PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA

COLLEGE OF LAW

LEGAL PROFESSION
Atty. Eugenio M. Santiago Jr.
Thursday / 5:00 pm – 6:00 pm

SYLLABUS

I. INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL PROFESSION

a. Definition

a.1 Lawyer
a.2 Counsel de Parte
a.3 Counsel de Officio
a.4 Amicus Curiae
a.5. Practice of Law
a.6. Moral Turpitude

Cases:
Ø Cecilia Pagaduan v. Civil Service Commission, et al., G.R. No.
206379, November 19, 2014.
Ø Atty. Policarpio I. Catalan Jr. v. Atty. Joselito M. Silvosa, A.C.
No. 7360, July 24, 2012.
Ø Re: Decision dated 17 March 2011 In Criminal Case No. SB-
28361 Entitled “People of the Philippines v. Joselito C. Barrozo”,
A.C. No. 10207, July 21, 2015.
Ø Mercuria D. So v. Ma. Lucille P. Lee, B.M. No. 3288, April 10,
2019.
Ø Republic of the Philippines v. Ferdinand R. Marcos II and Imelda
R. Marcos, G.R. Nos. 130371 & 130855, August 4, 2009.
Ø Teves v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180363, April 28, 2009.

b. Nature of the Legal Profession

Cases:
Ø Dayan Sta. Ana Christian Neighborhood Association Inc. v.
Espiritu, A.C. No. 5542, July 20, 2006.
Ø Jerry F. Villa v. Atty. Paula Dimpa Beatriz Defensor-Velez,
A.C. No. 12202, December 5, 2019

c. History of the Legal Profession

d. Distinction between the Legal Profession and Business

 Cases:
Ø Dominador P. Burbe v. Atty. Alberto C. Magulta, A.C. No. 99-
634, June 10, 2002.
Ø Atty. Ismael G. Khan Jr. v. Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo, A.C. No.
5299, August 19, 2003 / Atty. Rizalino T. Simbillo v. IBP
Commission on Bar Discipline, G.R. No. 157053, August 19,
2003.
Ø Pedro L. Linsangan v. Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino, A.C. No.
6672, September 4, 2009.

e. Supervision and Control

e.1 Const Art VIII Sec 5(5)

e.2 Const Art XII Sec 14

Cases:
Ø In Re: Cunanan, 94 Phil. 554 (1954)
Ø In the matter of IBP, 151 Phil. 132 (1973)

II. BAR EXAMINATIONS

III. PRACTICE OF LAW

a. Admission to Practice of Law

Cases:
Ø In Re: Cunanan, 94 Phil. 554 (1954)
Ø In Re Lanuevo, 29 August 1975

b. Qualifications
Ø Citizenship
Ø Residence
Ø Age
Ø Good Moral Character
Ø Legal Education
Ø Bar Examination
Ø Lawyer’s Oath

c. Who may Practice Law?

** Rule 138, sec. 1-5; Rule 138-A; Consti., Art. VII, sec. 5 (5)
and XII, sec. 14(2)

c.1 General Rule

c.2 Exceptions
c.3 Relative and Absolute Prohibition
 d. Appearance of Non Lawyers

d.1 Law Student Practice

d.2 Non-Lawyers in Court and Administrative Bodies

e. Public Officials and Practice of Law

e.1 Public Officials Who Cannot Practice Law

e.2 Public Officials with Restrictions in the Practice of Law
e.3 Prohibition or Disqualification of Former Government
Attorneys
e.4 Lawyers Authorized to Represent the Government

Cases:
Ø Beltran Jr. v. Abad, B.M. No. 139, 121 SCRA 217, March 28,
1983.
Ø Philippine Lawyer’s Association v. Agrava, 105 Phil. 173 (1959)
Ø Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 (1991)
Ø Diao v. Martinez, 7 SCRA 473 (1963)
Ø In re: Argosino, 270 SCRA 26 (1997)
Ø Aguirre v. Rana, Bar Matter No. 1036 (2003)
Ø Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M.
Dacanay, 540 SCRA 424 (2007)

IV. PRIVILEGES AND DUTIES OF A LAWYER

a. Privileges of an Attorney
b. Four-Fold Duties of a Lawyer
c. Duties of Attorneys (Rule 138, Sec. 20)
d. Duty of Counsel de Officio
e. Duty of a Private Prosecutor

V. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION

a. Uphold the Integrity and Dignity of the Profession and Support

the Activities of the IBP
b. Observe Courtesy, Fairness and Candor Toward his Colleagues
and Avoid Harassing Tactics
c. Unauthorized Practice of Law

Cases:

Ø In Re: 1989 Elections of the IBP, 178 SCRA 398 (1989)

Ø Santos v. Llamas, 322 SCRA 529 (2000)
Ø Letter of Atty. Cecilio Arevalo, 458 SCRA 209 (2005)
Ø Tan, Jr. v. Gumba, A.C. No. 9000, 5 October 2011
 Ø Leda v. Tabang, 206 SCRA 395 (1992)
Ø Foodsphere v. Mauricio, A.C. No. 7199 (22 July 2009)
Ø Advincula v. Macabata, 517 SCRA 600 (2007)
Ø Zaguirre v. Castillo, 398 SCRA 659 (2003)
Ø Reyes vs. Chiong, Jr., 405 SCRA 212 (2003)
Ø Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago, 597 SCRA 1 (2009)
Ø Laput v. Remotigue, A.M. No. 219 (1962)
Ø Alawi v. Alauya, 268 SCRA 639 (1997)
Ø Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc., 223 SCRA 378 (1993)

VI. LAWYER’S DUTY TO THE COURTS

a. Observance of Candor, Fairness and Good Faith to the Courts

b. Observe Respect due to the Courts
c. Assist in the Speedy and Efficient Administration of Justice
1. Article 3, Section 6, 1987 Philippine Constitution
2. Rule 138 Sec 20 (g), Rules of Court

d. Avoid Impropriety that Tends to Influence the Court

Cases:
Ø Cobb Perez v. Lantin, 24 SCRA 291 (1968)
Ø Young v. Batuegas, 403 SCRA 123 (2003)
Ø Santos, Jr. v. Llamas, 322 SCRA 529 (2000)
Ø Young v. Batuegas, 403 SCRA 123 (2003)
Ø De Leon v. Castillo, A.C. No. 8620, 12 January 2011
Ø In Re: Sotto, 82 Phil 595 (1949)
Ø In Re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 (1970)
Ø Cruz v. Salva, 105 Phil 1151 (1951)
Ø Magsalang v. People, G.R. No. 90083 October 4, 1990
Ø Adez Realty, Inc. v. CA, 215 SCRA 301 (1992)
Ø Garcia v. Francisco, 220 SCRA 512 (1993)
Ø Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty, A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, 8
March 2011

VII. LAWYER’S DUTY TO THE CLIENT

a. Attorney-Client Relationship

a.1 Nature of Relation

b. Not Refuse Services to the Needy

b.1 Right to Decline Employment

b.2 Duty to Decline Employment
b.3 Ethical Consideration in Taking a Bad Case
 b.4 Amici Curiae/Counsel de Officio

c. Observe Candor, Fairness, and Loyalty in his Dealings and

Transactions with his Clients

d. Hold in Trust all the Money and Property of this Client that may
Come to his Possession

e. Owes Fidelity to the Cause of this Client and be Mindful of the

Trust and Confidence Reposed in Him

f. Serve Client with Competence and Diligence

f.1 Duty to Protect the Client’s Interest

f.2 Preparation of Pleadings of the Client
f.3 Duty to Keep the Client Fully Informed
f.4 Doctrine of Imputed Knowledge
f.5 Duty when the Court intends to Plead Guilty
f.6 Duty to Comply with the Client’s Lawful Request

g. Represent Client with Zeal and within the Bounds of the Law

g.1 Duty to Restrain Client from Impropriety

g.2 Duty to Advice Candidly
g.3 Duty of Lawyer in Case of Knowledge of Client’s Fraud
g.4 Authority of the Lawyer
g.5 Presumption of Authority
g.6 Authority to Compromise
g.7 Authority to Conduct Litigation
g.8 Mistakes or Negligence of Lawyer Binding Upon Client

h. Charge only Fair and Reasonable Fees

h.1. Attorney’s Fees
h.2 Quantum Merit
h.3 Retainer
h.4 Contingent Fee
h.5 Contingent Contract
h.6 Champertous Contract
h.7 Attorney’s Lien
h.8 Charging Lien
h.9 Retaining Lien

i. Privilege Communication

i.1 Lawyer as Witness

 j. Withdrawal of Services

j.1 Termination of Attorney-Client Relationship

j.2 Discharge of the Attorney by the Client

Cases:

Ø Blanza v. Arcangel, 21 SCRA 1 (1967)

Ø Regala v. Sandiganbayan, 262 SCRA 122 (1996)
Ø Palm v. Iledan, Jr., 602 SCRA 12 (2009)
Ø Dee v. CA, 176 SCRA 651(1989)
Ø Nakpil v. Valdez, 286 SCRA 758 (1998)
Ø Ordonio v. Eduarte, 207 SCRA 229 (1992)
Ø Rubias v. Batiller, G.R. No. L- 35702 May 29, 1973
Ø Santiago v. Fojas, 248 SCRA 68 (1995)
Ø Steimmark v. Mas, AC No. 8010 (2009)
Ø Islas v.Platon, 47 Phil. 162
Ø Albano v. Coloma, 21 SCRA 411 (1967)
Ø Nocom vs. Camerino, et al., G.R. No. 182984 (February 10,
2009)
Ø Genato v. Silapan, 453 Phil. 910 (2003)
Ø Montano vs. IBP, 358 SCRA 1 (2001)
Ø Obando vs. Figueras, 322 SCRA 148 (2000)
Ø Hornilla v. Salunat, 405 SCRA 220 (2003)
Ø Frias v. Lozada, 477 SCRA 393 (2005)
Ø Pacana v. Pascual-Lopez, 594 SCRA 1(2009)
Ø Belleza v. Macasa, 593 SCRA 549 (2009)

VIII. LIABILITES OF A LAWYER

a. Liability for Damages

b. Liability for Breach of Fiduciary Obligation
c. Liability for Cost of Suit
d. Criminal Liability
e. Contempt of Court

IX. BASIC RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE

a. Notarial Act of 2004, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC

Cases:
Ø Gonzales v. Padiernos, 573 SCRA 164 (2008)
Ø Maligsa v. Catanting, 272 SCRA 408 (1997)
Ø Espinosa v. Omaña, A.C. No. 9081, 12 October 2011
Ø Caalim-Verzonilla v. Paxua, A.C. No. 6655, 11 October 2011
X. BAR DISCIPLINE

a. Power to Discipline Errant Lawyer

b. Form of Disciplinary Measure
c. Suspension, Disbarment and Reinstatement
c.1 Nature and Characteristics
c.2 Grounds
c.3 Breach of Duties to the Court, Client, Bar
c.4 Grievance Procedure
d. Readmission to the Bar

Cases:
Ø Guevara vs. Eala, August 1, 2007
Ø Cui v. Cui, 11 SCRA 755
Ø In Re: Adriatico, 17 Phil 324
Ø Prudential Bank v. Benjamin Grecia, 192 SCRA 381
Ø Yap Tan v. Sabandal, 170 SCRA 207
Ø In Re: Rusiana, 56 SCRA 240
Ø In Re: Rovero, 101 SCRA 803
Ø Plaza v. Amamio, Clerk of Court, et. al., 616 SCRA 191 (2010)
Ø Marcelo v. Javier, Jr., 214 SCRA 1 (1992)
Ø In Re: Suspension from the Practice of Law in the Territory of
Guam of Atty. Leon G. Maquera, B.M. No. 793, July 30, 2004

XI. MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION (BAR

MATTER 850)

a. Requirements of Completion
b. Exemptions
c. Mandatory Legal Aid Service