceeds to be paid to the creditors
- the lawyer kept ownership of the properties but kept the
properties to himself
- actions were contrary to the instructions of the client
- there was dishonesty and deceit on the part of Atty. Go
- violation on the prohibition on co-mingling
Tarog vs. Ricafort
- he deposited the money for consignation to his own
bank account and not to the court
- failure to issue a receipt when the client demands a
receipt for the money received by the lawyer violates the
rule on accountability
Rule 16.03
- delivery: when due and upon demand of the
client
- allows the lawyer to retain a lien
- you do not retain the lien without the
permission of the client
- implied authority when there is no
rejection of suggestion to retain lien from the client
Businos vs. Ricafort
- failure to return/deliver the money when due or upon
demand of the client violates the duty under 16.03
- when an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of
his client after it has been demanded he may be punished
for contempt as an officer of the Court for misbehaving in
his official transactions
Quilban vs. Robinol

- the original agreement was that Atty. Robinol is to be
given a part of the parcel of land
- he unilaterally changed the agreement to one of a
cash equivalent
- he stands obliged to return the money immediately to
their rightful owner
- not right to retain; not the original agreement
Dongga-as vs. Cruz-Angeles
- violates the fiduciary character of the relationship
- presumption of misappropriation
Rule 16.04
- can you borrow/lend from/to your client? Yes
- not prohibited but not encouraged also
- so long as you make sure that the interest and
rights of the client are amply protected
Barnachea vs. Quicho
- presumption of misappropriation
- consequence on the profession of misappropriation:
erodes public confidence in the legal profession
Rubias vs. Batiller
- property pending litigation cannot be acquired by the
lawyer
- consequence: null and void
- prohibition applies only when the case is pending
- if terminated, nothing prohibits the lawyer from
acquiring interest or ownership over the property
Art. 1491
- requisites:
1. there must be an A-C relationship
2. property in question must be the subject
of the litigation
3. lawyer acquires ownership
CANON 17
- lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and
he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him
- relationship is built on trust and confidence
- how do you preserve the trust and confidence?
• diligently handle the case
• in transactions, make sure that the client is
amply protected
• not to fail in rendering proper accounting of
the funds or property of your client and/or
delivery of the funds or property
LEGAL ETHICS (2017) | FINALS | DE LEON Page 7
- you can abandon your client when:
• instead of complying, client insists on
violating the law
• failure to pay attorney’s fees deliberately
• health reasons (not all)
Zabaljauregui vs. Gagate
- failure to attend to the case for which he already
accepted a fee
- SC: you are not obliged to take any case that is referred
to you, but once one accepts the case, there arises the duty
of the lawyer to diligently and zealously attend to the cause
of the client from start to end
Cantiller vs. Potenciano
- when he accepted the case, he already knew that he will
eventually withdraw because of his relationship with the
judge
- did not withdraw but actually concocted with the client
- the failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment
of a client’s cause makes a lawyer unworthy of the trust
which the client had reposed on him
Alisbo vs. Jalondon
- violation of prohibition on conflicting interest
- Atty. Jalondon failed to file a motion in order to favor a
former client
- representation of conflicting interest erodes confidence
in the legal profession
- deliberate act on the part of the lawyer to favor a
former client amounts to erosion in public confidence
Ngayan vs. Tugade
- affidavit was used against his very own client
- it was given to the other party who the counsel was
his former classmate
- respondent’s act of joining the adverse parties in
celebrating their victory over the dismissal of the case
against them shows not only his bias against the
complainants but also constitutes a degrading act on the
part of a lawyer
In Re: Suspension of Atty. Maquera *
- value of a foreign judgement: prima facie evidence of
the commission of the acts that were alleged
- what do you do: use that as an evidence and file another
disciplinary case in the Philippine jurisdiction
- not automatically disbarred because of a foreign
judgement
- only if the acts which were the cause of his
disbarment in a foreign jurisdiction also constitutes a
violation of the CPR and his oath
 CANON 18
- a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence
Parinas vs. Paguinto
- the lawyer did not meet the standard of competence and
diligence
- reminder of the SC to be selective of cases to handle
- when you accept a case you warrant to that client
that you are competent and diligent to handle the case
- commences from his retainer until his effective
release from the case
- sui generis character of administrative cases
- the State takes control of the proceedings because it
has the right to protect the profession
- can proceed independently
- a disciplinary proceeding does not involve a private
interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They
are solely for public welfare. The lawyer is called upon to
answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of the
court
Rule 18.01
- concept of having a collaborating counsel
- must have the consent of the client
- take cases that you know you can competently
and diligently handle
De Juan vs. Baria
- labor case filed by client against the employer
- Atty. Baria contends that he does not know how to
execute a Motion for Reconsideration of the judgement
- you are not obliged to take all the cases
- once you accept the case you have to devote
competence, diligence, and zealousness to the cause of
your client until the completion of the case
Rule 18.02
- adequate preparation: you must know --
1. facts of the case
2. applicable law
3. applicable jurisprudence
4. evidence
- no one should know the case better than you
- conflict of trial dates: file a written motion for
resetting of the hearing for the new case which was
set on the same date
- change of address: notify the court
- client dies: notify the court and ask for the
dismissal of the case (if criminal case)
- submit a list of the heirs for substitution
(if civil case)
LEGAL ETHICS (2017) | FINALS | DE LEON Page 8
Fernandez v. Novero
- Issue: Is the client bound by the acts or omissions by the
lawyer which are prejudicial to him?
- No, there is representation on the part of the counsel
that he will handle it with utmost fidelity, capability and
diligence
- lawyers are excepted to be acquainted with
rudiments of law and legal procedure, and anyone who
deals with them has the right to expect not just a good
amount of professional learning and competence but also a
whole-hearted fealty to the client’s cause
- did not attend the hearings, failed to file a motion to
formally offer the evidence, MR was filed out of time
- RA: did not know what happened because the
complainant did not furnish him a copy of stenographic
notes
Rule 18.03
- not to neglect legal matters
- his negligence renders him liable for the
damage cause to his client
- client cannot be excused from the negligence
of his lawyer
- recourse: he can go after his own lawyer
for damages
Barbuco v. Beltran
- appellant’s brief was filed 43 days late
- a lawyer should have asked for an extension
- inexcusable because he is part of a law firm
- he should have delegated the case to other lawyers
- all the lawyers of the law firm are your lawyers
Endaya v. Oca
- ejectment case – failed to file a memorandum
- reminder from the SC: the duty of the lawyer to
represent the client with utmost diligence and zeal from the
moment he accepts a case
- representation with utmost competence and
diligence
Dalisay v. Mauricio
- advantage created over the lawyers in media
- RA: client did not turn over the documents needed for
the case
- the neglect of duty renders him liable for the amount
given to him by the client
Rule 18.04
- inform client on status of case
- when:
• voluntary
• within a reasonable time
 - a way to protect yourself: “may we request the
Court to advise and send notice to the client also of
what happened to the case”
- ask the Court to notify the party
Ruiz v. Santos *
- client did not file an appeal so he filed a Petition to
Relief from Judgement
- should have filed a regular appeal instead
- not the proper remedy and a Petition to Relief from
Judgement is not a substitute for a lost right to appeal
- client is bound by the negligence of the lawyer because:
- agency relationship: acts of the lawyer is acts of his
client
- utmost competence and diligence
Soriano v. Reyes
- pre-trial brief importance
- failure to submit a pre-trial brief constitutes an
inexcusable negligence
- duty to advice the client on the status of the case
- there is always a need for the client to receive from the
lawyer periodic and full updates on developments affecting
the case
Somosot v. Lara
- contributory fault/negligence on the part of the client
- client failed to communicate and changed his address
without the knowledge of the lawyer
- it is not only the lawyer who has the duty to inform the
client of the status of the case, the client is also obliged to
follow-up regarding the status of the case
CANON 19
- representation with zeal within the bounds of the
law
Rule 19.01
- fair and honest means rule
- not to participate in unfounded criminal
charges
Rule 138, Sec. 20(d)
- fair and honest conduct
Pena v. Aparicio
- blackmail case (extortion)
- the letter was obviously designed to secure leverage to
compel complainant to yield to their claims; more than a
simple demand to pay
- there is a subtler way to state a demand letter
LEGAL ETHICS (2017) | FINALS | DE LEON Page 9
Rule 19.02
- rectify the fraud of your client
- when: as soon as you receive the information
- how: tell the client to rectify the assertion
- if he does not want to comply with the laws,
you can terminate the A-C relationship
Donton v. Tansingco (supra)
- drafted an agreement: breach of a constitutional
prohibition
- foreign lands
Rule 19.03
- the lawyer must dictate, not the client, what to
do
- initiate, dictate, and control the proceedings
and strategy
Solidon v. Macalalad
- it is the lawyer who should have required from the client
the documents needed for the petition
- he is the one who knows the requirements needed
CANON 20
- charge only fair and reasonable fees
- kinds of fees:
• Attorney’s Fees (awarded by the Court) –
actually paid to the party and not to his
counsel
• Attorney’s Lien – attorney’s claim on a
client’s property until compensation is
duly made
• Retainer’s Fee – preliminary fee paid to
ensure and secure a lawyer’s future
services, to remunerate him from being
deprived, by being retained by one party,
of the opportunity of rendering services to
the other party and of receiving pay from
him
• Contingency Fee – lawyer gets paid
depending on the success of the case
• Quantum Meruit – “as much as he
deserves”
RA 5185, Sec. 6
- a member of Provincial Board cannot collect
fees for representing the government
Rule 138, Secs. 24 & 32
- reasonable compensation:
1. importance of the subject matter
- urgency
2. extent of services needed
- difficulty of the issues
 3. professional standing or status 1. importance of the subject matter in the
- there is no standard controversy
2. extent of services rendered
3. professional standing
Masmud v. NLRC * - concept of contingency fees
- retainer fee: preliminary fee aid to ensure and secure a
lawyer’s future services so that you cannot be availed by
- agreement: 20% of the award of the LA, on appeal,
another client
another 10%
- may or may not require the rendering of legal
- PA: entitled to 40% because of the attorney’s fees
services
awarded by NLRC
- is he entitled to the remaining 10%?
- yes, provided in the agreement is payment of Research Services v. CA
contingency fees
- contingent upon a favorable judgement of the court - can he still collect even with the retainer agreement?
- the lawyer is gambling on the outcome of the case - agreement: P800/month
- ordinary AF v. extraordinary AF - he can still collect: quantum meruit
- ordinary AF: what was agreed upon - not limited
- contingency (depends on the positive/winning - retainer agreement is merely a preliminary fee
outcome of the case) - no intention to make the retaining fee as AF for the
- lawyer does not get anything until the resolution of services contemplated
the case - SC reminder:
- extraordinary AF: in the form of damages (indemnity for 1. a RFA does not preclude the lawyer from
the filing of the case) collecting additional legal fees on extralegal services
- those damages pertain to the client and not the rendered
lawyer 2. when the lawyer performed a legal service , it is
- not agreed upon by the client always presumed to be for a consideration and not
- rationale: a lawyer can charge a higher rate if the gratuitous
payment is a contingency agreement because of the risk
assumed by the lawyer Rule 20.01
- what is controlling: the agreement on the contract unless
- fees shall be guided by the following factors:
unconscionable
a. time spent and the extent of service
rendered or required
Orocio v. Angulan * - concept of quantum meruit b. novelty and difficulty of questions
involved
- arrangement: no acceptance fee, no appearance or
c. importance of the subject matter
meeting fee, contingency of 15%
- CA: P1M only as AF based on quantum meruit d. skill demanded
- Principle of Quantum Meruit: “as much as he e. probability of losing other employment
deserves” as result of acceptance of the proffered
- device to prevent unjust enrichment case
- tool used by Court to temper what they deem as f. customary charges for similar cases
unconscionable or unreasonable LF g. amount involved in the controversy
- depending on the extent of the legal services that and the benefits resulting to the client
the lawyer has rendered h. contingency or certainty of
compensation
Quirante v. IAC i. character of the employment
(occasional or established)
- how can the lawyer assert his right to AF? j. professional standing of the lawyer
1. can be brought on the case itself representing the
- if there is a contract between the parties, it
client
2. separate case governs
- expanded the different factors to consider
what constitutes reasonable compensation
Metrobank v. CA * - concept of retainer’s fee
- LFs cannot be standardized
- can the lawyer charge in addition to the retainer
agreement?
Rule 20.02
- yes, Rule 138, Sec. 37 - allows the lawyers to share fees in case of
- why did the Court apply quantum meruit? referral as long as it is with the consent of the client
- in fixing the compensation based on quantum
meruit, there are 3 elements:

LEGAL ETHICS (2017) | FINALS | DE LEON Page 10


 Urban Bank v. Pena * - concept of quantum meruit
- even the absence of a written agreement, an A-C
relationship arises
- even if verbal only, still is binding
- there is no need for a written agreement
- extent of work: negotiated with the informal settlers in
order to come up with a peaceful set-up for them to vacate
the premises
- alleged agreed LF: P24M
- written contract is not essential to establish A-C
relationship
- quantum meruit: P4.5M
- no extra-ordinary skills employing advanced legal
training nor sophisticated legal maneuvering were required
to be employed in ejecting the sub-tenants
Rule 20.03
- not to accept fees, rewards, costs,
commissions, interests, rebates, or forwarding
allowance or compensation other than from the client
to avoid representation of conflicting interest
Rule 138, Sec. 20 (e)
- same as 20.03
Rule 20.04
- avoid compensation controversy with your
client and shall resort only to judicial action to
prevent imposition, injustice, or fraud
- a case against your client for collection of LF
must be your remedy of last resort
- Atty. Canlas: “tell the Court not to issue a
certificate of finality”
Rule 138, Sec. 24
- fees: “no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services”
- no court shall be bound by the opinion of the
attorneys as expert witnesses as to proper
compensation
- a written contract for services shall control
the amount to be paid therefor unless found by
the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable
Rule 138, Sec. 32
- fees of Counsel de Oficio
Ramos v. Ngaseo
- Art. 1491(5) rationale: public policy
- recognition of unequal positioning of the lawyer
and client
- by virture of his office, an attorney may easily take
advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client and
unduly enrich himself at the expense of his client
- Art. 1491 requisites:
LEGAL ETHICS (2017) | FINALS | DE LEON Page 11
1. actual transfer of the property that is subject of the
litigation
2. during the pendency of the case
CANON 21
- duty to preserve the confidence and secrets of his
client even after the A-C relationship is terminated
- based trust and confidence
Rule 138, Sec. 20 (e)
- to maintain inviolate the confidence of your
client
Rule 130, Sec. 24 (b)
- cannot testify in any cases where any
communication or advice that may have been given
by the lawyer to the client in the course of the
professional relationship
- privileged communication
- lawyer cannot testify as to matters learned in
confidence
Art. 208, RPC
- prosecution of offenses, negligence and
tolerance
Hilado v. David
- the possibility to use the information available in the
office (law firm)
- application of prohibition
Yao v. Aurelio
- he was the retained counsel and at the same time a
stockholder of the corporation
- SC: cannot be engaged because he has knowledge and
possession of the documents that he can use to his
advantage and to the prejudice of others
- should not use profession to exact vengeance
- obligation to preserve the confidences and secrets of a
client survives even until the death of the client
Genato v. Silapan
- counsel was in possession of information that he can use
against the complainant because of his representation of
complainant in a BP 22 violation case
- can he disclose?
- only such information obtained by him through his
professional character can be privileged
- the privilege against disclosure of confidential
communications or information is limited only to such
which are legitimately and properly within the scope of a
lawful employment of a lawyer
- information to be disclosed must be indispensable to
protect the lawyer’s rights and pertinent to the case
 Junio v. Grupo
- always observe candor, fairness, loyalty in all dealings
and transactions with the client
- 5 years since the use of client’s money = shows his
blatant disregard of obligations which reflects on his
candor and honesty
Rule 21.01
- GR: you cannot reveal secrets and
confidences relayed to you by your client
- XPNs:
• authorized by client
• required by law
• necessity to collect fees
• in contemplation of a crime
• perpetuation of a fraud
Rule 21.02
- can use information received in course of
employment provided that there is consent given by
the client
Uy v. Gonzales (contrast w/ Genato v. Silapan)
- filed a case against the client for falsification of public
documents
- SC: the relationship stemmed from a personal
transaction rather than the practice of law by respondent
- there was no A-C relationship
- the information was culled from him being a
redemptioner of a property
- you cannot discipline somebody for asserting his
property and personal rights
- the rule on privileged communication is
Rule 21.03
- GR: no giving of information outside agency
- accountants ask permission from the
client to divulge the information then forwards the
request to the lawyer
- XPN: as long as approved by the client
Rules 21.04-05
- GR: Law firms may share information
- XPN: an express prohibition from the client
- take measures to ensure that the person will
keep the information inviolate
Rule 21.06
- cannot disclose to friends, family members
any information gathered from the client
Rule 21.07
- GR: not to reveal that you were consulted
- XPN: expect to reveal a possible conflict of
interest
LEGAL ETHICS (2017) | FINALS | DE LEON Page 12
- 15.01: as soon as practicable
- 14.03: possible conflict
CANON 22
- withdrawal of services only for good cause and
upon notice appropriate in the circumstances
Rule 22.01
- may withdraw in any of the following cases:
a. client pursues an illegal or immoral cause
b. client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct
violative of these canons and rules
c. inability to work with co-counsel
d. mental or physical condition of the lawyer
e. client deliberately fails to pay the fees or
fails to comply with the retainer agreement
f. lawyer is elected or appointed to public
office
g. other similar cases
Domingo v. Aquino - proper withdrawal
- proper substitution of counsel
- removal of the administrator is not tantamount to his
removal as the counsel
- client failed to notify the court of the change of counsel
- lawyer should have filed his withdrawal of appearance
to the court
- in the absence of a proper withdrawal, the decision,
however, is still binding to the client and the lawyer
Montano v. IBP
- agreement: P15k, 50% DP
- for the non-payment of P3.5k, the lawyer withdrew his
appearance as complainant’s counsel without his prior
knowledge and/or conformity
- SC: it is not deliberately failure to pay the fees for the
services
- considering the measly sum of P3.5k, it shows the
contemptuous conduct of the counsel
- lawyer should have filed a motion to withdraw his
appearance to the court because it needs approval by the
court itself
- there must be a formal discharge by the court
Venterez v. Cosme
- client can, at any time, terminate the A-C relationship
- the lawyer should file a motion to withdraw appearance
as counsel with the consent of the client
- if one cannot secure consent, you still have to file a
motion in the court but you have to allege a good cause
arising from 22.01
- the professional relation as a lawyer with his clients is
not terminated by the simple turnover of records of the case
to his clients
 In Re: Briones

- continued failure to file the required appellant’s brief

- he should have taken initiative to check if there are
important matters requiring his action or attention
- the cessation of his law practice is not an excuse for his
failure to file the required brief
- he must inform the court and client of a change in
address
- withdrawal should be a formal withdrawal of appearance

ü Two ways to properly withdraw appearance a

counsel:
I. Substitution initiated by Old Counsel:
a. File a written motion to withdraw as counsel
with the consent of the client
b. File a motion to withdraw and cite a good
cause/causes under 22.01
- will be heard by the court to prove that
there is a good cause for our withdrawal of
appearance

II. Substitution initiated by New Counsel:

a. Motion for Substitution is filed
- with the conformity of the old lawyer
- with the consent of the client

Rule 22.02
- duties of a lawyer who withdraws:
1. Immediately turn over all papers and
property to which the client is entitled
2. Cooperate with his successor in the
orderly transfer of the matter

Obando v. Figueras * - duties of a lawyer who

withdraws

- there is no termination of representation until an express

discharge from the court
- representation continues until the court dispenses with
the services of counsel in accordance with Sec. 26, Rule
138 ROC
- requisites under Sec. 26, Rule 138:
1. new counsel files a written application for
substitution
2. client’s written consent is obtained
3. written consent of the lawyer to be substituted is
secured if it can still be, if not, then the application must
carry proof that the notice of the motion has been served on
the attorney to be substituted in the manner required by the
Rules

LEGAL ETHICS (2017) | FINALS | DE LEON Page 13