WADE, "NATURE AND MEANING OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION" This article basically states the attributes of the Learned Profession. First, that training is necessary for admission to a learned profession. Second, that the learned profession is characterized by an organization that sets standards for licenses and admissions into it. Third, and most importantly, the members of the learned profession are dedicated to a spirit of public service. With respect to the responsibilities of a member of a learned profession to his clients there is a relationship of trust and confidence. Also the professional should not have interests of his own.


A professional seeks to improve his profession. He has the duty to engage in research, to write articles and treatises. He must continue through self-education and has the duty to comply with the code of ethics. To the society, a professional has the duty to influence the opinions and actions of others. He must supply intelligent and unselfish leadership to the forming of public opinions and determination of important issues. LUNDBERG, "THE LEGAL PROFESSION - A SOCIAL PHENOMENON" The small body of law practitioners probably plays a much more weighty social role than do editors, physicians and publishers. This is because the social philosophy that is actually expressed in public policy is that of the man of law. The fact that lawyers make public policy is not a consequence of their being our weightiest intellects, but because of the nature of the state, which was established by lawyers along legalistic lines. The very existence of a legal profession presupposes a society torn by conflicts. Social conflicts are heightened by the chicaneries lawyers describe as part of their duties. If there were any real desire for reform in the profession, it would probably be accomplished in short order. A large part of social injustice exists because the legal profession has not shouldered the responsibilities that go with the privileges it enjoys. The task facing society is to make it possible for the constructive work that is done by lawyers on behalf of the middle class to be extended for the benefit of the lower class. PEREZ/SAN JUAN, THE REVOLUTIONARY IMPERATIVE OF LAWYERS IN THE PHILIPPINES Historically, lawyers have been known as mere mercenaries of the monied class. Their main concern is to enrich the landholdings and further the interest of these people. This has been the public perception for quite some time. There’s a need for a legal service program for social and economic

Handog nina Tina, Dorothy, Salve, Ian, Dodie, Ari, Joel, Alain, Naj, at ni Chek para sa mga magagandang babae at sa mga matipunong lalaki ng B2005. Naway maka-uno tayo lahat sa darating na eksamen J


transformation. Many forms of this type of legal service are being used today (Alternative Law, Developmental Legal Aid Human Rights Lawyering, etc.) The goal of the lawyer in these legal programs is to work for his own obsolescence, that is, to empower and train the layman such that time will come when his services will no longer be needed. This empowerment of the lower class of society is the revolutionary imperative of lawyers in the Philippines. Agabin: it’s difficult to go to far-flung and depressed areas and serve the underprivileged when your own family is in dire need of financial help. Of course, your first impulse is to do what you can to help them first, and then you focus on other social concerns

began the study of law, he had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study prescribed therein for a bachelor’s degree in arts or sciences with any of the following subjects as major or field of concentration: political science, logic, English, Spanish, history and economics.” LAW PROPER: RULES OF COURT, RULE 138, SEC 5. “… No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he satisfactorily completed the following course in a law school or university recognized by the government: civil law, commercial law, remedial criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation and legal ethics.” has duly law, and

CONST, ART VIII, SEC 5(5) “The Supreme Court has the following powers: (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase or modify, substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.” CONST, ART XII SEC 14 (2) “The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino citizens, save incases prescribed by law.” CONST XVIII SEC 10 “All courts existing at the time of the ratification of this Constitution shall continue to exercise their jurisdiction until otherwise provided by law. The provisions of the existing Rules of Court, judiciary acts, and procedural laws no inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative unless amended or repealed by the Supreme Court or the Congress.”
In re Cunanan The Supreme Court is the only constitutional body that can prescribe the admission requirements to the Philippines Bar. In the matter if the Integration of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines The Supreme Court, due to the powers given to it by the Constitution, has the over-all administrative power over the members of the Philippine Bar. The integration of the bar can serve the interests of justice better as it organizes the attorneys all around the Philippines.

REYES, "OBJECTIVES OF LEGAL EDUCATION IN PRESENT-DAY PHILIPPINE SOCIETY The problems concerning the legal profession, being the same, then the basic objectives of legal training do not appear to need drastic revision. Its end is still to provide those in need of legal service with skilled and moral practitioners. If change is required, it is one of emphasis. Lawyers must revise their attitudes towards social problems: • Concern should not be with remedial or curative practice. The bar, therefore, has to familiarize itself with negotiation, compromise, and arbitration techniques. • Favor "preventive" practice- the drafting of plain and unambiguous documents that will avoid doubts and controversies. • Extend services to neglected areas. Ultimately, education should not be mere spoon-feeding of pre-digested information. Studies must be organized and integrated so that student may see how each legal rule and principle connect with each other. AGABIN, "TEACHING LAW AS A SOCIAL SCIENCE" Why approach law as a social science? Reason, according to the realists, was not a reliable guide to law or moral understanding. And the case method isolates cases from their historical and social context and failed to take into account the factors that caused the evolution of legal principle. If the laws of any country are merely imported wholesale, it will not be an effective instrument for social control. By using the tools of social science in law, this will broaden the study of law into a multidisciplinary phenomenon. Law will cease to exist in a vacuum; it will be studied with insights from the social science. Legal education must train students also as responsible citizens cognizant of the social, economic, and political malaise gripping society. Viewing law as part of the larger social firmament enables the young lawyer to meet the pressing needs of his society.

PRE-LAW: RULES OF COURT, RULE 138, SEC 6: “No applicant for the admission to the bar examination shall be admitted unless he presents a certificate that he has satisfied the Secretary of Education that, before he


BERNAS, PREPARATORY BACHELOR OF ARTS AND PROFESSIONAL TRAINING First Class Lawyers should possess: • analytic skills (how to examine problems from all angles) • substantive legal knowledge (be able to zoom in on a law pertinent to client’s problem) • basic working skills (write, research, draft, express) • familiarity with institutional environment (maabilidad) • awareness of total non-legal environment (kelangan marunong makipag “link-up” sa ibang tao from other fields) • good judgment in the end, its not really the actual preparatory curriculum that matters, but how it was used by the student . Agabin: it doesn’t really matter what your prep. Course is, basta may basic understanding ng social sciences, ok na. During dean’s time, 2 yr. lng undergrad nila

one year. SEC 13: no candidate should influence any member of the committee and that they should not communicate with each other during the examinations. The candidate that violates this provision shall be barred form the exam and it shall count as a failure for him. Permanent disqualification may also be given as a sanction by the court. SEC 14: in order to pass, the candidate must have a general average of 75% with no grade lower than 50% in any of the subjects. The weights shall be distributed as follows: Civil Law: 15%, Labor and Social Legislation: 10%, Mercantile Law: 15%, Criminal Law: 10%, Political Law and International Law: 15%, Taxation: 10%, Remedial Law: 20%, Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises: 5% SEC 15: Feb. 15 or as close to it as possible will be the deadline of the committee to report on the examinations. The exam paraphernalia shall be deposited with the clerk of court. LABRADOR, THE BAR EXAMS AS NAN INTRUMENT OF LEGAL EDUCATION The bar exam has considerable influence on legal education. In that professors compile past bar questions and have used these as a GUIDE their students’ preparation. While the bar exams is not a positive and exact test of future competence and capacity, it is the best the court has devised to test prospective lawyers on both knowledge of the law as well as its application to sets of facts. Agabin: some schools focus too much and have become bar-oriented. We do not need ‘legal encyclopedias” but lawyers who are responsive to clients needs in particular and society in general.

RULES OF COURT, RULE 138 SEC 7: applicant must file with the clerk of the Supreme Court 15 days before the examination all the requirements in sections 2 and 3. SEC 8: the notice for applications will be published at least 10 days before the examination SEC 9: applicants shall be subjected to the following examinations: Civil Law, Labor and Social Legislation, Mercantile Law, Criminal Law, Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public Corporations, and Public Officers), International Law (private and public), Taxation, Remedial Law (Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence), Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises (Pleading and Conveyancing) SEC 10: Nothing can be brought in side the room. The same questions in English and Spanish shall be given to everyone. And theoretically, one can petition the Supreme Court the chance to use a noiseless typewriter. Nothing that could identify the examinee shall be placed on the examination papers. SEC 11: the bar examinations shall take place in Manila in the span of four days that would be designated by the chairman of the committee of bar examiners. The distribution of the exams shall be as follows: 1 st day: political law and International law (Am) and labor and social legislation in the afternoon (pm). 2nd day: civil law (am) and taxation (pm). 3rd day: mercantile law (am) and Criminal law (pm). 4th day: remedial law (am) and legal ethics and practical exercises (pm) SEC 12: bar committee shall be composed of one member of the Supreme Court (chairman) and 8 members of the Philippines Bar. They shall hold office for the period of

Legal Ethics is the embodiment of all principles of morality and refinements that should govern the conduct of every member of the Bar. It has been broadly defined as “living spirit of the profession, which limits yet uplifts it as a livelihood.” It specifically refers to the branch of modern science, which treats of the duties which an attorney owes to the court, to his client, to his colleagues in the profession and the public. In June 21, 1988, the Supreme Court promulgated the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Code establishes the norms of conduct and the ethical standards for all lawyers, including those in government service. The code consists of 22 Canons and 77 Rules, which is divided into four chapters, namely: the Lawyer and the Society, the Lawyer and the Legal Profession, the Lawyer and the Courts, and the Lawyer and the Client.


CANON 1: A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal process.
The trust society has put in the legal profession requires lawyers to be in the forefront in observing and maintaining the rule of law and the preservation of its democratic institutions and liberties. The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution, and obey the laws of the land. The CPR underscores the primacy of this duty by making it the first canon. Bautista v. Gonzales
The very first Canon of the new Code states, "a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal process”. Moreover, Rule 138, Sec. 3 of the Revised Rules of Court requires every lawyer to take an oath to 44 obey the laws of the Republic of the Philippines as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein." And for any violation of this oath, a lawyer may be suspended or disbarred by the Supreme Court. All of these underscore the role of the lawyer as the vanguard of our legal system. The transgression of any provision of law by a lawyer is a repulsive and reprehensible act, which the Court will not countenance. In the instant case, respondent, having violated Art. 1491 of the Civil Code must be held accountable both to his client and to society.

dispensing justice and resolving disputes in society. Any act on his part which visibly tends to obstruct, pervert, or impede and degrade the administration of justice constitutes both professional misconduct calling for the exercise of disciplinary action against him, and contumacious conduct warranting application of the contempt power. It is sometimes asserted that in the exercise of the power to punish for contempt or of the disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar, the Court is acting as offended party, prosecutor and arbiter at one and the same time. Thus, in the present case, respondent Gonzalez first sought to get some members of the Court to inhibit themselves in the resolution of this case for alleged bias and prejudice against him. A little later, he in effect asked the whole Court to inhibit itself from passing upon the issues involved in this proceeding and to pass on responsibility for this matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, upon the ground that the Court has become incapable of judging him impartially and fairly. Respondent Gonzalez misconceives the nature of the proceeding at bar as well as the function of the members of the Court. Undeniably, the members of the Court are, to a certain degree, aggrieved parties. But in the exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court acts as an entity separate and distinct from the individual personalities of its members. The power to exclude persons from the practice of law is but a necessary incident of the power to admit persons to said practice. By constitutional precept, this power is vested exclusively in this Court.

RULE 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
The lawyer assumes responsibilities well beyond the basic requirements of good citizenship. He should be the exemplar for others to emulate. Unlawful conduct: act or omission against the law. Dishonest act: lying/cheating. Immoral/deceitful conduct: involves moral turpitude. Anything done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals, or to any vileness, baseness, or depravity in the private and social duties that one owes to his fellows and society, contrary to accepted rule f right and duty between man and man. A lawyer who engages in any of these acts may be held administratively liable. Duh. Figueroa v. Barranco
Barranco was prevented from taking the lawyer's oath in 1971 because of the charge of gross immorality made by complainant. He bore an illegitimate child with his sweetheart, Patricia Figueroa, who also claims that he did not fulfill his promise to marry her after he passes the bar examinations. These facts do not constitute gross immorality warranting the permanent exclusion of respondent from the legal profession. His engaging in premarital sexual relations with

Zaldivar v. Gonzales

Apart from the constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the practice of law, which includes as well authority to regulate the practice itself of law, the disciplinary authority of the Supreme Court over members of the Bar is an inherent power incidental to the proper administration of justice and essential to an orderly discharge of judicial functions. The Supreme Court has inherent power to punish for contempt. The power is necessary for its own protection against an improper interference with the due administration of justice, it is not dependent upon the complaint of any of the parties litigant. Contempt of court may be committed both by lawyers and non-lawyers, both in and out of court. The disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the Bar is but corollary to the Court's exclusive power of admission to the Bar. A lawyer is not merely a professional but also an officer of the court and as such, he is called upon to share in the task and responsibility of


complainant and promises to marry suggests a doubtful moral character on his part but the same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct. The Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree. It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless act which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable members of the community.

grounds for suspension or disbarment of lawyers.

Melendrez v. Decena

Ui v. Bonifacio

In the case at bar, it is the claim of respondent Atty. Bonifacio that when she met Carlos Ui, she knew and believed him to be single. Respondent fell in love with him and they got married and as a result of such marriage, she gave birth to two children. Upon her knowledge of the true civil status of Carlos Ui, she left him. A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude". A member of the bar should have moral integrity in addition to professional probity. It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is "grossly immoral conduct" or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment. Immoral conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community." 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. We have held that "a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. Respondent’s 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.

Generally, a lawyer should not be suspended or disbarred for misconduct committed in his personal or non-professional capacity. Where however, misconduct outside his professional dealings becomes so patent and so gross as to demonstrate moral unfitness to remain in the legal profession, the Court must suspend or strike out the lawyer's name from the Roll of Attorneys. The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall be a person of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law, in the exercise of privileges of members of the Bar. Gross misconduct on the part of a lawyer, although not related to the discharge of professional duties as a member of the Bar, which puts his moral character in serious doubt, renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law. In the instant case, the exploitative deception exercised by respondent attorney upon the complainants in his private transactions with them, and the exacting of unconscionable rates of interest, considered together with the acts of professional misconduct, led the Court to the conviction that he has lost that good moral character which is indispensable for continued membership in the Bar.

Delos Reyes v. Aznar

Vda. De Mijares v. Villaluz

In this only Christian country of the Far East, society cherishes and protects the sanctity of marriage and the family as a social institution. Consequently, no one can make a mockery thereof and perform a sham marriage with impunity. The defense of respondent that what was entered into by him and complainant on January 7, 1994 was nothing but a "sham" marriage is unavailing to shield or absolve him from liability for his gross misconduct, nay sacrilege. The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall be a person of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent for admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law. Under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The commission of grossly immoral conduct and deceit are

Complainant submitted to respondent's solicitation for sexual intercourse because of respondent's moral ascendancy over her and if she would not accede, she would flunk in her subjects. The fact that he is a rich man and does not practice his profession as a lawyer, does not render respondent a person of good moral character. Evidence of good moral character precedes admission to bar and such requirement is not dispensed with upon admission thereto. Good moral character is a continuing qualification necessary to entitle one to continue in the practice of law. Immoral conduct has been defined as “that which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community”. In the present case, it was highly immoral of respondent, a married man with children, to have taken advantage of his position as chairman of the college of medicine in asking complainant, a student in said college, to go with him to Manila where he had carnal knowledge of her under the threat that she would flunk in all her subjects in case she refused.

Cordova v. Cordova

The most recent reconciliation between complainant and respondent (the Cordova spouses), assuming the same to be real, does not excuse and wipe away the misconduct and immoral behavior of the respondent carried out in public, and necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a member of the Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itself. An applicant for admission to membership in the bar is required to show that he is possessed of good moral character. That requirement is not exhausted and


dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. It persists as a continuing condition for membership in good standing. It is important to note that the lack of moral character referred to as essential is not limited to good moral character relating to the discharge of the duties and responsibilities of an attorney at law. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community; conduct for instance, which makes "a mockery of the inviolable social institution or marriage."

• • •

People v. Tuanda

The crimes of which respondent was convicted import deceit and violation of her attorney's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility under both of which she was bound to obey the laws of the land. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude might not (as in the instant case, violation of BP 22 does not) relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer; however, it certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such offense.

• • • • •

employed to bring suit or collect judgment, or to breed litigation by seeking out claims for personal injuries or any other grounds to secure them as clients Employing agents or runners for like purposes Paying direct or indirect reward to those who bring or influence the bringing of such cases to his office Remunerating policemen, court or prison officials, physicians etc. who may succeed, under the guise of disinterested friendly advice, in influencing criminals, the sick, the ignorant, etc. to seek professional services Searching for unknown heirs and soliciting their employment Initiating a meeting of a club and inducing them to organize and contest legislation under his guidance Purchasing notes to collect them by litigation at a profit Furnishing credit reports in expectation of possible employment Agreeing with a purchaser of future interests to invest therein in consideration of his services

RULE 1.02: A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal profession.
He should not subvert the law by counseling or assisting activities in defiance of the law; he should not promote an organization known to be violating the law nor assist it in a dishonest scheme; he should not allow his services to be engaged by an organization whose members are violating the law and defend them when they get caught. In re Terrell
The promoting of organizations, with knowledge of their objects, for the purpose of violating or evading the laws against crime constitutes such misconduct on the part of an attorney, an officer of the court, as amounts to malpractice or gross misconduct in his office, and for which he may be removed or suspended. The assisting of a client in a scheme, which the attorney knows to be dishonest, or the conniving at a violation of law, are acts which justify disbarment. (Though Terrell wasn’t disbarred here because he was acquitted of estafa, still his acts were unprofessional. He got suspended.)

Purpose of prohibition: to prevent “ambulance chasing” (i.e. the solicitation of almost ay kind of legal business by laymen employed by an attorney for his own purposes). The evils of ambulance chasing: • Fomenting litigation thus burdening the courts and the public • Subornation of perjury • Mulcting innocent persons by judgments upon manufactured causes of action • Defrauding injured persons having proper causes of action but are ignorant of their legal rights.

RULE 1.04: A lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end, or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.
He should be a mediator rather than instigator Parties to an amicable settlement enjoy benefits better than those, which can be legally secured — a litigation involves time, expense, and ill feelings which may well be avoided by he settlement of the action! Compromise can save client’s expenses and avoid clogging of the docket Castañeda v. Ago
The Court condemns the attitude of the respondents and their counsel who, far from viewing courts as sanctuaries for those who seek justice, have tried to use them to subvert the very ends of justice.

RULE 1.03: A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or delay any man’s cause.
A lawyer owes to society and to the court the duty not to stir up litigation — this is known at common law as the crime of “maintenance”. Unprofessional acts within the prohibition: • Volunteering advice to bring lawsuit except where ties of blood, relationship, and trust make it a duty to do so • Hunting up defects in titles or other causes of action and informing thereof to be


It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his clients propensity to litigate. A lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its primacy is indisputable.

He should refrain from even giving advice however if he labors under a conflict of interests between him and a prospective client or a prospective client and a present client.

RULE 2.03: A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act designed to primarily solicit legal business.
A lawyer should not recommend employment of himself, his partner, associate, or staff member to a non-lawyer who has not sought his advice; or give anything of value to secure his employment or to serve as a reward for having made a recommendation resulting to his employment A lawyer who agrees with a non-lawyer to divide attorney's fees paid by clients supplied by the non-lawyer is guilty of malpractice

CANON 2: A lawyer shall make his legal services available in an efficient and convenient manner compatible with independence, integrity, and effectiveness of the profession.
This arose because of the necessity of representation and the right to counsel in judicial or administrative proceedings. It is the responsibility of the bar to provide legal services. A wide gap exists between the need and its satisfaction because of: • Poverty and inability to pay • Ignorance of legal services or where to find a competent, dependable lawyer, and fear of delays and technicalities

RULE 2.04: A lawyer shall not charge lower rates to attract business.
The rule prohibits competition in charging professional fees for the purpose of attracting clients to lower rates. This does not prohibit reducing fees or not charging any at all to an indigent or someone who would have difficulty paying the usual fee.

RULE 2.01: A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the cause of the defenseless/oppressed.
This stems from the lawyer’s obligation to represent the poor and oppressed in the prosecution of their claims and defense of their rights. The court is empowered to require a lawyer to render professional services de oficio to any party in a case, if the party is without means to employ a counsel de parte.
Ledesma v. Climaco: A lawyer reluctant to fulfill his obligation would prejudice the welfare of the accused and his right to counsel. In criminal cases there can be no fair hearing without the accused being given the opportunity to be heard by counsel. It is essential for the court not only to apprise the right to attorney but to assign one de oficio for him if defendant is poor or give him reasonable time to find one. The present Constitution provides for the right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, and to be informed of such right.

CANON 3: A lawyer in making known his legal services shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information or statement of facts.
"Tradtional dignity": Restriction originated from practices in the Inns of the Court of England way, way back… they young men studying as barristers well are from well-to-do families who did not have to worry about earning a living and traditionally looked down upon all forms of trade and competition. This became a recognized custom and tradition carried over to the US and here. The profession is primarily for public service. To allow a lawyer to advertise his skill is to commercialize the practice of law and lower the public confidence. Not all types of advertising are prohibited — only those methods which are incompatible with the traditional dignity of a lawyer and maintenance of correct professional standards. Allowable advertising: • Publication in reputable law list with brief biographical and informative data • Ordinary simple professional card with name, firm, address, number and

RULE 2.02: Even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to safeguard the latter’s rights.
A lawyer may refuse to accept a case for valid reasons (e.g. not in a position to effectively/competently carry out the case), but he shall not refuse to advise the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to protect that person’s interests.


• • • •

• •

branch of law practiced Announcement or representation in a local legal journal, but with no reference to special qualificzations and must not be given to non-lawyers Seeking of appointment to public office that may be filled up only by a lawyer Proffer of free legal services to the indigent Writing of legal articles — write and sell articles of general nature on legal subjects for publication; no improper advertising, giving of legal advice to one with whom no attorney-client relationship exists, or aiding of kaymen in unauthorized law practice Giving of advice on legal matters over the radio or through newspapers is improper because it is indirect advertising and a violation of the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship Engaging in business — OK as long as it is entirely apart from his functions in the practice of law, and not inconsistent with the lawyer's duties as a member of the Bar

for guidance as to what is or is not proper in advertising and solicitation.

RULE 3.02: In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading, or assumed name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its communications that said partner is deceased.
The reason for allowing the use of a deceased partner's name is that all of the partners by their joint efforts contributed to the goodwill attached to the firm name. The name of a law firm may not necessarily identify the individual members, so the continued use of the name after some members have passed away is not a deception. Filipino lawyers cannot practice under a foreign law firm as the foreign firm cannot practice in the Philippines.
In re Firm Name Sycip, Salazar… (before the new rule) Petitioners cited Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics of the American Bar Association" in support of their petitions. It is true that Canon 33 does not consider as unethical the continued use of the name of a deceased or former partner in the firm name of a law partnership when such a practice is permissible by local custom but the Canon warns that care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through this use. The possibility of deception upon the public, real or consequential, where the name of a deceased partner continues to be used cannot be ruled out. The familiar ring of a distinguished name appearing in a firm title might guide a person in search of legal counsel. Petitioners argue that U.S. Courts have consistently allowed the continued use of a deceased partner's name in the firm name of law partnerships. But that is so because it is sanctioned by custom. Not so in this jurisdiction where there is no local custom that sanctions the practice. Custom has been defined as a rule of conduct formed by repetition of acts, uniformly observed (practiced) as a social rule, legally binding and obligatory. Courts take no judicial notice of custom. A custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence. Juridical custom must be differentiated from social custom. The former can supplement statutory law or be applied in the absence of such statute. Not so with the latter. Moreover, judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws form part of the legal system. When the Supreme Court issued Resolutions directing lawyers to desist from including the names of deceased partners in their firm designation, it laid down a legal rule against which no custom or practice to the contrary, even if proven, can prevail. Our civil law clearly ordains that a partnership is dissolved by the death of any partner. Customs which are contrary to law, public order or public policy shall not be countenanced.

In re Tagorda The most worthy and effective advertisement possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced, but must be the outcome of character and conduct. The publication or circulation of ordinary simple business cards, being a matter of personal taste or local custom, and sometimes of convenience, is not per se improper. But solicitation of business by circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interview not warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional… It becomes the Court's duty to condemn solicitation of cases by lawyers. It lowers the standards of that profession. It works against the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar. It results in needless litigation and in incensing to strife otherwise peacefully inclined citizens. The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or suspension. Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot The advertisement posted by Bayot in the newspaper was a flagrant violation by the respondent of the ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation of business from the public. Section 25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice." It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a trade.

RULE 3.01: A lawyer shall not use or permit the use if any false, fraudulent, misleading, self-laudatory, or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
Commonsense and a spirit of fairness, if legal guidelines are absent, must be relied upon


Dacanay v. Baker and McKenzie

Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by the respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and associates in 30 cities around the world. Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine bar, practising under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of Baker & Mckenzie. As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment". This is unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practise law here.

Criminal complaints for estafa against those who assume to be attorneys. A government employee forbidden to practice law may be held criminally liable. A civil service officer/employee who did not have permission from the department head may be held administratively liable

CANON 4: A lawyer shall participate in development of the legal system by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the improvement of the administration of justice.
Not a strict duty, but a duty nevertheless. A lawyer must not be confined by technical legal questions but instead grow in knowledge and competence to make the law socially responsive.

RULE 3.03: Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law concurrently.
Reason for disqualification: a public office is a public trust. Conflicts of interest must be avoided to preserve the public trust in the public office. Absolutely prohibited from engaging in private practice or giving professional advice to clients as members of the bar: judges; other officers and employees of the courts, Solicitor General, and other government prosecution offices; the President; the Vice-President; members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants; constitutional commission members; civil service officers/employees required to devote their entire time to the government; governors, city and municipal mayors Prohibited only from appearing (arguing a case, filing of motions, please and answers) as counsel before any court and other bodies: members of the Legislature, members of sanggunian Civil officers/employees who are not required to have their time completely at the disposal of the government may be allowed to practice law with written permit from their department head But government officials who are prohibited by express mandate of law may not practice law even with the department head's consent, but may be allowed in isolated cases where he is to act as counsel for a relative or close family friend A person who haws been duly admitted to the bar and is in good and regular standing is entitled to practice law. Disbarred or suspended attorneys are prohibited from practice until readmission Legal rememdies to suppress unauthorized law practice: Petitions for injunction, declaratory relief, contempt of court, disqualification, complaints for disbarment

CANON 5: A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve highest standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding law and jurisprudence.
Counsel and judges must keep abreast of the latest decisions and precedents, to effectively discharge their duties and avoid mistakes. The three-fold obligation of lawyers entering practice: • Continue improving legal knowledge • Maintain high standards of legal obligation • Make law part of the social consciousness of the lay public In re IBP
The purposes of an integrated Bar, in general, are: (5)Provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law reform, pleading, practice and procedure, and the relations of the Bar to the Bench and to the public, and publish information relating thereto; (6)Encourage and foster legal education; (7)Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and adjective law, and make reports and recommendations thereon; and (8)Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility effectively. Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practicing because although the requirement to pay annual dues is a new regulation, it will give the members of the Bar a new system which they hitherto have not had and through which, by proper work, they will receive benefits they have not heretofore enjoyed, and discharge their


public responsibilities in a more effective manner than they have been able to do in the past. In many other jurisdictions, notably in England, Canada and the United States, Bar integration has yielded the following benefits: (1) improved discipline among the members of the Bar; (2) greater influence and ascendancy of the Bar; (3) better and more meaningful participation of the individual lawyer in the activities of the Integrated Bar; (4) greater Bar facilities and services; (5) elimination of unauthorized practice; (6) avoidance of costly membership campaigns; (7) establishment of an official status for the Bar; (8) more cohesive profession; and (9) better and more effective discharge by the Bar of its obligations and responsibilities to its members, to the courts, and to the public. Evils prophesied by opponents of Bar integration have failed to materialize in over fifty years of Bar integration experience in all the jurisdictions where the Integrated Bar has been tried; on the other hand, it has restored public confidence in the Bar, enlarged professional consciousness, energized the Bar's responsibilities to the public, and vastly improved the administration of justice.

Collantes v. Renomeron

The issue in this disbarment proceeding is whether the respondent register of deeds, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by this Court for his malfeasances as a public official. The answer is yes, for his misconduct as a public official also constituted a violation of his oath as a lawyer. The lawyer's oath imposes upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a source of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks (Canon 6). The acts of dishonesty and oppression which Attorney Renomeron committed as a public official have demonstrated his unfitness to practice the high and noble calling of the law.

CANON 6: These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official duties.
Reason for the rule: a lawyer does not shed his professional obligations upon assuming public office, because his conduct will be magnified in the public eye
Macoco v. Diaz Whatever might have been the agreement and with whomsoever respondent might have entered it into, the undeniable fact remains that he misappropriated the money in breach of trust. This makes him unfit for the office of an attorney-at-law. And his being a deputy fiscal and not law practitioner at the time of the misappropriation, far from mitigating his guilt, aggravates it. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office.

RULE 6.01: The primary duty of a lawyer in public prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts and concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and cause for disciplinary action.
A public prosecutor is a quasi-judicial office. He is a representative of not an ordinary party but sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest in a criminal prosecution is that justice shall be done. Prosecutors should not give the impression that their office is being used for political ends. While he may strike hard blows, he cannot strike foul ones. It is his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to make a wrong conviction, as it is to use every legitimate means to produce a just one. He should not hesitate to recommend the acquittal of the accused if he finds no legal basis for conviction. Like defense counsel he is presumed to be a man learned in the law, of high moral character, with the view that justice be meted out. Private prosecutor’s role: he is allowed to intervene in the prosecution of a criminal action when from the nature of the offense the offended party is entitled to indemnity and has not waived, expressly reserved or instituted the civil action for damages arising therefrom. A public prosecutor should not allow the trial in a private prosecutor’s hands to degenerate into a private prosecution. The administration of criminal law must not become a vehicle of oppression for any gratification of malice or private advantage.

Cayetano v. Monsod

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill." To avoid any misunderstanding which would result in excluding members of the Bar who are now employed in the COA or Commission on Audit, the provision on qualifications regarding members of the Bar does not necessarily refer or involve actual practice of law outside the COA. This means that as long as the lawyers who are employed in the COA are using their legal knowledge or talent in their respective work within COA, then they are qualified to be considered for appointment as members or commissioners, even chairman, of the Commission on Audit.


People v. Pineda

The Supreme Court believes in this case that the Fiscal has not abused his discretion. A prosecuting attorney, by the nature of his office, is under no compulsion to file a criminal information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof, or that the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion. This is not to discount the possibility of the commission of abuses on the part of the prosecutor. A prosecuting attorney should not be unduly compelled to work against his conviction. In case of doubt, he should have the benefit of the doubt.

made only after a complaint had been filed against respondent. Furthermore, the duties of a provincial prosecutor do not include receiving money from persons with official transactions with his office. The failure of respondent to immediately remit the amount to the SSS gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use. This is a gross violation of general morality as well as professional ethics; it impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.

Misamin v. San Juan

Suarez v. Platon

We cannot overemphasize the necessity of close scrutiny and investigation of prosecuting officers of all cases handled by them, but whilst this Court is averse to any form of vacillation by such officers in the prosecution of public offenses, it is unquestionable that they may, in appropriate cases, in order to do justice and avoid injustice, reinvestigate cases in which they have already filed the corresponding in formations.

RULE 6.02: A lawyer in government service shall not use his public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
Restriction applies particularly to lawyers in government service who are allowed by law to engage in private law practice and to those who are prohibited from practice but know people in the active practice of law. A public official should see to it that his private activity does not interfere with the discharge of his official functions. The foregoing principles complement the code of conduct for public officers and employees that they are not allowed to be employed in any private enterprise regulated by their office unless otherwise provided by law, to engage in private practice unless allowed by the Constitution and law provided that there will be no conflict of duties, to recommend any person to a position in a private enterprise which has a transaction with their office, and to use/divulge information known by them by reason of their office to further their private interests and to prejudice the public interest. Penticostes v. Ibañez
In his defense, respondent claimed that his act of accommodating Encarnacion Pascual's request to make payments to the SSS did not amount to professional misconduct but was rather an act of Christian charity. Furthermore, he claimed that the action was moot and academic, the amount of P1,804.00 having already been paid by him to the SSS. Lastly, he disclaimed liability on the ground that the acts complained of were not done by him in his capacity as a practicing lawyer but on account of his office as a prosecutor. The Court finds respondent guilty of professional misconduct. While there is no doubt that payment of the contested amount had been effected to the SSS, it is clear that the same was

While the charges against respondent have to be dismissed, still it would be appropriate for him as member of the bar to avoid all appearances of impropriety. The fact that suspicion could be entertained that far from living true to the concept of a public office being a public trust, he did make use, not so much of whatever legal knowledge he possessed, but the influence that laymen could assume was inherent in the office, to frustrate the statutory scheme that labor be justly compensated but also to be at the beck and call of alien interest, is a matter that should not pass unnoticed. Respondent, in his future actuations as a member of the bar. should refrain from laying himself open to such doubts and misgivings as to his fitness not only for the position occupied by him but also for membership in the bar.

RULE 6.03: A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had interned.
The restriction on the public official not to use his profession to advance private interests extends beyond his tenure on certain matters in which he intervened as a public official. He cannot accept work from anyone that will involve or relate to the matter in which he intervened as a public official, except on behalf of the public authority, which he served during his term. Sec. 7(b) RA 6713: no former public official/employee may practice his profession in connection with any matter before his former office within one year after retirement or separation from office. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act: public officials cannot accept or have any family member accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending business with him during the said pendency or within a year after its termination.

CANON 7. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar. 11

To enable the bar to be an effective instrument in the proper administration of justice, every lawyer should strive at all times to uphold the honor and maintain the dignity of the legal profession and to improve not only the law but the administration of justice as well. A lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his duties to the court, to the public to his brethren in the profession, and to his client. He advances the honor of the profession and the best interests of his client when he renders services or gives legal advice tending to impress upon his client and his undertaking exact compliance with the strictest principles of moral law. A lawyer should also involve in, and actively support the activities of, the IBP. He should not limit himself to merely paying his dues and other assessments of the IBP, but should also help realize its objectives and purposes: • To assist in the administration of justice • To safeguard the professional interests of its members • To cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood • To provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law reform, pleading, practice and procedure and the relations of the bar thereto • To encourage and foster legal education • To promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and adjective law, and make reports and recommendations thereon.
In re: 1989 Elections of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, 178 SCRA 398 (1989): “A basic postulate of the IBP, heavily stressed at the time of its organization and commencement of existence, is that the IBP shall be non-political in character and that there shall be no lobbying nor campaigning in the choice of members of the Board of Governors and of the House of Delegates, and of the IBP officers, national, or regional, or chapter… It is evident that the manner in which the principal candidates for the national positions in the IBP conducted their campaign preparatory to the elections on 9 June 1989, violated Section 14 of the IBP By-Laws and made a travesty of the idea of a “strictly non-political” Integrated Bar enshrined in Section 4 of the By-Laws… The candidates and many of the participants in that election not only violated the By-Laws of the IBP but also the ethics of the legal profession which imposes on all lawyers, as a corollary of their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws, the duty to “promote respect for law and legal processes” and to abstain from “activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system” (Rule 1.02, Canon 1, CPR). Respect for law is gravely eroded when lawyers themselves, who are supposed to be minions of the law, engage in unlawful practices and cavalierly brush aside the very rules that the IBP formulated for their observance. The unseemingly ardor with which the candidates pursued the presidency of the association detracted from the dignity of the legal profession. The spectacle of lawyers bribing or being bribed to vote in one way or another certainly did not uphold the honor of the profession nor elevate it in the public esteem.”

statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar.
A student aspiring to be a lawyer must, at that early period, study and observe the duties and responsibilities of a lawyer. He cannot claim that not being a member of the bar, the CPR does not apply to him. One who aspires to profess the law must show his fitness for admission by adherence to, or observance of, the standards of conduct required of all members of the bar. For failure to live up to them may prevent him from being admitted to practice and, if admitted without the SC acquiring knowledge of his transgressions thereof, he may be disbarred for such misconduct. Every applicant for admission to the practice of law must : • Be an RP citizen and resident (because an alien cannot maintain allegiance to RP, which the lawyer’s oath requires) • Be at least 21 years old • Be a person of good moral character • Show that no charges against him involving moral turpitude are filed or pending in court SC decides WON an offense involves moral turpitude. Applicant must disclose under oath in application form any crime of which he is charged. Concealment or withholding from court of fact that crime charged is ground for disqualification of applicant to take the bar exam, or for revocation of license to practice. If what the applicant concealed is a crime that doesn’t involve moral turpitude, it is the fact of concealment and not the commission of the crime itself that makes him morally unfit to become a lawyer. • Possess the required educational qualifications

(four-year high school course + bachelor’s degree in arts or sciences with PolSci/ Logic/ English/ Spanish/ History/ Economics as a major field of concentration + 4 year bachelor’s degree in law with completed courses in civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence, taxation, legal ethics). Courses of study must be completed in an authorized and recognized university, college, or school, and must be taken progressively in the usual manner (e.g. applicant who only completed pre-law after he began studying law not qualified to take the bar) • Pass the bar exams.

Rule 7.01 A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false

The SC may likewise prescribe such other qualifications or requirements as it may deed necessary to elevate the standards of the legal profession. The additional qualifications may be apart from whatever qualifications the legislature


may provide. By seeking admission to practice of law, applicant assumes the burden of proof to establish all those qualifications to the court. He must, accordingly, produce sufficient evidence to clear any doubt as to any of his qualifications. But after having presented prima facie evidence of his qualifications, it is incumbent upon anyone objecting to his admission to offer contrary evidence to overcome the applicant’s prima facie showing. The fact that the bar exam committee has passed upon, and is satisfied with, the applicant’s qualifications will not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry on the same question in a disbarment proceeding where that question is raised as an issue. The lawyer’s name may not, however, be stricken from the roll of attorneys by reason of alienage, non-completion of prescribed course, or bad moral character in the presence of clearly preponderant evidence that he did not, in fact possess the necessary qualifications at the time of his admission. The burden of proof, in such a case, shifts to the complainant.
Santos v. Llamas, 322 SCRA 529 “By indicating IBP-Rizal 259060” in his pleadings and thereby misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the CPR…”

shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
Camacho v. Pangulayan, 328 SCRA 631 “Although aware that the students were represented by counsel, respondent attorney proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with them and their parents with out at the very least communicating the matter to their lawyer, herein complainant, who was counsel of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. The failure of respondent whether by design or because of oversight is an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Respondent fell short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and a member of the Bar.” Javier v. Cornejo, 63 Phil 293 (1936) “Mutual bickering and unjustifiable recriminations between brother attorneys detract from the dignity of the legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from this court. Macias v. Malig, 157 SCRA 762 (1988) “The Court is not prepared to condone by passing over sub silentio the misconduct of which complainant and respondent are guilty one vis-à-vis the other. Each party here has shown himself to be too ready to believe the other guilty of serious misconduct in the practice of the profession to which they both belong while vehemently asserting his own good faith. Each party here was too anxious and willing to make serious accusations against the other which the exertion of reasonable diligence along with simple courtesy would have shown to be unwarranted by the facts and the records. Each attorney here was too prone to use intemperate and offensive language in describing the behavior of the other… WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that the charges and countercharges between Atty. Macias and Atty. Malig be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence and lack of merit, both parties should be severely disciplined by the imposition of heavy fine in addition to being subjected to stern censure by the SC. We hold that complainant Macias and respondent Malig are both guilty of conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the court. Lawyers must at all times treat each other, and as well as their clients, former clients, and the rest of the community, with that personal dignity, courtesy and civility rightly demanded of members of the ancient and learned profession of the law.”

Rule 7.02 A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar of any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or other relevant attribute.
He should not execute affidavit of good moral character in favor of applicant whom he knows has not lived up to such standard. He should help in guarding the bar against admission of candidates who are unfit or unqualified. He should volunteer information or cooperate in any investigation concerning alleged anomaly in the bar exam, so those candidates who failed therein can be ferreted out and those lawyers responsible therefore can be disbarred. He should expose before the SC corrupt or dishonest conduct in the profession and should accept without hesitation professional employment against a lawyer who has wronged his client.

Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.
Among the acts which adversely reflect on the lawyer’s fitness to practice law which justify suspension from practice or disbarment include gross immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, and fraudulent transactions.

Rule 8.01 A lawyer shall not, in professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. Rule 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful

Canon 8. A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward his professional colleagues, and


Improper conduct: competing with other lawyers over clients, stealing another lawyer’s client or inducing the latter to retain him by promise of better service/result/reduced fees, disparage another lawyer, make comparisons, publicize his talent as a means to law practice Lawyer may accept employment to handle a matter, which another lawyer previously handled, provided the other lawyer has been given notice by client that his service has been terminated. Without such notice of termination by client, a lawyer retained to take over a case from a peer should do so only after he shall have obtained the conformity of the counsel whom he substituted. If such conformity can’t be obtained, he should at least give sufficient notice to such lawyer of the contemplated substitution. The substituting lawyer may have the duty to contest the first lawyer’s claim to a right to compensation. But it is equally the substituting lawyer’s duty to give the first lawyer every opportunity to have his claim protected. A lawyer should not communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel. Much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel. Neither should he, in the absence of the adverse party’s counsel, interview the adverse party even if adverse party consents. Neither should he sanction his client’s attempt to settle a litigated matter with the adverse party without the knowledge of the latter’s counsel. The client should be left to determine WON to employ additional counsel. The lawyer subsequently retained as additional counsel, however, should communicate first with the original counsel before he enters his appearance in the case. He should decline association, as a colleague if the original counsel objects, but if the lawyer first retained is relieved, he may come into the case. When lawyers jointly associated in a case disagree on any matter vital to the client’s interest, the conflict of opinion should be frankly stated to the client for the client’s final determination.
Laput v. Remotique, 6 SCRA 45 (1962) “A lawyer was dismissed by his client because the latter no longer trusted him. In his stead the client contracted the services of another lawyer, who, to safeguard the interest of his client, prepared the papers for the revocation of the power of attorney previously executed in favor of the first lawyer. After the second lawyer had filed his appearance in court, the first lawyer voluntarily withdrew as counsel and, simultaneously, filed a motion for the payment of his attorney’s fees. Held: The appearance of the second lawyer is not unprofessional or improper; the first lawyer’s voluntary withdrawal as counsel and his filing of a motion for the payment of his fees amounted to an acquiescence to the appearance of the second lawyer.”

“Relying on the assurance of the party respondent in said cases and of a mutual acquaintance on the status of each of the two cases, respondent Atty. Clemente Soriano agreed to render professional services in consideration of a contingent fee and entered his appearance in cases L-24114 entitled PHHC and UP v. Mencias, Tiburcio , and L-30546, entitled Varsity Hills vs. Hon. Herminio C. Mariano, etc., both terminated before this Court. His entry of appearance in the said cases as “chief counsel of record” for the respondents in effect sought to pre-empt the former counsel, Atty. Memesio Diaz, of the premier control of over the case. Yet, he had not bothered at all to communicate with the latter. Held: Atty. Clemente M. Soriano is guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties as a lawyer and as an officer of this court. This inexcusable negligence would merit no less than his suspension from the practice of the law profession, were it not for his candor, at the hearing of this incident, in owning his mistake and the apology he made to the Court. It is in this sense that he is severely censured.”

Term “practice of law”: do any of those acts which are characteristic of the legal profession; embraces any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure and calls for legal knowledge, training and experience; presupposes attorney-client relationship, implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the public, as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in consideration of his service. However, an isolated appearance may amount to practice in relation to rule prohibiting some persons from engaging in the exercise of the legal profession. Practice of law is a privilege. But a lawyer cannot be prevented from practicing law except for valid reasons, the practice of law not being a matter of state’s grace or favor. Allowed limited representation on behalf of others by laymen: • Municipal trial court/metropolitan trail court – a party may conduct litigation with aid of agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose • Criminal proceeding before municipal trial court in a locality where duly licensed lawyer not available – the MTC may, in its discretion, admit or assign a person, resident in the province and of good repute for probity and ability, to aid the defendant in his defense although the person so assigned may not be a lawyer • Laymen is permitted by the SC to appear for another only in the Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court; he cannot represent another in any other court nor be appointed by any court other than the MunTC or MetTC to aid a defendant in his defense, in absence of an authority from the high tribunal. • Some laws: authorize union representative to appear for his organization or its members before the NLRC, labor arbiter or arbitrator (Labor Code & Rules of the NLRC) , and an individual to act on behalf of a claimant before a cadastral court. (Act No. 2259, Sec. 9)

In re Soriano, 33 SCRA 801 (1970)


Limitations that should be observed in cases where layman may represent another: • He should confine his work to non-adversary contentions (e.g. no examination or cross-examination of witnesses or presentation of evidence) • Services should not be habitually rendered. • Layman should not charge or collect attorney’s fees. Individual litigant in civil case has the right to conduct his litigation personally. But he will be bound by the same rules of procedure and evidence as those applicable to parties appearing through counsel. Moreover, he may not be heard to complain later that he has been deprived of the right to the assistance of counsel. An attorney otherwise disqualified to practice law or who has been suspended or disbarred from practice can validly prosecute or defend his own litigation. In criminal cases involving grave and less grave offenses, an accused who is a layman must always appear by counsel. A juridical person must always appear in court by a duly licensed member of the bar, except in the MunTC where it may be represented by its agent or officer who need not be a lawyer. Corporations cannot engage in the practice of law. They may hire attorneys to attend to and conduct its own legal businesses or affairs. But it cannot practice law directly or indirectly by employing a lawyer to practice for it or to appear for others for its benefit. Reason: nature of the privilege and on the confidential and trust relation between attorney and client. A lawyer should not allow an intermediary to intervene in the performance of his professional obligations. He may accept employment from any organization to render legal services in any matter in which the organization is interested, that employment should not include rendering legal services to members of that organization for their individual affairs. Exception: charitable society rendering aid to the indigent is not an intermediary within the meaning of the rule.

Hearing Examiner thereof, the parties shall not be required to be represented by legal counsel…” is no justification for a ruling that the person representing the partylitigant in the Court of Industrial Relations, even if he is not a lawyer, is entitled to attorney’s fees: for the same section adds that – “it shall be the duty and obligation of the Court or Hearing Officer to examine and cross examine witnesses on behalf of the parties and to assist in the orderly presentation of evidence,” thus making it clear that the representation should be exclusively entrusted to duly qualified members of the Bar… The permission for a non-member of the bar to represent or appear or defend in the said court on behalf of the party-litigant does not by itself entitle the representative to compensation for such representation. For Sec. 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, providing “Sec. 24. Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees – An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services…” imports the existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition to the recovery of attorney’s fees. Such relationship cannot exist unless the client’s representative in court be a lawyer… The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession should not be violated; that acting as an attorney without authority constitutes contempt of court, which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both, and the law will not assist a person reap the fruits or benefit of an unlawful act or an act done in violation of the law; and that if fees were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the public in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in cases of necessity and also leave the bar in a chaotic condition, aside from the fact that non-lawyers are not amenable to disciplinary measures. And the general rule above stated (referring to non-recovery of attorney’s fees by non-lawyers) cannot be circumvented when the services were purely legal, by seeking to recover as an ’agent’ and not as an attorney.” U.S. v. Ney, 8 Phil. 146 (1907) “Under section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, pleadings must be subscribed by the party or his attorney. The subscription of the names of other persons is impliedly prohibited and is illegal; nor can a subscription by an agent, other than an admitted attorney, be recognized. A person not admitted to the bar may not hold himself out to the public as engaged in the practice of law, either alone or as associated with a practicing attorney under a firm name… An attempt to practice law by a person who has by order of this court been refused admission to the bar is a disobedience of such order and is contempt of court, not qualified by the fact that an appeal has been taken from that order… The repeated irregular signature of pleadings by an attorney in the name of a firm improperly constituted, with one partner who, by an order of this court, had been denied the right to practice, and the participation by him in an act of contempt committed by such partner, is misbehavior which renders him guilty of contempt under section 232 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

Canon 9. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the unauthorized practice of law.
PAFLU v. Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Co., 42 SCRA 802 (1971) “Applicable to the issue at hand is the principle…that an agreement provided for the division of attorney’s fees, whereby a non-lawyer union president is allowed to share in said fees with lawyers, is condemned by Canon 34 of Legal Ethics and is immoral and cannot be justified. An award by a court of attorney’s fees is no less immoral in the absence of a contract, as in the present case… The provision in Section 5(b) of Republic Act 875 that ‘In the proceeding before the Court or


In re: del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399 (1922) “The practice of law is not an absolute right to be granted everyone who demands it, but is a privilege to be extended or withheld in the exercise of a sound discretion… Acquittal upon a criminal charge is not a bar to proceedings intended to determine if a candidate is worthy to be admitted to the bar… The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of criminal law.”

Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
Some requirements of candor: • Not suppress material and vital facts which bear on the merit or lack of merit of complaint or petition • Volunteer to court any development of the case which has rendered the issue raised moot and academic • Disclose to court any decision adverse to his position of which opposing counsel is apparently ignorant and which court should consider in deciding case. After doing so, he may challenge the soundness of the decision or present reasons, which he believes, would warrant court in not following it in the pending case. • Not represent himself as lawyer for a client, appear for client in court and present pleadings, only to claim later that he was not authorized to do so. However, lawyer is not an umpire but an advocate. He is not obliged to refrain from making every proper argument in support of any legal point because he isn’t convinced of its inherent soundness. Neither is he obliged to suggest arguments against his position.
Cobb-Perez v. Lantin, 24 SCRA 291 (1968) “A counsel’s assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his client’s case must be encouraged and is to be commended; what we do not and cannot countenance is a lawyer’s insistence despite the patent futility of his client’s position, as in the case at bar. It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his client’s cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his client’s propensity to litigate. A lawyer’s oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client. Its primacy is indisputable.”

Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.
Cannot be delegated to layman: work involving the application of law, like the computation and determination of period within which to appeal an adverse judgment, examination of witnesses, presentation of evidence. Allowed: employing lay secretaries, investigators, detectives, researchers, accountants, non-lawyer draftsmen, to undertake task not involving practice of law. Also allowed: availing help of law students in many fields of the lawyer’s work, like examination of a case law, finding and interviewing witnesses, examining court records, delivering papers, etc.

Rule 9.02 A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except: a. Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latter’s death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to persons specified in the agreement; or b. Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished or legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
These first two exceptions, strictly speaking, represent compensation for legal services the deceased lawyer rendered during his lifetime, which is paid to his heirs or estate. Improper: when effect of this arrangement is to make estate or heir a member of partnership along with surviving partners, or where estate or heir is to receive a percentage of the fees that may be paid from future business of the deceased lawyer’s clients.

c. Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan, even if the plan is based in whole or in part on profitsharing arrangement.
This exception does not involve, strictly speaking, a division of legal fees with non-lawyer employees. The retirement benefits in the form of pension represent additional deferred wages or compensation for past services of the employees.

Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court, nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by an artifice. Rule 10.02 A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.


To knowingly misquote or misrepresent in any of these matters not only unprofessional but also contemptuous. Examples of violations: making it appear that quotations in motion for recon were SC findings when they’re actually just part of the memorandum of the Court administrator, misspelling name of complainant, making the wrong citation of authority. Reason for this rule: “Only from this Tribunal’s [SC] decisions and rulings do all other courts, as well as lawyers and litigants, take their bearings. This is because the decisions referred to in Art. 8 of the Civil Code which reads, ‘Judicial decisions applying or interpreting laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines’ are only those enunciated by this Court of last resort…Thus, ever present is the danger that if not faithfully and exactly quoted, the decisions and rulings of this court may lose their proper and correct meaning, to the detriment of other courts, lawyers, and the public who may be thereby misled.” (Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., 37 SCRA 244, 279-280 [1971]) Lawyer shouldn’t assert as meritorious his client’s case when he has in his possession adverse information or knowledge in regard thereto.

the term “willful disobedience”. One such misconduct: failure to comply with court’s order to file appellant’s brief or comment within the required period. Lawyer has duty to defend judge from unfounded criticism or groundless personal attack. Special civil actions or proceedings: a judge whose decision or order is under attack in a higher court is merely a nominal party. A decent regard for the judicial hierarchy bars the judge from seeking a reversal of his action and requires the lawyer to refrain from making the judge appear as a party suing against the adverse ruling, so he may not be distracted from his main function of trying and adjudicating cases in court. The burden of defending his challenged action falls on private respondent and the latter’s counsel may be subjected to disciplinary action should he fail to discharge the task.
In re Sotto, 92 Phil 595 (1949) “Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or unsoundness of the decision of the court in a pending case made in good faith may be tolerated; because if well founded it may enlighten the court and contribute to the correction of an error if committed; but if it is not well taken and obviously erroneous, it should, in no way, influence the court in reversing or modifying its decision… To hurl the false charge that this Court has been for the last years committing deliberately ‘so many blunders and injustices,’ that is to say, that it has been deciding in favor of one party knowing that the law and justice is on the part of the adverse party and not on the one in whose favor the decision was rendered, would tend necessarily to undermine the confidence of the people in the honesty and integrity of the members of this court, and consequently to lower or degrade the administration of justice… [I]f the people lose their confidence in the honesty and integrity of the members of this court and believe that they cannot expect justice therefrom, they might be driven to take the law into their own hands, and disorder and perhaps chaos would be the result… As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts, Atty. Vicente Sotto…is in duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which he owes fidelity according to the oath he has taken as such attorney, and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. Respect to the courts guarantees the stability of other institutions, which without such guaranty would be resting on a very shaky foundation.” Komatsu Industries v. CA, 289 SCRA 505 “[T]he petitioner’s second motion for reconsideration could have been correctly rejected outright. But, as further noted, petitioner has distressingly adopted the lamentable technique contrived by losing litigants of resorting to ascriptions of supposed irregularities in the courts of justice as the cause of their defeat… Petitioner could have rendered a signal service to the judiciary if it had only verified and proved the facts it purveyed but which are now belied even just by the internal

Rule 10.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
Lawyer should not use his knowledge of law as instrument to harass a party. Misuse of judicial process: filing a petition as a scheme to frustrate and further delay the execution of a final and executory judgment. A deliberate misreading or misinterpretation of the law by a lawyer also falls under the injunction and puts him in public distrust.

Canon 11. A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
Lawyer owes the court the duty to observe and maintain a respectful attitude not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. Respect of courts helps build the high esteem and regard toward them which is essential to the proper administration of justice. Duty to observe and maintain the respect due the courts devolves not only upon lawyers but upon those who will choose to enter the profession. Failure to discharge such duty may be prevented from being inducted into the office of attorney. Lawyers must obey lawful orders of the court. Willful disregard thereof may subject the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanction as an officer of the court as well. A lawyer who gives a clearly unsatisfactory explanation on why he failed to comply with a lawful order, or who simply ignores it commits an act within the meaning of


rules of this Court, of which petitioner appears to be ignorant hence the valor of his nd denunciation. The members of the 2 Division of this Court vehemently deny and denounce the animadversion on their allegedly having been approached by Justice Padilla regarding this case. The Padilla Law Office, counsel for respondent private corporation, has submitted its response to the imputation against it, thus calling for petitioner to prove its charges. The same burden is also imposed upon petitioner for the aspersions it has cast upon the respondent Court of Appeals. We, therefore, leave it to the aforesaid law firm, Justice Teodoro Padilla and the Court of Appeals, on the one hand, and to herein petitioner, on the other, to decide for themselves whether to further pursue this incident in the proper proceedings. On such contingency, this Court will content itself …with a stern admonition that the petitioner refrain from conducts tending to create mistrust in our judicial system through innuendoes on which no evidence is offered or indicated to be proffered. Responsible litigants need not be told that only pleadings formulated with intellectual honesty on facts duly ascertained can subserve the ends of justice and dignify the cause of the pleader.” In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 (1970) “Membership in the Bar imposes upon a person obligations and duties which are not mere flux and ferment. His investiture into the legal profession places upon his shoulders no burden more basic, more exacting and more imperative than that of respectful behavior toward the courts. He vows solemnly to conduct himself ‘with all good fidelity…to the courts.’ …A lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Thus statements made by an attorney in private conversations or communications or in the course of a political campaign, if couched in insulting language as to bring into scorn and disrepute the administration of justice, may subject the attorney to disciplinary action… Post-litigation utterances or publications, made by lawyers, critical of the courts and their judicial actuations, whether amounting to a crime or not, which transcend the permissible bounds of fair comment and legitimate criticism and thereby tend to bring them into disrepute or to subvert public confidence in their integrity and in the orderly administration of justice, constitute grave professional misconduct… To view the doctrinal rule that the protective mantle of contempt may ordinarily be invoked only against scurrilous remarks or malicious innuendoes while a court mulls over a pending case and not after the conclusion thereof, is erroneous. The rule that bars contempt after a judicial proceeding has terminated has lost much of its vitality. As expressed by Chief Justice Moran, there may still be contempt by publication even after a case has been terminated.” Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, 31 SCRA 1 (1970) “A lawyer’s language should be dignified in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. It is the duty of a member of the bar to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of the party or witness, unless required by justice… The deletion of paragraph 6, which contained disrespectful language, did not erase the fact that it has been made. The explanation that the deleted portion was included in the motion filed in Court only because of mere advertence, does not make a distinguishing difference…Not only because it was belatedly made but also because his signature appeared on the motion to inhibit which included paragraph 6…

A person who admitted having prepared the motion for reconsideration, which contained contemptuous language, is guilty of contempt. The fact that he is not a lawyer is not an excuse… Counsel’s insistence that he had nothing to do with the contemptuous motion for reconsideration and had not even read it does not excuse him. AS counsel of record, he has control of the proceedings.” Guerrero v. Villamor, 179 SCRA 355 (1989) “Contempt of court may be either direct or constructive. It is direct when committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt proceedings before the same and constructive or indirect contempt is one committed out or not in the presence of the court. It is an act done in a distance which tends to belittle, degrade, obstruct, interrupt or embarrass the court and justice… [S]tatements complained of are not contemptuous. We agree with petitioners that the same are merely descriptive of therein plaintiff’s cause of action based on his reaction to what he perceived as a willful infliction of injury on him by therein defendant judge. Strong words were use to lay stress on the gravity and degree of moral anguish suffered by petitioner as a result of the dismissal of the subject criminal cases to justify the award of the damages being sought.”

Rule 11.01 A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.
Barong Tagalog, or a coat and a tie, either of which is the recognized formal attire in the country (Note: Agpalo does not say anything about the proper attire for lady-lawyers, but the general guideline is respect to the court.) If he dresses improperly, he may be cited for contempt.

Rule 11.02 A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.
Inexcusable absence from, or repeated tardiness in, attending a pre-trial or hearing may not only subject the lawyer to disciplinary action, but may also prejudice his client who, as a consequence thereof, may be non-suited, declared in default, or adjudged liable ex parte.

Rule 11.03 A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
A lawyer may sometimes use strong language to drive home a point, but he must remember that he pleads and does not dictate. The lawyer’s discharge of his duty to his client does not justify or require the use of inflammatory or threatening words. The mistake of a judge in some of his rulings does not justify the use offensive language.


Neither does the lawyer’s superior ability permit him to lampoon the judge. Lawyer who uses intemperate, abusive, abrasive, or threatening language betrays disrespect to the court, disgraces the bar, and invites the exercise by the court of its disciplinary power. Judges also have the duty to respect the lawyers.
Enriquez v. Bidin, 47 SCRA 183 (1972) “Atty. De Leon had filed his ex-parte manifestation dated 18 November 1968, complaining that the clerk’s office had sent notices only to petitioner and there seemed to exist an unsavory tie which links the herein petitioner with some people in the SC in a manner deliberately if not maliciously designed to prejudice the lawful interests of your respondents… Pursuant to the clerk’s prayer, the Court issued its resolution…requiring respondent’s counsels to show why they should not be subject to disciplinary action for their said statements…Atty. De Leon submitted his explanation…assuming sole and absolute responsibility for the statements in his manifestation to the exclusion of his co-counsel…and submitted ‘a narration of facts which tempered his mood and prompted him to make that statement obviously and certainly without malice to this Court’ and declaring his ‘honest and avowed intention of preserving the utmost dignity and integrity that is due this Honorable Court.’ … Acting on the premises, the Court feels that a great part of Atty. De Leon’s misconception was due to Zamboanga’ City’s distance form Manila and the deficiencies of the mail service as well as to his failure to file a similar request, as the city fiscal on behalf of petitioner mayor, to be advised by wire collect of the Court’s action on petitioner’s motion… Under the circumstances, the Court deems that an admonition with a warning to Atty. De Leon for having precipitately made such rash statements without basis that unduly reflected upon the personnel in the office of the clerk of court would suffice to uphold the ends of justice.” Sangalang v. IAC, 177 SCRA 87 (1989) “Atty. Sangco is entitled to his own opinion, but not to a license to insult the court with derogatory statements and recourses to argumenta ad hominem. In that event, it is the Court’s duty ‘to act to preserve the honor and dignity…and to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal profession… While a lawyer must advocate his client’s cause in utmost earnest and with the maximum he can marshal, he is not at liberty to resort to arrogance, intimidation, and innuendo.”

It is also lawyer’s duty to expose the shortcomings and indiscretions of courts and judges. Examples of proper forums: prosecution of appeals where he points out the errors of lower courts, articles written for law journals where he dissects with detachment the doctrinal pronouncement of courts and exposes the flaws and inconsistencies of the doctrines.

Rule 11.05 A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
Grievances against judges shall be filed with the Supreme Court which has the administrative supervision over all courts and the power to discipline judges of lower courts. Lawyer should refer charges against a judge only after proper circumspection and without using disrespectful language and offensive personalities. A lawyer may not file administrative complaint against a judge, which arises from judge’s judicial acts, until the lawyer shall have exhausted judicial remedies, which results in finding that the judge has gravely erred. If lawyer does so without exhausting such judicial remedies or awaiting their results, he may be administratively held to account therefore.

Canon 12 A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
One consequence: lawyer must inform the court, within 30 days after the death of his client in a pending case, where the claim is not extinguished by such death, and of the name of the deceased’s representative, so that substitution can be effected. Breach of this duty: disciplinary action against the lawyer Lawyer should also inform the court of any change of his address. Failure to do so: although won’t prevent any notice sent to his address of record to be effective, may will delay disposition of case

Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.
Lawyer should not make hasty accusations against the judge without any cogent and valid ground extant in the record. Lawyer may criticize judicial conduct as long as the record supports it or it is material to the case.

Rule 12.01 A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared himself on the law and on the facts of his case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its profference. He should also be ready with the original documents for comparison with the copies.
See Rule 18.02

Rule 12.02 A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the same cause.


Litigation must end sometime and somewhere, and the effective and efficient administration of justice demands that once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through subterfuge and misuse of legal process, deprived of that verdict. Thus, lawyer shouldn’t file several actions or petitions arising from the same cause or seeking substantially identical reliefs as those that had already been disposed of. Lawyer should not file petition with the CA or the RTC where a similar petition has been filed or is pending with the SC, and vice versa. In short, lawyer should not forum-shop. Forum shopping: the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has been rendered in one forum, of seeking another (exception: appeal or special civil action of certiorari) or of instituting 2 or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the other would make a favorable disposition Test of forum shopping: WON elements of litis pendentia are present or whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in another. In other words, if the party pursues the same cause of action, involving the same issues, parties and subject matter, in 2 different forums. Not forum shopping: • Filing several cases based on same incident if the cases involve different facts, circumstances, and causes of action • Filing criminal complaint arising from the same set of facts on which a civil action is based SC Revised Circular no. 28-91 to prevent forum shopping: In every petition filed with the SC, the petition must certify under oath: • He has not theretofore commenced any other action/proceeding involving the same issues in the SC, the CA, or any other tribunal or agency to the best of his knowledge, no such action/proceeding pending in SC/CA/any divisions thereof/any other tribunal or agencies • If there is such other action/proceeding pending: he must state status of the same • If he thereafter learns that a similar action or proceeding has been filed/is pending before the SC/CA/division thereof/other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and such other tribunal or agency of the fact w/in 5 days therefrom. Sanctions for violation: • Cause for summary dismissal of multiple petitions or complaints • Deliberate forum shopping through filing multiple petitions/complaints to ensure favorable action: direct contempt of court • Submitting false certification: indirect contempt of court, without prejudice to filing criminal action against guilty party and institution of disciplinary proceedings against counsel

In filing petitions and other initiatory pleadings in all other courts and agencies, the plaintiff must certify under oath in original pleading, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith (note: sanctions for violations same as those for rules governing SC and CA certifications) :

He hasn’t theretofore commenced any other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the SC/CA/other tribunal or agency to the best of his knowledge, no such action or proceeding pending before SC/CA/other tribunal or agency. If there is any such action pending or terminated, he must state status thereof. If after learning that similar action/proceeding filed or pending before the SC/CA/other tribunal or agency, he undertakes to report the fact within 5 days to court/agency where original pleading and sworn certification filed. Forum-shopping certification to be executed by petitioner or party litigant and not counsel, since petitioner is best person to know WON he or it actually filed or caused filing of another petition or action. Counsel’s certification against forum shopping is defective and is equivalent to non-compliance. Rare occasions where petitioner cannot execute certification and lawyer must immediately file petition to protect client’s interest: lawyer should execute the certification but state that he knows facts relative to the case and explain why petitioner can’t execute the certification. Rule against forum shopping applies to any proceeding, such as applications for search warrant. Previously, the circular required that the caption of petition/complaint include docket number of lower court case or quasi-judicial agency case sought to be reviewed. This requirement subsequently removed. Lawyer should temper client’s propensity to litigate Civil suit: lawyer should decline to conduct a civil cause or to make a defense in a civil suit when convinced that it is intended to injure or harass the opposite party or to work oppression or wrong If after his appearance the lawyer discovers that his client has no case: he should advice client to discontinue action or confess judgment; if client insists, lawyer should ask to be relieved of professional responsibility.
Far Eastern Shipping v. CA, 297 SCRA 30 (1998) “Prefatorily, on matters of compliance with procedural requirements, it must be mentioned that the conduct of the respective counsel for FESC and PPA leaves much to be desired, to the displeasure and disappointment of this Court…[description follows of how both parties violated SC rules on certification against forum-shopping] “Counsel for FESC…is reprimanded and warned that a repetition of the same or similar


acts of heedless disregard of its undertakings under the Rules shall be dealt with more severely. The original members of the legal team of the OSG assigned to this case…are admonished and warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts of unduly delaying proceedings due to delayed filing of the required pleadings shall also be dealt with more stringently. The SolGen is directed to look into the circumstances of this case and to adopt provident measures to avoid a repetition of this incident and which would ensure prompt compliance with orders of this Court regarding the timely filing of requisite pleadings, in the interest of just, speedy and orderly administration of justice.”

“It is one thing to exert to the utmost one’s ability to protect the interest of one’s client. It is quite another thing, and this is to put it at its mildest, to take advantage of any unforeseen turn of events, if not to create one, to create if not to defeat the recovery of what is justly due and demandable, especially so, when as in this case, the obligee is a necessitous and poverty-stricken man suffering from a dreaded disease…” Aguinaldo v. Aguinaldo, 36 SCRA 173 (1970) “Defendants had to display ingenuity to conjure a technicality. The aim of a lawsuit is to render justice to the parties according to the law. Procedural rules are precisely designed to accomplish such a worthy objective. Necessarily, therefore, any attempt to pervert the ends for which they are intended deserves condemnation.” Magat v. Soriano, 97 SCRA 1 (1980) [Atty. Magat had been previously suspended for delaying the termination of an unlawful detainer case] “The suspension of a lawyer is not intended primarily as a punishment, but as a measure of protection of the pubic and the professional. We are satisfied that Atty. Magat appreciates the significance of his dereliction and he has assured Us that he now possesses the requisite probity and integrity necessary to guarantee that he is worthy to be restored to the practice of law.”

Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do so.
Lawyer’s failure to explain late filing or failure to file: discourtesy to court When lawyer’s motion for extension of time to file pleading/ memorandum/ brief remained unacted on by curt, he should file it w/in period asked for. If he fails to file it within period, he should nonetheless file it with a motion for leave to admit the same, explaining therein the reasons for the delay. He should not wait until adverse decision is rendered or until he is required to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for such negligence.

Rule 12.04 A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.
Lawyer’s signature in pleading: his certification that pleading is not interposed for delay; willful violation of this rule may subject him to appropriate disciplinary action. Lawyer should use procedural rules to assist the court in administering impartial justice and not for its frustration. If lawyer honestly convinced that appeal in civil suit futile, he should tell the client. Dilemma of lawyer: He is subject to disciplinary action for both interposing appeal deliberately to delay and failing to appeal adverse decision Nonetheless, lawyer should not solely on own judgment let decision become final by letting period to appeal lapse without informing client of adverse decision and of his candid advice in taking appellate review thereof, so that client may decide. If lawyer does not hear from client, he should perfect appeal or else he may be administratively liable for negligence in performing his duties, which resulted in the finality of decision against client. Lawyer’s plea that he didn’t appeal due to honest belief in its futility and the absence of merit: mitigates but does not exonerate him from administratively liability.
Manila Pest Control, Inc. v. WCC, 25 SCRA 700 (1968)

Rule 12.05 A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during a break or recess in the trial, while the witness is still under examination.
Purpose of rule: to avoid suspicion that he is coaching the witness on what to say during the resumption of the examination.

Rule 12.06 A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepresent himself or impersonate another.
Lawyer may interview witness in advance of trial or attend to their needs if they are poor, but should avoid any such action as may be misinterpreted as an attempt to influence witness on what to say in court. Court may not rely on testimony of witness who admits having been instructed. Lawyer who presents witness whom he knows will give a false testimony may be subjected to disciplinary action.

Rule 12.07 A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.
Lawyer should not advance fact prejudicial to witness’ honor/reputation unless required by justice or the cause with which he is charged. Not excuse for maltreating witnesses: it’s what the client would say if speaking in


his own behalf. Lawyer shouldn’t minister to malevolence/prejudice of his client in the trial or conduct of a case.

Rule 12.08 A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except: On formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument, and the like; or on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel.
Question is one of propriety rather than competence to testify. Reason for impropriety: difference between function of witness and that of an advocate. Improper for lawyer: • To accept employment in a case in which he knows he or his partner will be a material witness for the party seeking to employ him. (Having accepted employment in ignorance of such fact, he should, upon finding out, withdraw from the case where he may do so without imperiling his client’s interests.) • To accept employment in a case where he would be obliged to attack essential testimony to be given by his partner on behalf of the opposite side.
PNB v. Uy Teng Piao, 57 Phil. 337 (1987) “Although the law does not forbid an attorney to be a witness and at the same time an attorney in a case, the courts prefer that counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is necessary, and that they should withdraw from the active management of the case.”

Prior thereto, certain SC justices already talked to Atty. Espinas, counsel for Union of Filipro employees, that the pickets be informed that their acts constitute direct contempt of court and they must stop immediately. On July 10, the SC resolved to make the Union leaders and Atty. Espinas to show cause why they should not be held in contempt. Espinas should further show why he should not be administratively dealt with. Espinas explained to the court that he tried to dissuade the picketers and that he explained to them that what their actions constitute contempt of court. Issue: WON picketing outside of SC is punishable with contempt. Yes. The court will not hesitate in the future to apply the full force of the law and punish for contempt those who attempt to pressure the court into acting one way or the other in any case pending before it. Grievances should be aired along proper channels.

Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with Judges.
A lawyer should avoid marked attention and unusual hospitality to a judge, uncalled for by the personal relations of the parties, because they subject him and the judge to misconceptions of motives or suspicion. A judge should refrain from all relations which would normally tend to arouse the suspicion that such relations warp or bias his judgment or prevent his impartial attitude of mind in the administration of justice, and avoid such action as may reasonably tend to waken the suspicion that his social or business relations or friendships constitute an element in determining his judicial course.

CANON 13- A Lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the court.
A lawyer should rely solely on the merits of his client's case and not on extraneous considerations. He should refrain from giving the appearance that he can influence the court to decide in his favor, regardless of the merits of the case. This is to avoid the lessening of the confidence of the public in the impartial administration of justice by the Courts.
Nestle Phil. vs. Sanchez During the period July 8-10, 1897, respondent in case pending in the SC, Union of Filipro Employees, and petitioner in another case, Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism-Olalia held a picket rally in front of the Padre Faura gate of the SC, making a lot of noise, litter and preventing the free entry/exit through the said gate

Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against the party.
Statements regarding a pending or anticipated litigation may interfere with a fair trial, prejudice the administration of justice, or subject a respondent or accused to a trial by publicity and create a public inference of guilt against him. The reputation of the respondent or accused, particularly if he is a professional, may be damaged even if he is exonerated. Issuance of statements concerning pending cases are allowed, as long as the circumstances justify them, the statements are not anonymous, and they are so written to arouse public opinion for or against a party.
Cruz vs. Salva The trial court for the killing of Monroy convicted a number of persons. Defendants


in this particular case appealed, and the case is now pending before the SC. During the pendency of this case, Pres. Magsaysay ordered a reinvestigation. Several new suspects appeared, among the petitioner Timoteo Cruz. Fiscal Salva, who was tasked to investigate the case, subpoenaed Cruz. Cruz willingly presented himself for investigation. However, said investigation was not done in the usual manner. It was held in the session hall of the municipal hall, instead of Salva's office, in order to accommodate the press. It seemed that the investigation was widely publicized and Salva even went as far as allowing the press to question the witness. Issue: WON Salva violated Rule 13.02 of the CPR Yes. It is bad enough to have such undue publicity when a criminal case is being investigated by the authorities, even when it is being tried in court; but when said publicity and sensationalism is allowed, even encouraged, when the case is on appeal and is pending consideration by this tribunal, the whole thing becomes inexcusable. Martelino vs. Alejandro Muslim recruits of the army were shot and killed while undergoing training. As a result, some members of the army including petitioners herein, were tried by court martial. Petitioner Martelino sought the disqualification of the President of the General Court Martial on the ground that latter has read several newspaper articles about the killings, and may now be prejudiced against him. It is further contended that the case had received a lot of publicity because it was an issue discussed in connection with the 1969 Presidential elections. WON the publicity caused by the newspapers would imperil petitioner's right to a fair trial. No. If ever there was trial by publicity, it was against the Government, not against the petitioners. Moreover, the suspension of the trial may have accomplished the purpose of this petition, by postponing the trial until calmer times have returned. RE: Request Radio-TV Petitioners KBP, Justice Secretary Perez, etc. want Estrada's plunder trial telecast live. They contended that the public had a right to receive vital information regarding events affecting the nation. Trial should not to be televised. The right of accused, who is in danger of losing his life and liberty, to a fair trial, outweighs right of public to information. Media exposure may unduly interfere with the disposition of the trial.

This Canon and its implementing rules provide for the exceptions to the rule that lawyers generally have a right to choose which cases to accept or decline. It also emphasizes the lawyer's public responsibility of rendering legal services to the needy and the oppressed who are unable to pay attorney's fees. The poor, when in trouble, need most the services of a lawyer. However, they hesitate to secure such services simply because they can't afford to pay lawyers. Also, it is the IBP's objective to make legal services for those who badly need them. A lawyer may not appear as counsel without a contract of employment. Such contract may be express or implied. The employment of a law firm is equivalent to the retainer of a member thereof even though one of them is consulted; conversely, the employment of one member is generally considered as employment of the law firm.

Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latter's race, sex creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person.
Regardless of his personal feelings, a lawyer should not decline representation because a client or a cause is unpopular or community reaction is adverse. This rule makes it ethically easy for a lawyer to take the defense of an accused whom he knows, or the public believes, is guilty of a crime. One never knows if a person is guilty or not until the judge determines it. For every lawyer whose conscience may be pricked, there is another whose virtue is tickled. Every case has two sides, and for every lawyer on the wrong side, there's another on the right side. An exception is civil actions. The rules and ethics of the legal profession enjoin a lawyer from taking a bad case. There must be good cause to support the case, and that it is not interposed for delay. A lawyer must also counsel such actions, which appear to him to be just. He should not encourage actions for any corrupt motive or interest. Finally, he may not conduct a civil cause or defense when it is apparent that it is only meant to harass or injure the opposite party.

Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another branch or agency of the government in normal course of judicial proceedings.
It is to maintain and preserve the independence of the judiciary and to free it from legislative interference that the Constitution mandates that "no law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its members" and also the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary.

CANON 14 - A Lawyer shall not refuse his services to the

Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de oficio or as amicus curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition of free legal aid.


One of the obligations incident to the status and privilege of a lawyer to practice law is to represent the poor and the oppressed in the prosecution of their claims or the defense of their rights. This stems from the lawyer's public responsibility arising from his office as attorney. As Counsel de Oficio: The right to counsel would be meaningless if a person who needs the services of a lawyer is deprived of legal representation because he cannot afford to pay counsel fees. The law sees to it that this should not be the case. Every lawyer should welcome his appointment as counsel de oficio as a opportunity to render public service, show that the practice of law is a profession, and demonstrate that the discharge of his duties does not depend upon payment or the amount of the fees. As Amicus Curiae: Such an appointment is an honor and recognition of his experience and impartiality because only experienced and impartial attorneys ma be invited by the court to appear as amicus curiae to help in the disposition of issues submitted to it. Assignment from the IBP: The fulfillment of the objective of the IBP to make legal services fully available even to the poor segment of society through legal aid offices requires acceptance by a lawyer, who receives a request from an IBP legal aid, office or chapter for rendition of free legal aid of his share of tendered employment from the poor and oppressed.
People vs Solis Appellants here stole the livestock, and also the life, of Corsita. Upon arraignment, they had Atty. Ginete as counsel de oficio. In the next hearing, said counsel did not appear. They told the court that their counsel de parte would appear the next day, and so Ginete was relieved. However, said counsel de parte also failed to appear. After ten months of postponements, court appointed three counsel de oficio for them, but only one handled the case. They were convicted, thus this appeal. They contend that they were denied of due process for failure of trial court to afford them the right to be defended by counsel of their own choice. If they were indeed sincere in their desire to be defended by counsel of own choice, the period of ten months was more than enough for them to secure one. Besides, during the proceedings they never manifested any such desire. They also did not protest the appointment of counsel de oficio for them.

The thrust of Canon 14 is to make acceptance by a lawyer of professional employment from the poor and the indigent the general rule, and his refusal on valid grounds the exception.
Quilban vs Robinol Colegio de San Jose owned a parcel of land and decided to sell it to the squatters living there at a cheap price. Said squatters formed a group named SAMAHAN to facilitate negotiations. However, it turned out that Martin, head of the SAMAHAN, sold parcel of land to Rivera. The rest of the SAMAHAN then hired Atty. Robinol to recover land. They eventually won the case. Robinol's payment was supposed to be some cash and an equal portion of the land. They gave Robinol 75T to pay back Rivera. It was discovered after a year that the money wasn't turned over yet. SAMAHAN thus hired Atty. Montemayor to replace Robinol. Robinol did not object to his appearance. SAMAHAN also filed administrative complaint against Robinol, who in turn charged Montemayor for entering as counsel without his consent. Robinol contended that he kept the money they gave him because ha hasn't been paid yet, and that he decided to convert his share of the land into cash. What he did was unjust, for he delayed their cause for money. Rinconada vs Buenviaje Basically, what happened was that Rinconada filed two cases against Imperial. Atty. Maggay represented him in the said cases. However, Judge Buenviaje granted Imperial's motion to dismiss cases. It was at this point when Atty. Santos entered as new counsel for Rinconada and filed a motion for reconsideration. Judge accepted the motion, but had the order denying the motion delivered to Maggay instead of Santos, so when Rinconada moved to appeal the case, it was denied because it was filed out of time. Substitution was not valid because Maggay did not formally withdraw as counsel for Rinconada.

Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his relations with paying clients.
The gaining of livelihood is only a secondary consideration. Neither the amount of attorney's fees nor the client's financial ability to pay such fees should serve as the test to determine the extent of the lawyer's devotion to his client's cause.

Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may refuse to accept representation of an indigent client if: He is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently; He labors under a conflict of interests between him and the prospective client or between a present client and a prospective client.


Generally, the relation of attorney-client is strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary. No other human relation involves so delicate a nature than that of attorney and client. Only by characterizing and safeguarding it as such will a person be encouraged to repose trust in a lawyer. Behind this is the belief that abstinence from seeking legal advice in a good cause is an evil fatal to the administration of justice.

beyond the duration of the professional relationship. Nakpil v. Valdes The proscription against representation of conflicting interests finds application where the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same general matter and is applicable however slight such adverse interest may be. It applies although the attorney’s intentions and motives were honest and he acted in good faith. However, representation of conflicting interests may be allowed where the parties consent to the representation, after full disclosure of facts. Disclosure alone is not enough for the clients must give their informed consent to such representation. The lawyer must explain to his clients the nature and extent of the conflict and the possible adverse effect must be thoroughly understood by his clients.

Rule 15.01 — A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would involve a conflict with another client or his won interest, and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
It is the duty of a lawyer to disclose and explain to a prospective client all circumstances of his relations to the parties and any interest in or connection with the controversy, which in his honest judgment might influence the client in the selection of counsel. This disclosure is more for the protection of the lawyer than it is for the client as concealment of facts material to employment may cause the client to lose confidence in him. Further, a lawyer may not accept employment from another in a matter adversely affecting any interest of his former client. It is his duty to decline employment in such a case where there are conflicting interests.
Maturan v. Gonzales It is improper for a lawyer to appear as counsel for one party against the adverse party who is his client in a related suit, That the representation of conflicting interests is in good faith and with honest intention on the part of the lawyer does not make the prohibition inoperative. The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. A lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his client’s case. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care. Dee v. CA Generally, an attorney is prohibited from representing parties with contending positions. However, at a certain stage of the controversy before it reaches the court, a lawyer may represent conflicting interests with the consent of the parties. A common representation may work to the advantage of the parties since a mutual lawyer, with honest motivations and impartially cognizant of the parties’ disparate positions, may well be better suited to work out an acceptable settlement of their differences, being free of partisan inclinations and acting with the cooperation and confidence of the parties. Buted v. Bolisay There is no necessity for proving the actual transmission of confidential information to an attorney in the course of his employment by one client in order that a subsequent client may preclude him from accepting employment where there are conflicting interests between the two clients. Further, the absence of monetary consideration does not exempt a lawyer from complying with the prohibition against pursuing cases where a conflict of interest exists. The prohibition attaches from the moment an attorney-client relation is established and extends

Rule 15.02 — A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privileged communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client.
Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a lawyer are protected by the rule on privileged communication even if the prospective client does not thereafter retain the lawyer or the latter declines employment. The rationale behind this rule is to allow the prospective client to feel free to discuss whatever he wishes without the fear that what he discloses will be divulged or used against him. As a corollary, the lawyer becomes equally free to obtain information from him (See Canon 21 and its implementing rules for a detailed discussion on privileged communication).
People v. Sandiganbayan For the application of the attorney-client privilege, the period to be considered is the date when the client made the privileged communication to the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past or with respect to a crime intended to be committed in the future. If a client seeks his lawyer’s advice with respect to a crime that he has already committed, he is given the protection of a virtual confessional seal, which the privilege declares cannot be broken by his attorney without his consent. The same privilege, however, does not attach with regard to a crime, which a client intends to commit thereafter or in the future, and for purposes of which he seeks the lawyer’s advice. Such communications regarding contemplated acts, or in aid or in furtherance thereof, are not covered by the cloak of privilege. Further, in order for a communication to be privileged, it must be for a lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end. The existence of an unlawful purpose prevents the privilege from attaching. Regala v. Sandiganbayan As a mater of public policy, a client’s identity should not be shrouded in mystery. Hence, a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name or


identity of his client. However, several exceptions exist. Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the client’s name would implicate him in the very activity for which he sought the lawyer’s advice. Identity is also privileged where disclosure would open the client to civil liability. The content of any client communication lies within the privilege if it is relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which he seeks legal assistance. Moreover, where the nature of the attorney-client relation has been previously disclosed and it is the identity that is intended to be confidential, the privilege may also be invoked, since such revelations would result in disclosure of the entire transaction.

neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.
As officers of the court, counsels are under obligation to advise their clients against making untenable and inconsistent claims. Lawyers are not merely hired employees who must unquestionably do the bidding of the client, however unreasonable this may be when tested by their own expert appreciation of the facts and applicable law and jurisprudence. Counsel must counsel.

Note: According to Dean Agabin, as long as a crime has already been committed, its disclosure is privileged communication.

Rule 15.06 — A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.
Lantoria v. Bunyi As an officer of the court, a lawyer is commanded to help promote the independence of the judiciary and to refrain from engaging in acts which would influence the judicial determination of a litigation in which he is counsel. Marked attention and unusual hospitality on the part of a lawyer to a judge uncalled for by the personal relations of the parties subject both the judge and the lawyer to misconstruction of motive and should be avoided. A lawyer should not communicate or argue privately with a judge as to the merits of a pending case and deserves rebuke and denunciation for any device or attempt to gain from a judge special consideration or favor.

Rule 15.03 — A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts.
There is inconsistency of interest within the meaning of the prohibition when, on behalf of one client, it is the attorney’s duty to contend for that which his duty to another client requires him to oppose, or when the possibility of such situation develops. Other tests of the inconsistency of interests are: [1] whether the acceptance of a new relation 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 [2] whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired in the previous employment. The test to determine whether there is a conflict of interest is probability, not certainty, of conflict. The rule applies even if the conflict pertains to a lawyer’s private activity or in the performance in a non-professional capacity, and his presentation as a lawyer regarding the same subject matter. The termination of the relation of attorney and client provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in conflict with that of his former client. A client’s confidence once reposed cannot be divested by the expiration of the professional employment. Further, the prohibition applies irrespective of whether or not the lawyer has acquired confidential information from his former client. But where no conflict of interests exists, where the clients knowingly consent to the dual representation or where no true attorney-client relationship is attendant, the prohibition does not apply.

Rule 15.07 — A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principle of fairness.
A lawyer should impress upon his client that his duty it to counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and raise such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law, and to secure for the client, through honorable means, only what is justly due him. He is required to represent his client within the bounds of law, i.e., a lawyer is not a gun for hire.

Rule 15.08 — A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or occupation concurrently with the practice of law shall make clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another capacity.
A practicing lawyer may lawfully engage in any other lawful occupation or business. However, he is required to inform his client as to the capacity in which he acts, as certain ethical considerations governing attorney-client relations may be operative in one and not the other.

Rule 15.04 — A lawyer may, with the written consent of all concerned, act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
A lawyer’s knowledge of the law and his reputation for fidelity may make it easy for the disputants to settle their differences amicably. However, the lawyer shall not act as counsel for any of them.

Rule 15.05 — A lawyer when advising his client shall give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the client’s case,


The well-established rule that the relation of attorney and client is highly fiduciary and strictly confidential, requiring utmost good faith, loyalty, fidelity, and disinterestedness on the part of the attorney is designed to remove all temptation to take advantage of, not only the need of his client but also of his good nature, liberality and credulity, to obtain any undue advantage. The law in fact requires that “in all contractual property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicaps, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.”

hands collected for his clients does not relieve him from the duty of promptly accounting for the funds received.

Rule 16.02 — A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by him.
A lawyer should not commingle a client’s money with that of other clients and with his private funds, nor use the client’s money for his personal purposes without the client’s consent. He should promptly report any money belonging to his client that has come into his possession.

Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall account for all money and property collected or received for or from the client.
In the course of his professional relationship with his client, a lawyer may receive money or property for or from his client. The lawyer holds such money or property in trust and he is under obligation to make an accounting thereof. Included are moneys collected by the lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his client as well as money not used for the purpose for which it was entrusted to counsel. A lawyer’s failure to make an accounting or to return the money upon demand constitutes blatant disregard of this rule. He may be subjected to the disciplinary action of the courts, ranging from suspension to disbarment,
depending on the attendant circumstances. Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that he shall be of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain one’s good standing in the profession. Daroy v. Legaspi A lawyer, under his oath, pledges to delay no man for money or malice and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients. He is obligated to report promptly the money of his clients that has come into his possession. He should not commingle it with his private property nor use it for personal purposes without his client’s consent. Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust and must be immediately turned over to them. When an attorney unjustly retains money belonging to his client after it has been demanded, he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has misbehaved in his official transactions and he is liable to a criminal prosecution. His conversion of his client’s money to his own benefit through false pretenses constitutes deceit, malpractice, and gross misconduct. Licuanan v. Melo The relation between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in its nature and of a very delicate, exacting, and confidential character, requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith. A lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by the client. Hence, lawyers are bound to promptly account for money or property received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct. That the lawyer has a lien for fees on money in his

Rule 16.03 — A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property to his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when due or upon demand, subject to his lien to satisfy lawful fees and disbursements (See Rule 22.02 for a detailed discussion on attorney’s lien). The failure to return the client’s money upon demand creates the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed in him by the client. It is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics.
Navarro v. Meneses A lawyer’s oath imposes upon him the duty to delay no man for money or malice. The acts of a lawyer of misappropriating money entrusted to him and failing or refusing to account for it to his client despite repeated demands therefor indicate his unfitness for the confidence and trust reposed in him. They tend to show a lack of personal honesty or of good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence and constitute a ground for disciplinary action extending to disbarment. Tanhueco v. de Dumo Moneys collected by an attorney on a judgment rendered in favor of his client constitute trust funds and must be immediately paid over to the client. True, Section 37 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that an attorney has “a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the same until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof. He shall also have a lien to the same extent upon all judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in a litigation of his client…” However, the fact that a lawyer has a lien for fees on moneys collected for a client,


does not relieve him from the duty to promptly account for the moneys received. His failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct. Quilban v. Robinol A lawyer has no right to unilaterally appropriate his client’s money and convert it to the payment of his fees, when such funds were intended for a specific purpose. To do so would not only be an ethical infraction but also grave misconduct that renders him unworthy to continue in the practice of the profession.

courts are to carefully watch these transactions to ensure that the lawyer takes no undue advantage over his client. This rule is founded on public policy for, by virtue of his office, an attorney is in an easy position to take advantage of the credulity and ignorance of his client. His fidelity to the cause of his client requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that should be expected of him. Rubias v. Batiller Article 1491 of the Civil Code prohibits certain persons, by reason of the relation of trust or their peculiar control over the property, from acquiring such property in their trust or control either directly or indirectly and even at public or judicial auctions. Lawyers, per the provision, are disqualified from acquiring property and rights, which may be the object of any litigation in which they take part by virtue of their profession. Such a contract is declared by law to be an absolute nullity that cannot be cured by ratification. In re Ruste The acquisition by deed of sale by an attorney of property subject of a suit, which he is waging on behalf of his clients, constitutes malpractice. Whether the deed of sale was executed at the instance of the complainants who were driven by financial necessity or at the behest of the lawyer is immaterial. In either case, the attorney occupies a vantage position to press upon or dictate his terms to a harassed client, in breach of the rule in the Civil Code that strives to protect the confidential relations that exist between attorney and client. Go Beltran v. Fernandez A lawyer who purchases property of his client involved in a pending litigation, in which he appeared as counsel, violates Article 1491 of the Civil Code and is guilty of breach of professional conduct. Laig v. Court of Appeals The prohibition in Article 1491 of the Civil Code does not apply when the interest in the property of the client is acquired by his attorney after the resolution of litigation as payment for legal services as counsel. Daroy v. Abecia Neither does the prohibition apply to the sale of a parcel of land, acquired by a client to satisfy a judgment in his favor, to his attorney as long as the property was not the subject of the litigation. For indeed, while judges, prosecuting attorneys, and others connected with the administration of justice are prohibited from acquiring “property or rights in litigation or levied upon in execution,” the prohibition with respect to attorneys in the case extends only to “property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession.”

Rule 16.04 — A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money to a client except when, in the interest of justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling for the client. The rule consists of two parts. The first part is intended to prevent the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over the client. While a lawyer may borrow money from his client where the client’s interests are fully protected by the nature of the case he is handling for him or by independent advice from another lawyer, he should not abuse the client’s confidence by delaying payment. The second part is designed to assure the lawyer’s independent professional judgment. For if a lawyer acquires a financial interest in the outcome of the case the free exercise of his judgment may be adversely affected. His acquiring an interest in the subject matter of the case or an additional stake in its outcome may lead him to either consider his own recovery rather than that of his client or accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the verdict to the sacrifice of that of his client. In either case, he violates his duty of undivided fidelity to his client’s cause. Related to this rule is the law prohibiting a lawyer from purchasing, even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or through the mediation of another, any property or interest involved in any litigation in which he may take part by virtue of his profession (Art. 1491 of the Civil Code). The prohibition rests on considerations of public policy and interest and stands on the moral obligation of an attorney to refrain from placing himself in a position that ordinarily excites conflict between self-interest and integrity. The rule involves four elements: [a] there must be an attorney-client relationship; [b] the property or interest of the client must be in litigation; [c] the attorney takes part as counsel of the case; and [d] the attorney by himself or through another purchases such property or interest during the pendency of the litigation. The absence of any of these elements renders the prohibition inapplicable.
Cruz v. Jacinto A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, in probity and good demeanor, thus rendering him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. As a rule, a lawyer is not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction must be characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. However, the measure of the good faith that an attorney is required to exercise in his dealings with his clients is a much higher standard than is required in business dealings where the parties trade at arms length. Hence,


CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
A lawyer owes fidelity to the client's cause. His highest and most unquestioned duty is to protect the client at all hazards and costs even to himself. The finest hours of the legal profession were those where the lawyer stood by his client even in the face and risk of danger to his person or fortune. And his client can take comfort in the thought that his lawyer will not abandon him when his services are needed most.
Cantiller vs. Potenciano Peregrina Cantiller was party to two civil cases the subject of which was the apartment she and her sister, complainant herein. Peregrina lost both cases and was about to be ejected from the apartment. Respondent Potenciano was then introduced to her and took upon her cause. The respondent a civil case seeking for a restraining order and filed a haphazardly prepared pleading. He assured that the case would be raffled off to a judge who was his friend and that they will get favorable judgment. However, the judge in this case asked Potenciano to withdraw as counsel because he was his friend. He did so but Cantiller was not able to secure another lawyer and thus no restraining order was obtained. Prior to the judgment in the first civil case, Potenciano filed another one. In this case, respondent got from Cantiller P10,000.00 allegedly to deposit with the court and P1000 and $10 to bribe the judge with. The second case was also dismissed for being similar to the first civil case. Cantiller also found out that there was no need to deposit the P10000 with the court and demanded the money back but respondent did not answer. Thus this administrative complaint was filed. WON respondent failed to exert all effort for his client's cause. Yes. His first duty was to file the best pleading within his capability. However, he was more interested in milking Cantiller out of her money. Respondent knew beforehand that he would be asked to withdraw as counsel in the first civil case, but he did not take steps to inform his client of this and he did not even find a replacement for himself. His actuation is definitely inconsistent with his duty to protect with utmost dedication the interest of his client and of the fidelity, trust and confidence, which he owes his client.

Barrios explains that he was busy preparing for a brief of another client and that he was appearing in the courts of Manila, QC, Pasay, Bulacan, and Pampanga. He thought that he already filed a motion for extension of time for Ingco but he had not. WON respondent has shown fidelity to the cause of his client. NO! Because of his negligence, his client was to be put to death! The mere fact that according to him, his practice was extensive should not have lessened that degree of case necessary for the fulfillment of his responsibility. Alisbo vs. Jalandoon On March 16, 1970, Ramon Alisbo hired Jalandoon as his counsel to commence an action to revover his share of the estate of the spouses Sales already adjudicated to him but prescribed because no motion for execution was filed. The defendant, Carlito Sales, in the new cases was former client of Jalandoon. Jalandoon prepared the complaint reviving judgment on April 1970 but delayed its filing for five months, favoring Sales.He postponed the action so the court may resolve pending incidents in another related case, this was to kill time so presricption would take hold. He originally filed the complaint with Ramon Alisbo and his brothers, but dropped the brothers as plaintiffs. This was to make the complaint defective because Ramon was an incompetent. Jalandoon sat on the case for more than a year, and thereafter impleaded another person as Ramon's legal guardian. By that time, the action has prescribed. WON Jalandoon has shown fidelity to the cause of his client. No. There is more than simple negligence resulting in the extinguishment and loss of his client's right to action. He did not champion the cause of Alisbo with that wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion that a lawyer is obligated to give to every case that he accepts from a client. Ngayan vs. Tugade Complainants, the Ngayans, wanted to file a criminal case against Robert Leonido and Rowena Soriano for entering their dwelling without authorization. They asked Tugade (he was their counsel in several criminal cases before) to file the complaint. However, in the affidavit Tugade made, which was readily signed by Ms. Ngayan, the name of Robert Leonido was conspicuously missing, this prompted Ms. Ngayan to point this error out, and Tugade crossed the paragraph out saying he will edit the same. They discharged Tugade as their counsel for the case. However, in the course of the criminal proceedings, the very document Ms. Ngayan signed in the possession of the defendants' counsel and presented as evidence. It was found out that Tugade was defendant's was Tugade's classmate and that Tugade was counsel for Leonido's brother. WON Tugade has shown fidelity to the cause of his client. No. Respondent's act of executing and submitting an affidavit as exhibit for the defendants advancing facts prejudicial to the case of the Ngayans demonstrates

People vs. Ingco “The mere fact that his practice was extensive, requiring his appearance in courts in Manila and environs as well as the provinces of Bulacan and Pampanga should not have lessened that degree of care necessary for the fulfillment of his responsibility.” Barrios, counsel de oficio for the accused, filed a motion for extension of time for the filing of the appellants brief. Problem was, it was fifteen days late. Hence, on Sept 28, 1970, Gaudencio Ingco was sentenced to death by the Supreme Court.


clearly an act of offensive personality against the Ngayans. Additionally, respondent's failure to answer the complaint against him and his failure to attend the investigation are evidence of his flouting resistance to court orders.

CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.
Upon acceptance of employment, a lawyer impliedly represents that: • He possesses the requisite degree of learning, skill and ability which is necessary to the practice of his profession and which others similarly situated possess • He will exert his best effort in the prosecution or defense of his client's cause • He will exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the use of his skill and the application of his knowledge to his client's case • He will take such steps and make such precautions as will adequately safeguard the client's interests • He will adopt the norms of practice expected of men with good intentions This duty to safeguard client's interest begins from retainer up to the effective discharge from the case or the final disposition of the whole subject matter of the litigation.
Legarda vs CA Victoria Legarda was defendant in a case where New Cathay House wanted her to sign the lease and to construct a restaurant on her lot in West Ave., QC. She was issued a writ on preliminary injunction. This was the point where Antonio Coronel entered his appearance as counsel for Legarda. He filed a motion for extension of time to file an answer to the complaint. That was the last Dean Coronel was heard of. Legarda failed to file her answer with the court thus evidence was presented ex parte. Judgment was rendered against her. The property was executed and sold and the one-year redemption period expired. She appealed to the CA but this time another lawyer. But Coronel still handled the case and filed a reply to the consolidated comment and memoranda (which he got from the reply to consolidated comment in toto). CA decided against Legarda, Coronel filed no motion for recon. She was ordered to vacate the premises but was not relayed to her by Coronel. She appealed to the Sc, which annulled the decisions of the TC and CA becoz of her counsel's negligence, and also directed Coronel to answer for his negligence. Coronel motioned for extension of time becoz he hasn't had the time to attend to Legarda's case becoz of the more than 80 Marcos cases handled by him. He filed another motion becoz he became ill. The Court junked this. WON Coronel served his client with Competence and Diligence. No. His failure to exercise due diligence in protecting and attending to the interest of his client caused the latter material prejudice. Considering that he is a law school dean and a topquality lawyer, he should be giving top-quality service. However, he did not.

Rule 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service, which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
A lawyer should not accept employment in a specific area of law, which he knows or should know he is not qualified to render. This is to protect the client, since his acceptance implies that he is competent, skillful and knowledgeable enough to handle the case.

Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
A lawyer owes it to his client and the court to be adequately prepared to handle the case. Thorough study and preparation is needed to safeguard client's interests. A lawyer must be careful in the preparation of his pleadings, for they reflect the extent of his study and preparation. Pleadings also embody the result of his work and furnish the basis on which to judge his competence.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
When a client entrusts a case to a lawyer to handle and the lawyer accepts the assignment, it is understood that the client has granted him authority, and the lawyer has assumed the obligation, to take al procedural steps necessary to prosecute the client's claim or to defend the client's rights in the action. Whatever decision a lawyer may make or whatever step he may take or fail to take on any of these procedural questions, even if it will adversely affect the client's cause, will generally bind the client and the latter may not be heard to complain that the result of the litigation might have been different had counsel proceeded differently. There are also certain matters, which are known to the lawyer but imputed to the client. As long as lawyer remains counsel of record, any notice forwarded by the court to him is also notice to the client. Any mistake or negligence committed by counsel or his employee is generally binding upon the client. Of course, when the interests of justice dictate it or when application of the rule would result to grave injustice, the court may relax the rule. Only ordinary diligence is required of lawyers, or that which is expected of a good father of a family. A lawyer must also ensure that he has an efficient system of accepting mail, and of giving to notice to his client and the court of any change of his address. This is to avoid any unnecessary delay or other undesirable consequences.


A defense counsel is expected to spare no effort to save his client from an unrighteous conviction, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of his client. When accused intends to plead guilty, the lawyer has the duty to acquaint himself with all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, inform the accused of his constitutional rights and all the possible consequences and repercussions of his plea. When a lawyer is guilty of gross negligence, he may be criminally liable under Art. 209 of the RPC, civilly liable through actions for damages, and administratively liable.
Reontoy vs. Ibadlit Atty. Ibadlit was counsel for Corazon Reontoy in a case for partition, accounting and reconveyance. The case was decided and Atty. Ibadlit received the decision on June 19, 1989. He contacted complainant's brother and asked him to relay the message to Reontoy. Reontoy did not contact him, so he did nothing about the case. However, Reontoy came to his office the next month and signified her wish to appeal the decision. However, the period to file an appeal was already expired on July 4 but Ibadlit nevertheless filed an appeal on July 17. This was not admitted for being filed out of time. WON Ibadlit neglected his client's cause. Yes. A lawyer has no authority to waive his client's right to appeal. His failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period constitutes negligence and malpractice proscribed by Rule 18.03 CPR. He should have filed an appeal notwithstanding not hearing a wish to do so from his client. If the client would rather not, then he could easily have the appeal dismissed.

only heard the evidence of the plaintiff uncontested and eventually, a decision was rendered against Wack Wack. The latter appealed to the CA. On appeal, rather than work on the merits of their case, Atty. Chuidian says that there was excusable negligence that the trial court should have appreciated. That there was misunderstanding insofar as his services were contracted a day before the hearing and that the documents were still with the former lawyer of Wack Wack. And when he talked to them, he understood that they would appear on the day of the trial to move for postponement but was late by 35 minutes. WON the petitioner committed excusable negligence. No. The negligence was Inexcusable. The counsel of record (Atty. Cruz) is under obligation to protect the client's interest until its final release from the professional relationship with such client. The court could recognize no other representation on behalf of the client except such counsel of record until a formal substitution of attorney is effected. A party to a case has no right to rely either on the liberality of the court, or on the generosity of the adverse party. Blanza vs. Arcangel In April 1955, respondent Atty. Arcangel volunteered to help complainants Blanza and Pasion in their respective pensions claims for their deceased spouses whom were PC soldiers. They handed over to him pertinent documents to have them for photostating purposes. The complainants admitting to shoulder the payment for the services of Photostatting. However, after six years, noticing no progress in their pension claims, the complainants demanded back the documents from Arcangel. The latter refused to give them back saying that they should first pay him for the Photostat services. Hence the complainants filed this administrative case. They allege that their claim for pension was delayed for six years because of Arcangel's actuations. Arcangel says that he was not obliged to follow up their claims because there was no compensation set-up. WON respondent is to be reprimanded. No. There was no clear preponderance of evidence to substantiate the claim of him delaying complainant's cause. However, Arcangel is reminded that there is still an attorney-client relationship (mainly because he volunteered to help them in their claim) and it was unnecessary to have complainants wait and hope for six long years on their pension claims. He shoud have terminated their professional relationship instead because they refused to cooperate.

Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information.
The client is entitled to the fullest disclosure of the mode or manner by which his interest is defended or why certain steps are taken or omitted. Keeping the client fully informed of important developments of his case will minimize occasions for misunderstanding or loss of trust and confidence in the attorney. A lawyer who repeatedly disdains to answer the inquiries or communications of his client violates the rules of professional courtesy and neglects his client's interests.
Wack Wack Golf and CC vs CA This is actually a consolidation of two cases filed by two employees of Wack Wack to exact their overtime pay from their employer, unenjoyed vacation, moral damages and atty's fees. The case was admitted for hearing as early as March 1955. At this time, counsel for was still Atty. Angel Cruz of the firm Paredes, Balcoff and Poblador. However, Wack Wack manifested that it wanted to change lawyers and employed Atty. Chuidian. Although Wack Wack was informed of hearing set for early May since March 28, no representative of Wack Wack was present on the hearing day itself. Hence, the trial court

CANON 19 - A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law
A lawyer owes his client entire devotion to his genuine interest, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability. NO fear of judicial disfavor or public unpopularity should restrain him


from the full discharge of his duty. It demands of him the most unscrupulous performance of his duty, especially when negligence in the discharge thereof will cause delay in the administration of justice or prejudice to the rights of the litigant. Public interest requires that a lawyer exert his best efforts and ability within the bounds of the law in the prosecution or defense of his client's cause. Thus, he also serves the ends of justice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community in the legal profession. However, it should not amount to obstinacy nor should it be carried beyond the limits of sobriety and decorum.
Millare vs. Montero Pacifica Millare, mother of complainant, won a case in the MTC of Abra ejecting Elsa Co from the premises that is currently possessing. From this decision, respondent Montero, filed six appeals, complaints or petitions (not counting the motions for reconsideration) and even went up to the Supreme Court but still did not desist. Thus this complaint was brought against Montero by Mr. Millare, Pacifica's son. WON Montero is represented his client within the bounds of law. No. Advocacy, within the bounds of the law, permits the attorney to se any arguable construction of the law or rules that is favorable to his client. But the lawyer is not allowed to knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law. He also violated Canon 12 saying that it is a lawyer's duty to assist in the speedy disposition of cases. He also committed forum-shopping.

In matrimonial cases, lawyers must avoid collusion, or even only appearances of collusion.

Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the course of the representation, perpetuated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court.
The lawyer's duty to be candid and to secure for his client only that which is legally and justly due him precludes him from sanctioning the client's act of perpetuating a fraud upon the adverse party or the court. A lawyer should prevent his client from any act of impropriety. If the client persists in such wrongdoing, the lawyer should terminate his relation with him. However, the lawyer may not divulge information regarding the fraud since it is his duty to preserve the confidence and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relationship has been terminated.

Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case
While it is lawyer's duty to comply with the client's lawful request, he should resist and should not follow any unlawful instruction of his client. In matters of law and procedure, it is the client who should give in to the lawyer, since latter is more knowledgeable in these maters. The lawyer's duty to the court, no less than the dignity of the legal profession, requires that he should not act like an errand boy at the beck and call of his client, ready and eager to do his bidding.

Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Any of the acts mentioned above constitute professional malpractice, which is a ground for disciplinary action, as by criminally prosecuting a person without reasonable ground for the purpose of forcing him to grant his client's claim. A lawyer should employ such means only as are consistent with truth and honor. In espousing his client's cause, a lawyer should not state his personal belief as to the soundness or justice of the client's case. Technical defenses, such as lack of knowledge or information concerning the truth of an allegation must be availed of with sincerity and good faith; it must neither be used to confuse the adverse party as to what allegations are really put in issue nor employed to delay the litigation.

A lawyer has the right to have & recover from his client a reasonable compensation for his services. A lawyer is entitled to judicial protection against injustice, imposition, or fraud on the part of his client as the client against abuse on the part of his counsel. One of the duties of the court is to see that a lawyer is paid his just fees. Requisites for right to accrue: • Lawyer-client relationship • Rendition by the lawyer of services to his client. (there should be a professional contract; express or implied, between a lawyer & his client &


that the lawyer should have rendered services pursuant thereto.) Written agreement is NOT necessary

But a lawyer who renders professional services in favor but over the objection of a party cannot recover fees even though the party benefited from the services Acts of recognition/acceptance are in general equivalent to a prior engagement (of lawyer’s services) Client’s obligation to pay arises from the principle against unjust enrichment at the expense of another. Amount based on quantum meruit. (as much as a lawyer deserves) Essential requisite: acceptance of the benefits by one sought to be charged for services rendered under circumstances as reasonably to notify him that the lawyer performing the task was expecting to be paid compensation therefor. The court will fix attorney’s fees on quantum meruit basis when lawyer & client cannot agree as to the reasonable amount when: • There is no express contract as to amount of attorney’s fees • Agreement as to fees is invalid due to formal defect • Lawyer & client disregard the contract fixing attorney’s fees • Lawyer is precluded from concluding litigation without his fault (but he gets full amount if there’s a valid written agreement & client dismissed him in bad faith) • Amount stipulated is unconscionable or unreasonable The term “unconscionable” may be defined as that amount which, under the circumstances surrounding the case, constitutes an over-exaggeration of the worth of the lawyer’s services. Who is liable for attorney’s fees? General rule: only the client who engaged the services of counsel either personally or through an authorized agent is liable. Exception: a person who accepts the benefits of the legal representation impliedly agrees to pay the lawyer’s services because he may not be permitted to enrich himself at lawyer’s expense. Persons who did not object to lawyer’s appearance for them & enjoyed the benefits of the lawyer’s representation may be required to pay attorney’s fees. Benefitàliability rule does not apply where the party represented by a private lawyer who was employed without authorization, because the law specifies who its government lawyer should be, & the benefits secured by the legal representation cannot take the place of the law nor create an obligation on the part of the government entity to pay the private lawyer for his services, except when no government lawyer is available.

The lawyer who has been retained by the client are entitled to, or to share in, attorney’s fees. If more than one lawyer is employed to handle the case, the lawyers who jointly represent the common client for a given fee, in the absence of an agreement as to division of fees, share equally. If several lawyers separately employed by a client do not have express agreement with client as to amount of fees each would receive or if they have rendered services at one time or another in the action, each will be entitled to no more than what his services actually performed are reasonably worth. A layman is not entitled to attorney’s fees. In the absence of a law allowing compensation, counsel de oficio CANNOT charge the government nor the indigent litigant for his services. One of the obligations assumed by a lawyer upon oath is to render free legal services whenever required by the court to do so. Hence, no violation of constitutional restriction against taking without remuneration or due process Rules of Court provide a token compensation for attorney de oficio, which the court may fix, subject to availability of funds. A lawyer who is prohibited from engaging in private practice by reason of his government position may not charge attorney’s fees for his services, should he practice illegally. A government lawyer charged with the duty of extending free legal services to indigent litigants may not collect fees from the litigant without being guilty of misconduct A retired judge/justice receiving pension cannot collect fees for appearing in any administrative proceedings to maintain an interest adverse to the government Lawyer’s acts of misconduct, such as carelessness, negligence, misrepresentation, abuse of client’s confidence, unfaithfulness in representing client’s cause, may adversely affect or even negate his right to fees. Mere honest mistake in the discharge of duties does not defeat lawyer’s right to fees. Withdrawal of counsel from the case; effects: • Unceremonious withdrawal from or abandonment of the action by the lawyer negates his right to compensation • A lawyer who is forced to resign from case for reasons attributable to his fault or misconduct may lose his right to fees • Withdrawal of counsel who has so far done his duties faithfully does not affect his right to fees • If withdrawal is with client’s written conformity, it is presumed that atty & client have agreed on compensation for such services up to the date the


relationship is terminated If without client’s written consent but for justifiable cause made after due notice to client, lawyer may recover fees for services up to the date of withdrawal.

Simultaneous representation by a lawyer of opposing parties to a controversy, without the clients’ written consent made after full disclosure of the facts, negates the lawyer’s right to receive compensation from both of them Lawyer’s acceptance of employment from a new client against a former client in a matter related to the former controversy precludes recovery of fees from the former client only if former client objected to the representation. The new client may not defeat lawyer’s right to fees in the absence of concealment & prejudice by reason of lawyer’s previous relationship with the adverse party A client cannot deprive the lawyer of his just fees already earned, in the absence of the lawyer’s fault, consent, or waiver. Discharge of lawyer by client without valid cause before the conclusion of the litigation does not negate lawyer’s right to payment for his services. If no express written agreement as to fees, lawyer may recover fees up to the date of his dismissal. If contract is in writing & the fee stipulated is absolute & reasonable, the lawyer discharged without justifiable cause will be entitled to the full amount. If the fee stipulated is contingent & the lawyer is unlawfully dismissed before the conclusion of the action, he can recover fees for services thus rendered Exception: where client eventually wins, or prevents its successful prosecution by dismissing, settling, or waiving, lawyer gets the full amount stipulated in contract The lawyer should question his discharge as counsel in order to recover under the contract, otherwise he may recover only on a quantum meruit basis. Mere honest differences between client & counsel, which prompted the dismissal, do not bar recovery of fees. Client may not deprive attorney of his fees by dismissing his action. if dismissal of action by client is in good faith the lawyer may recover only the reasonable worth of his services if in bad faith & intended to defraud lawyer of his fees, lawyer gets full amount stipulated in contract or, if no contract, fees based on quantum meruit. Client cannot, by compromising or settling his case, deprive lawyer of his fees in the absence of waiver on attorney’s part. if compromise is with lawyer’s consent, fees to be fixed on the basis of quantum meruit. If client settles in bad faith/in fraud of counsel, lawyer gets full amount stipulated or, if no contract, reasonable worth of his services. Contract for attorney’s fees: • May be either oral or in writing

• • • •

Fee may be absolute or contingent May be a fixed percentage of the amount recovered in the action May call for down payment; Fee per appearance in court, per piece of work, per hour

Kinds of retainer fees. General retainer: fee paid to a lawyer to secure beforehand his services as general counsel for any ordinary legal problem that may otherwise arise in the business of the client. Purpose is to insure & secure his future services for a particular or work & to remunerate him for being deprived of the opportunity of rendering services to the other party to prevent undue hardship on the part of attorney resulting from rigid observance of the rule forbidding representation of adverse interests it is usually apart from/in addition to what client has agreed pay him for his services. Special retainer: fee for a particular case or specific service to be performed by a lawyer. [lawyer’s fees which client pays counsel as compensation for professional services are different from attorney’s fees awarded by court. Attorney’s fees awarded by court are items of damages decreed in favor of the winning party – they are NOT awarded to the lawyer. But both types of fees are subject to judicial control/modification.] General rules governing validity of ordinary contracts apply to an agreement for professional services. So a retainer whose cause, object, or purpose is contrary to law, public policy, morals, & good customs is null & void. If nullity is due to illegality of object, lawyer cannot recover fees. If nullity is due to a formal defect or to the unconscionability of the amount of fees stipulated, lawyer may recover what is due him on the basis of quantum meruit since the services rendered are legitimate. Rule 138, sec 24 provides that a written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable. Unconscionability of amount of attorney’s fees stipulated in a professional contract renders contract invalid. The fact that client knowingly entered into such contract does not estop him from questioning its validity on such ground. Contingent fee contract is an agreement in which the fee [usually a fixed percentage of what may be recovered in the action] is made to depend upon the success of the action. Lawyer gets paid only if he wins the case, unless client prevents the successful prosecution or defense of his action, in which case


lawyer recovers on quantum meruit basis. If client acts in bad faith, he gets the full amount fixed in valid written contract Contingent fees should be the subject of an express contract. Contingent fee contracts are closely scrutinized by courts since the lawyer in effect becomes a party litigant considering that he only gets paid if he wins (so he might overstep the bounds of propriety), & such contracts are susceptible to abuse (indigent litigants who may have no means to enforce their rights other than entering into these contracts may be forced to agree to outrageous fees) A contingent fee contract is generally valid & binding unless it is obtained by fraud, imposition or suppression of facts, or the fee is so clearly excessive as to amount to extortion. Construction of professional contract. General rule: adopt the construction more favorable to client even if it would work prejudice to the lawyer. Measure of compensation; amount fixed in contract. Generally, where there is a valid written contract fixing the fees, the contract is conclusive as to the amount of compensation, whether it be absolute or contingent.
Albano v Coloma (21 SCRA 411) Clients, after benefiting from services of respondent Coloma, tried to renege on their agreement for payment of Coloma’s contingent fees by dismissing her as their counsel after she had already won the case for them & later, by attempting to impugn the authenticity of their written agreement for payment of attorney’s fees. Held: Counsel is entitled to be fully recompensed for his services, & is entitled to the protection of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of a client to escape payment of his fees. The court views with disapproval any & every effort of those benefited by counsel’s services to deprive him of his hard-earned honorarium. Such an attitude deserves condemnation. Quirante v FAC (169 SCRA 769) Motion for confirmation of attorney’s fees (fees also subject to contingencies i.e. dependent on amount of recovery). Held: Since the main case from which petitioner’s claims for fees may arise has not yet become final, the determination of the propriety of said fees & amount thereof should be held in abeyance. The remedy for recovering attorney’s fees as an incident of the main action may be availed of only when something is due to the client. Tanhueco v De Dumo (172 SCRA 774) Lawyer charged 76 year-old client a contingent fee of 50% of amount collected by him, + interest & whatever attorney’s fees may be awarded by trial court chargeable to other party. Held: law does not per se prohibit contingent fees. But when it is shown that a contract for contingent fee was obtained by undue influence exercised by the attorney upon his client by any fraud or imposition, or that compensation is clearly excessive, the court must & will protect the

aggrieved party. The Court has power to review & modify the agreed amount of attorney’s fees when it appears to be excessive & unreasonable. On a quantum meruit basis, no circumstances of special difficulty attending the cases having been shown, fees should be reduced.

Rule 20.01 – A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors in determining his fees: • TIME spent & EXTENT OF SERVICES rendered/required • NOVELTY & DIFFICULTY of questions involved • IMPORTANCE of subject matter • SKILL demanded • PROBABILITY OF LOSING OTHER EMPLOYMENT as a result of acceptance of proffered case • CUSTOMARY CHARGES for similar services & the SCHEDULE OF FEES OF IBP CHAPTER to which he belongs • AMOUNT INVOLVED in the controversy & BENEFITS resulting to client from the service • CONTINGENCY/CERTAINTY of compensation • CHARACTER OF EMPLOYMENT, whether occasional or established • PROFESSIONAL STANDING of lawyer
These are mere guides – only some of them may be taken into account, & other factors may be considered, like the purchasing power of the peso &/or client’s financial capacity. Value of lawyer’s services is largely determined by the nature, quality, & quantity of his services. A hotly litigated action requires more work & calls for higher compensation. Lawyer’s services should not be fragmented & valued separately – their importance & value should be measured & considered as a whole. Time employed is not in itself an appropriate basis for fixing compensation, but length of employment which runs for years is significant, since longer employment = more work, lesser opportunity for other profitable retainers. Time devoted for study & research must be considered (it takes more time to prepare pleading, brief, etc, than for conducting trial in court) The fact that office assistants have helped a lawyer cannot reduce his compensation because he pays them & is not expected to do everything personally Novelty & difficulty of questions involved require greater efforts in terms of study, research, & preparation to convince the court as to soundness of client’s cause


in fixing the lawyer’s fees, the court takes into account the novelty/difficulty of questions as well as the demands on his part on those questions It is only fair that client should compensate his lawyer more for being deprived of the chance to earn legal fees from others by reason of his employment as his counsel Lawyer may lose opportunity for other employment in either of 2 ways • Acceptance of retainer from a client precludes lawyer from appearing for others because of prohibition against representation of conflicting interests. If there is reasonable expectation that had the lawyer not accepted employment from client he would have been employed by other clients that may call for a higher fee to compensate for the lost opportunities • Even without such expectation of employment from others, the work may require tedious details & considerable time that may deprive him of the opportunity to work on other cases In fixing lawyer’s compensation, the result secured by him is given much weight. The fact that a lawyer failed to secure his client’s desires does not deprive him of the right to compensation, unless the fee agreed upon is contingent General rule: the bigger the size/value of the interest/property in litigation, the higher the attorney’s fee is (since higher stakes à case is more hotly litigated & greater efforts required of lawyer Inverse proportion rule: in multi-million-peso case, percentage of fee contingent on recovery becomes smaller as amount of recovery gets bigger (assumption: amount of work required remains [roughly] the same even though interest exceeds several millions) Value really depends upon the extent of the special & additional services & efforts demanded of the case (e.g. even if interest is of considerable value but calls for no extra efforts, no justification for higher fees) Where several actions involve an identical case is litigated as a test case on whose favorable outcome the resolution of the other cases is made to depend (it is therefore litigated with more energy & diligence), fairness & justice require that the lawyer’s fees be not limited to a proportion of the amount involved in the test case but on the totality of the amounts in all actions dependent on the result of the test case Those who may be benefited by the result may be required to contribute a proportionate share to the lawyer’s fees Lawyer’s skill, experience, & standing bear a direct proportion to amount of fees. Why? Aside from the hard work & devotion to duty by which he acquired his reputation, an argument made in a pleading or brief or orally in court acquires a different meaning & import according to the persuasive ability & professional & personal prestige of the lawyer expounding it. The court may take judicial notice of the prestige of a lawyer as a distinguished member of the bar

This factor may be considered, not to enhance the fees above what is reasonable but to ascertain WON the client is able to pay fair & just compensation for services rendered. Also as an incident in determining importance & gravity of interests involved. Legislature may, by law, limit amount of attorney’s fees which lawyer may charge client. Contract of professional services in violation of such law is void. Such law is strictly interpreted & may not extend beyond what it expressly comprehends
Zulueta v Pan Am World Airways (49 SCRA 1) The quantity & quality of the services rendered by the plaintiffs’ counsel appearing on record, apart from the nature of the case & the amount involved therein, as well as his prestige as one of the most distinguished lawyers in the Philippines, of which judicial cognizance may be taken, amply justify the award of attorney’s fees, which is a little over 10% of the damages (P700,000.00) collectible by plaintiffs herein. Sison v Suntay (102 Phil 769) In determining what would be reasonable compensation for the attorney of an administrator or executor of the intestate estate, the size & value of the decedent’s estate, as well as the services performed by counsel, should be taken into consideration. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v CA (181 SCRA 367) In fixing a reasonable compensation for the services rendered by a lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit, the elements to be considered are generally (1) the importance of the subject matter in controversy, (2) the extent of the services rendered,(3) the professional standing of the lawyer. These are aside from several other considerations [see factors 20.01]. A determination of all these factors would indispensably require nothing less than a full-blown trial where Alafriz & Associates can adduce evidence to establish its right to lawful attorney’s fees & for petitioner to oppose or refute the same. Rilloraza v ETPI (309 SCRA 566) See Metropolitan Bank above; notes under canon 20 on quantum meruit. [Also useful to learn here that when a client employs the services of a law firm, he does not employ the services of the lawyer assigned to personally handle the case. Rather, he employs the entire law firm.]

Rule 20.02 – A lawyer shall, in cases of referral, with the consent of the client, be entitled to a division of fees in proportion to the work performed & responsibility assumed
It is improper for a lawyer to receive compensation [commission/portion of


attorney’s fees] for merely recommending another lawyer to his client (otherwise, profession is commercialized & proper appreciation of professional responsibility may be destroyed). He gets fee only when, in addition to referral, he performs legal service/assumes responsibility in the case

Judgment debtor had fully paid judgment creditor all the proceeds of judgment without lawyer taking any legal step to have his fees paid directly to him out of such proceeds

Rule 20.03 – A lawyer shall NOT, without the full knowledge & consent of client, accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or forwarding allowance or other compensation whatsoever related to his professional employment from anyone other than the client.
General rule: lawyer should receive compensation for services in a case only from his client & not from any other person Purpose: to secure the lawyer’s wholehearted fidelity to client’s cause; avoid suspicion on client’s part that his lawyer is receiving compensation from 3rd parties with hostile interests Corollary: whatever a lawyer receives from the opposite party in the service of his client belongs to his client

Proof required: • That lawyer was retained in his professional capacity • That he rendered professional services to client • That fee claimed is reasonable • That fee remains unpaid notwithstanding demand • In case fee is contingent, show that contingency has occurred Court having jurisdiction to try main action also has jurisdiction to pass upon the question of fees even though the total sum thereof is less than jurisdictional amount cognizable by court & jurisdiction continues until proceeds of judgment shall have been delivered to client. Independent civil action for recovery of attorney’s fees is subject to same jurisdictional requirement as any other ordinary civil suit Persons who are entitled to or must pay attorney’s fees have the right to be heard upon the question of their propriety or amount. Burden of proof is upon the lawyer to establish his allegations & he must be allowed to adduce evidence to prove his claim. Where there is a written agreement for attorney’s fees, no other piece of evidence than that of the agreement is necessary to prove the amount, unless the amount appears to be unconscionable in the absence of an explanation. Until there shall have been a hearing at which all parties concerned are given the opportunity to be heard, trial court may not authorize payment of fees (but hearing is presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary) Usual defenses applicable to an ordinary suit are available: e.g. want of jurisdiction, res judicata, prescription, nullity of contract for professional services, negligence in discharge of lawyer’s duties, lack of attorney-client relationship, payment, & unconscionableness of amount claimed Final award of fees may be enforced by execution i.e. against any property of client, including proceeds of judgment secured for client in main action
Corpuz v CA (98 SCRA 424) Although atty. David may be faulted for not reducing the agreement on fees into writing, the absence of an express contract is no argument against the payment of fees, considering the close relationship between him & Corpus, which signifies mutual trust. The payment of attorney’s fees may be justified by the innominate contract of facio ut des (I do & you give), which is based on the principle against unjust enrichment. Atty David, however, is guilty of contempt for filing a case for a writ of execution on attorney’s fees even though the main case was still pending with the SC.

Rule 20.04 – A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation & shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice, or fraud.
Suits to collect fees should be avoided, & only where circumstances imperatively require should a lawyer resort to lawsuit to enforce payment of fees. He may take judicial action to protect right to fees either in the main action where his services were rendered or in an independent civil suit against his client Enforce right to fees by filing necessary petition as an incident of the main action where his services were rendered when: • Something is due the client in such action from which fee is to be paid • Client settles/waives his cause in bad faith in favor of adverse party to prejudice lawyer’s claim for payment • May not be availed of if client recovers nothing in the main case Question of fees may be determined only until after decision of main litigation & subject of recovery is at the disposition of the court Independent action to recover fees may be done in cases where: • The court trying main action dismissed the action or awarded nothing to client • Court had no/lost jurisdiction over action • Person liable for attorney’s fees is not a party in main action • Court reserved to lawyer the right to file separate civil suit for recovery of fees • Services for which fees are sought by lawyer were rendered with a matter not in litigation


Narido v Linsangan Contract between Atty Risma & client for handling a workmen’s compensation case stipulated that Risma would get 15% of award obtained by client. This is contrary to the explicit provision in Workmen’s Compensation Act allowing only a maximum of 10% & only where case is appealed. Held: contract is of no force & effect, & the penalty imposed being that of admonition merely only because Risma actually made no effort to collect on it & had even advanced expenses for his poor client. It was clear that he would not try to enforce the contract. Perez v Scottish Union The fact that Perez handled the case with competence & success cannot be denied – note the CA acquittal, for which he made oral argument & 78-page brief! The amount of P 6000.00 cannot therefore be adjudged excessive or unjust, especially because the fee is in a sense contingent upon acquittal, since no insurance money (from which the 6000 would be taken) would be forthcoming if Mitre was acquitted. As to Perez’s income & length of practice, neither is a safe criterion of professional ability – his competency must be judged from the character of his work. Lastly, judicial actions for the recovery of fees, unless righteous & well founded & unless forced by an intolerable attitude assumed by clients, are seldom, if ever, resorted to, because they cannot fail to create the impression, however wrong it may be, that the lawyers instituting them are mercenary. Judgment affirmed insofar as it sentences Mitre to pay Perez P 6000.00 as attorney’s fees in arson case.

Art. 208 RPC. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance. --- The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and suspension shall be imposed upon any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commission of offenses. Rule 130 S21 (b). Privileged Communication. --(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment; nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity; Confidence refers to information protected by the attorney-client privilege as defined by the provision in the ROC. This is called the evidentiary privilege. The word “secret” refers to other information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested to be inviolate or that which disclosure of which would be embarrassing to the client. The lawyer’s duty to maintain inviolate his client’s confidence is perpetual. It outlasts his professional employment and continues even after the client’s death. Its purpose is to be sure that the client will not suppress any information regarding the case to the attorney. The attorney-client privilege is intended primarily for the protection of the client and incidentally in consideration for oath and honor of the atty. If what the client seeks is not legal advice but only accounting or business or personal assistance, the privilege does not attach However, some privileged communications lose their privileged character by some supervening act done pursuant to the purpose of communication. Thus, a communication intended by the client to be sent to a 3rd person thru his lawyer loses its confidential character after it has reached the 3rd party. The attorney-client privilege exists where legal advice of any kind is sought from an attorney in his professional capacity with respect to communications relating to that purpose, made in confidence by the client so as permanently to protect such communication, unless the protection is waived The privilege does not attach when it is made to a person who is not a lawyer, even if such person performs legal services and appears in court. However, if a person poses as a lawyer and a client confides in reliance on the supposed attorney-client privilege, the communication is protected by the privilege. The attorney-client privilege embraces not only oral or written statements but

Sato v Rallos Case for collection of attorney’s fees claimed by Sato against estate administrator as such & as a distributee, & also against the other distributees. It was proven that professional services were rendered & clients-appellees benefited therefrom. Held: filing of complaint more than satisfies procedural requirements. Also, the fact that the estate had already been distributed & the heirs had received their respective shares is no bar to an award of fees to complainant lawyer. This is in keeping with the principle against unjust enrichment.

Canon 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.
Rule 138 S20(e). Duties of attorneys. – 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;


also actions, signs, or other means of communications. The only question, in the circumstances of each case is whether they have been intended to be a part of the communications from the client to the attorney in confidence in connection with the legal advice sought or given. These confidences and secrets include not only those which are protected by the evidentiary privilege but also those which the lawyer acquired in his professional capacity from the client without regard the nature or source thereof or the fact that others share the knowledge and secrets of the client because the ethical obligation of a lawyer to guard the confidences and secrets of his client is wider in scope than the evidentiary privilege. If a client confides to a lawyer that he has committed perjury, the question as whether the lawyer should disclose the perjury to the court involves a balancing of loyalties. To the court, the lawyer owes the duty of candor and fairness. He also has the duty to keep inviolate the client’s confidence, which requires that he not reveal the client’s perjury, the wrongdoing being a past offense. However, the duty of candor and fairness to the court is not sufficient to override the purpose, policy, and obligation involved in the doctrine of attorney-client privilege. The lawyer should retire from the case, not only because his effectiveness as an advocate for the client’s cause is affected but also because his continuing to represent the client may be construed as an agreement to the client’s perjury.
Natan v Capule. Atty Capule was charged for having failed, without justifiable reason, to appear in the hearing of a case for which he received his fees in full, and for having accepted professional employment in the very case in which his former client is the adverse party. The fact that he st nd retired from the 1 case before accepting the 2 case doesn’t relieve him from his obligation of fidelity and loyalty. What makes the violation more improper is that he actually used the papers, knowledge and information he received as a lawyer for his former client (complainant herein) to further his new client’s interest. Hilado v David. Hilado petitioned for annulment of a sale of real property by her deceased husband. The defendant, Saad, was represented by Atty et al, later substituted by Atty Francisco. Hilado sought disqualification of Francisco on the ground that he had a lawyer-client relationship with her. It appears that she first consulted Francisco about her case, in the process turned over some papers to him. However, he advised her not to proceed with the action. There was a lawyer-client relationship established when Francisco mailed Hilado a written opinion on the merits of the case. Even if his assistant wrote the letter, it was still his firm that gave the professional advise. He is therefore bound as if he himself wrote it. He is precluded from st accepting the opposite party’s retainer regardless of what info was received by him from his 1 client, Hilado.

client except: • When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences of the disclosure; • When required by law; • When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or associates or by judicial action.
Client may waive the protection of the privilege either personally or through the attorney. But the waiver of the privilege cannot be made partially. The protection does not extend to communications in contemplation of a crime or a perpetuation of a fraud. in order that these type of communications fall under the exception, there should be proof aside from the testimony of the client or of the attorney, so that the attorney-client privilege is not broken through mere inquiry. The privilege communication may be a shield of defense as to crimes already committed. The client may confess to his guilt to this counsel and be secured in the thought that his counsel cannot disclose it and the attorney is duty bound to render effective legal assistance. The privilege cannot be used to enable a person to carry out a contemplated crime against society. A person who is committing a crime or is about to commit a wrong can have no privilege witness. It is the duty of the attorney to divulge the communication of his client as to his announced intention to commit a crime to the proper authorities to prevent the crime or to protect the person against whom it is threatened.

Rule 21.02. A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use the same to his own advantage or that of a 3rd person, unless the client with dull knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto. Rule 21.03. A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his client, give information from his files to an outside agency seeking such information for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data processing, or any similar purpose.
The reason for the rule is that the work product of a lawyer is still within the scope of the attorney-client privilege.

Rule 21.01. A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets of his

Rule 21.04. A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the firm to partners or associates thereof unless prohibited by the client.


The rule is that the professional employment of a lw firm is equivalent to the retainer of the members thereof even though only one of them is consulted. The disclosure is not to a third person because members or associates in the law firm are considered as one person.

Rule 21.05. A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required to prevent those whose services are utilized by him, from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of the client.
The client’s secrets learned by the persons helping the attorney are also under the scope of the attorney-client privilege, and the lawyer is also bound to protect these secrets from spreading.

Rule 21.06. A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about a client’s affairs even with members of his family.
Indiscreet conversations can result in the prejudice of the clients and will lessen the respect due to the legal profession. Rule 21.07. A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been consulted about a particular case except to avoid possible conflict of interest. The rule of privilege communication applies also to prospective clients.

Rule 22.01 CPR. A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases: • When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter he is handling; • When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of these canons and rules; • When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the client; • When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively; • When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement; • When the lawyer is elected or appointed to a public office; • Other similar cases.
The lawyer lacks the unqualified right to withdraw the service once he has taken the case. He implies that he will pursue the case to its conclusion when he decides to accept a particular case. A lawyer may retire any time from any action or proceeding with the written consent of his client filed in court and copy thereof served upon the adverse party. A lawyer may not continue employment when he discovers that his obligation to preserve the client’s confidence prevents the performance of his full duty to his former or present client. A lawyer who wishes to retire as counsel without consent from the client must file a petition for withdrawal in the court. He must serve the copy of his petition to the client, and the adverse party at least three days before the date set for the hearing. This is to secure that the client can secure the services of another lawyer. A lawyer, however, should not assume that the court would grant his petition. Death of lawyer terminates the relationship, and the representatives of a lawyer cannot assign the case to another lawyer. If the deceased lawyer, however, is a part of the firm, the remaining partners continue to serve as counsel for the client. Three ways of changing lawyers: • Client may discharge lawyer any time with or without cause and employ another lawyer • The attorney himself may initiate the move for substitution through application in court. • Attorney may initiate the move by withdrawing his appearance either with the written consent of his client or with leave of court on some justifiable

Canon 22. A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.
The discharge of the attorney or his substitution by another, upon the client’s initiative or action, shall not prejudice the attorney’s right to full payment of the compensation agreed in writing or in the absence of a written attainer, to a reasonable amount based on quantum meruit. No formal notice is needed when a client discharges his lawyer. Any act of the client indication an unmistakable purpose to terminate the relation is sufficient. The severance of the relation of attorney and client is not effective until a notice of discharge by the client or a manifestation clearly indicating that purpose is filed with the court and a copy thereof is served upon the adverse party concerned. Until such formality is complied with, the lawyer continues to be counsel in the case and any judicial notice sent to him is binding upon the client even though as between them the professional relationship has long been terminated. The relation of the attorney and the client terminates upon the death of a client because the relation is personal and one of agency. The relation also terminates upon the incapacity and the incompetency of the client during the pendency of the litigation. It shall be the duty of the lawyer to inform the court of the happenings.


ground. Requisites for substitution: • Written application for substitution • Written consent of client • Written consent of attorney to be substitute, or if written consent cannot be secured, service or notice of the application upon him. A defective substitution does not change the counsel. The old counsel will still have to act as counsel for the client until a proper substitution can be made. Professinal courtesy requires that an additional counsel would inform the existing counsel that the client got him to help in the case.
Domingo v Aquino. The party in the subject case was the intestate estate of Luis Domingo, Sr. and that Atty Unson represented the estate as counsel. The fact that Luis Domingo, Jr. engaged his services in his capacity, as administrator did not make him the personal counsel of Luis Jr. So even if Luis Jr. was removed as administrator, Unson continued to represent the estate. Atty Unson continued on record in the appellate court as counsel for the estate of appellant therein and did not file any withdrawal as counsel. Petitioner did not inform said court of any change of counsel or of the party-administrator, as required by Rule 138 Sec 26 of the RoC. More so, no appearance of any new counsel for the estate has ever been filed with the appellate court.

It is a passive right and cannot be actively enforced. Requisites: • Attorney-client relationship • Lawful possession of the lawyer of the client’s funds, documents and papers in his professional capacity • Unsatisfied claim for attorney’s fees or disbursements. The general, possessory or retaining lien of an attorney attaches to all properties, papers, books, documents, or securities of the client that lawfully come to the lawyer professionally or in the course of his professional employment, not necessarily in connection with a particular case. The retaining lien also attaches to the client’s money, which comes into his possession by way of a writ of execution ordered by the court. The attorney’s retaining lien once it has lawfully attached to funds, document, and papers of a client is uncontestable and the courts may not compel him to surrender them without prior proof that his fees and disbursements have been duly satisfied. The lawyer should not apply the client’s funds in his possession to satisfy his fees for services rendered. He should, instead, file the necessary action in court to fix the amount of his fees, and only after the same shall have been finally adjudicated that he can apply the client’s funds to pay his fees. The retaining lien expires when the possession lawfully ends as the lawyer voluntarily parts with the same or offers them as evidence in court. CHARGING LIEN A charging lien is the right, which the attorney has upon all judgments for the payment of money and executions issued in pursuance thereof, obtained in favor of the client. It secures payment. Of fees and disbursements, for the services rendered by the lawyer in the action in which the judgment was rendered and takes effect only after he shall have caused a statement of his claim to be entered upon the record of the particular action with written notice thereof to his client and the adverse party. It gives the lawyer who contributed effort to secure the favorable judgment the same right and power as his client over the judgment and execution to enforce his lien and secure the payment of his fees and disbursements. It is an equitable lien, based on the natural equity that the client should not be allowed to appropriate the whole of the judgment in his favor without paying the services of his counsel in obtaining or helping obtain such judgment. Requisites: • Attorney-client relationship

Rule 22.02. A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter.
The law creates in favor of a lawyer a lien not only upon the funds, documents and papers of the client which have lawfully come into his possession until what is due him has been paid but also a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money and executions issued in pursuance of such judgments rendered in the case wherein his services have been retained by the client. The former is known as the retaining lien while the latter is known as the charging lien. RETAINING LIEN The retaining lien is the right of the attorney to retain the funds, documents and papers of his client, which have lawfully come into his possession until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid, and to apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof. It is a general lien for the balance of the account due to the attorney from his client for services rendered in all matters, which he may have handled for the client, regardless of the outcome.


• • • •

Lawyer rendered services in the action A money judgment favorable to the client Attorney has a claim for attorney’s fees and advances Statement of his claim has been duly recorded in the case and it has been served to his client and the adverse party.

The lien is restricted to the amounts awarded to the client by final judgment and does not comprise of money that according to the same judgment, must be applied to satisfy a legitimate debt of a client. The lien gives the lawyer the right to collect, in payment, of his professional fees and disbursements, a certain amount, from out of the judgment or award rendered on favor of his client. The client who receives the proceeds of the judgment or the person in whose favor the client transfers them holds such proceeds in trust for the lawyer. In other words, the client cannot defeat the attorney’s right to the charging lien by dismissing the case, terminating the services of his counsel, waiving his cause or interest in favor of the adverse party or compromising his action. While the client may take any such step even against the wishes of his lawyer, he can do so only without prejudice to the attorney’s right to fees and lien that has already been attached. The lawyer need not be a party to the action in order to establish his lien and enforce it upon the judgment but in a proper case, he may be permitted to intervene.
Obando v Figueras. Petitioners claim that when Atty Yuseco filed the Motion to Dismiss, he no longer represented the respondents. SC held that Yuseco was still counsel. Representation continues until the court dispenses with the services of counsel in accordance with Sec 26 Rule 138 RoC which requires that: (1) new counsel files a written application; (2) client’s written consent is obtained; (3) written consent of lawyer to be substituted, or proof that the lawyer to be substituted has been informed in the manner required. Besides, at the discretion of the court, an attorney who has already been dismissed is allowed to intervene in order to protect the client’s rights.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful