Kapis

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
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.
CANON 2
Rule 2.02
Rule 2.01
A lawyer shall not In such cases, even if the lawyer
reject, except for does not accept a case, he shall
valid reasons, the not refuse to render legal advice
cause of the to the person concerned if only
defenseless or the to the extent necessary to
oppressed. safeguard the latter's rights.
Rule 2.03
Rule 2.04
A lawyer shall not do or
A lawyer shall not charge rates
permit to be done any
lower than those customarily
act designed primarily to
prescribed unless the
solicit legal business
circumstances so warrant.
RULE 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons,
the cause of the defenseless or the oppressed.
IBP HANDBOOK ART. 1

GUIDELINES ON LEGAL AID GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE ESTABLISHMENTAND OPERATION OF LEGAL AID OFFICES
SECTION. 1. Public service.
Legal Aid is not a matter of charity. It is a means for the correction of social imbalances that may
and often do lead to injustice, for which reason it is a public responsibility of the Bar.
The spirit of public service should, therefore, underlie all legal aid offices. The same should be so
administered as to give maximum possible assistance to indigent and deserving members of the
community in all cases, matters and situations in which legal aid may be necessary to forestall an
injustice.
3 ADD A FOOTER MM.DD.20XX

RULE 2.02 - In such cases, 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.
SANTIAGO vs. ATTY. RAFANAN

A.C no. 6252
FACTS:
Jomar Santiago, an employee of the BJMP. He charged Atty. Rafanan with deceit; malpractice or other gross
misconduct. He alleges that respondent:
1. Notarizing several documents on different dates failed and/or refused to: a)make the proper notation
regarding the cedula or community tax certificate of the affiants; b) enter the details of the notarized documents in
the notarial register; and c) make and execute the certification and enter his PTR and IBP numbers in the
documents he had notarized, all in violation of the notarial provisions of the Revised Administrative Code.
2. Offered the same as evidence in the case wherein he was actively representing his client. (Both as a counsel
and witness of his client)
3. After the hearing and after confronting the latter disarmed him of his sidearm and thereafter uttered
insulting words and veiled threats.

A.C no. 6252
DEFENSE:
Atty. Rafanan admitted to administer the oaths of Santiago’s complaints but believes:
1. Notation of residence certificates applied only to documents acknowledged by a notary public and was
not mandatory for affidavits related to cases pending before courts and other government offices.
2. He also pointed out that older practitioners in Nueva Ecija also do what he did.
3. On the alleged violation of Rule 12.08 of CPR: lawyers could testify on behalf of their clients “on
substantial matters, in cases where [their]testimony is essential to the ends of justice.”
- Santiago charged Rafanan’s clients wit h attempted murder. Rafanan said that since his clients were in
his house during the alleged crime, that’s why he said his testimony is very essential.
4. He filed a case only to retaliate.


A.C no. 6252
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Rafanan is guilty in violating the Notarial Law.
2. Whether or not a lawyer (in this case, Rafanan) can stand as witness in favor of his clients.
RULING:
1. Yes, he violated the Notarial Law for not making the proper notation and entering the details of the
notarized documents.
2. Yes, a lawyer can stand as witness of a client


A.C no. 6252
RULING:
• Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client, except:
a) on formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument
b) 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.“


A.C no. 6252
RULING:
• A lawyer is not disqualified from being a witness, except only in certain cases pertaining to privileged
communication arising from an attorney-client relationship.
• The reason behind such rule is the difficulty posed upon lawyers by the task of dissociating their relation to their
clients as witnesses from that as advocates.
• Witnesses are expected to tell the facts as they recall them.
• Advocates are partisans - - those who actively plead and defend the cause of others.
It is difficult to distinguish the fairness and impartiality of a disinterested witness from the zeal of an
advocate. The question is one of propriety rather than of competency of the lawyers who testify for their
clients

A.C no. 6252
RULING:
"Acting or appearing to act in the double capacity of lawyer and witness for the client will provoke unkind criticism
and leave many people to suspect the truthfulness of the lawyer because they cannot believe the lawyer as
disinterested..” The testimony of the lawyer becomes doubted and is looked upon as partial and untruthful.”
Although the law does not forbid lawyers from being witnesses and at the same time counsels for a cause, the
preference is for them to refrain from testifying as witnesses, unless they absolutely have to; and should they do so,
to withdraw from active management of the case.


A.C no. 6252
RULING:
Atty. Rafanan was clearly necessary for the defense of his clients, since it pointed out the fact that on the alleged
date and time of the incident, his clients were at his residence and could not have possibly committed the crime
charged against them.
WHEREFORE, we cannot make him administratively liable for defending his client but he clearly violated Notarial
Law. He is FINED P3,000 with a warning that similar infractions in the future will be dealt with more severely.

RULE 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done
any act designed primarily to solicit legal business.
Rule 138 Sec. 27, Rules of Court
Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds.
A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office,
grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before the admission
to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to
do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.

RULE 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal business.
LINSANGAN vs. TOLENTINO

A.M No. 6672
FACTS:
Complaint for disbarment against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients and encroachment of
professional services.
Atty, with the help of paralegal, convinced Linsangan’s clients to transfer legal representation by promising them
financial assistance and expeditious collection on their claim


A.M No. 6672


A.M No. 6672
DEFENSE:
He denied knowing Labiano (the paralegal) and authorizing the printing and circulation of the said calling card.
ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Tolentino violated Rule 2.03 of CPR, should warrant disbarment?
RULING: Yes
Through Labiano’s actions, respondent’s law practice was benefited. Hapless seamen were enticed to transfer
representation on the strength of Labiano’s word that respondent could produce a more favorable result.


A.M No. 6672
RULING:
Under Rule 2.03, lawyers are prohibited from soliciting cases for the purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers. Such actuation constitutes malpractice, a ground for disbarment.
Rule 2.03 should be read in connection with Rule 1.03 of the CPR which provides:
RULE 1.03. A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay
any man’s cause.
This rule proscribes "ambulance chasing" (the solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by an attorney,
personally or through an agent in order to gain employment as a measure to protect the community from barratry
and champerty.

A.M No. 6672
RULING:
For the issue of calling card, it is emphasized that: A lawyer’s best advertisement is a well-merited reputation
for professional capacity and fidelity to trust based on his character and conduct.
Lawyers are only allowed to announce their services by publication in reputable law lists or use of simple
professional cards. Professional calling cards may only contain the following details:
(a) lawyer’s name; (b) name of the law firm with which he is connected;
(c) address; (d) telephone number and (e) special branch of law practiced.
Calling card contained the phrase "with financial assistance” - used to entice clients to change counsels with a
promise of loans to finance their legal actions

A.M No. 6672
RULING:
Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of one year.


A.M No. 6672
RULING: (SIDE ISSUES)
Violation of Rule 8.02 of the CPR, settled is the rule that a lawyer should not steal another lawyer’s client nor
induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his services.
Moreover, by engaging in a money-lending venture with his clients as borrowers, respondent violated
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.

RULE 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those
customarily prescribed unless the circumstances so warrant.

Kapis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kapis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

IBP HANDBOOK ART. 1

SECTION. 1. Public service.

3 ADD A FOOTER MM.DD.20XX

SANTIAGO vs. ATTY. RAFANAN

SANTIAGO vs. ATTY. RAFANAN

5 ADD A FOOTER MM.DD.20XX

SANTIAGO vs. ATTY. RAFANAN

6 ADD A FOOTER MM.DD.20XX

SANTIAGO vs. ATTY. RAFANAN

7 ADD A FOOTER MM.DD.20XX

SANTIAGO vs. ATTY. RAFANAN

SANTIAGO vs. ATTY. RAFANAN

9 ADD A FOOTER MM.DD.20XX

SANTIAGO vs. ATTY. RAFANAN

10 ADD A FOOTER MM.DD.20XX

Rule 138 Sec. 27, Rules of Court

Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds.

11 ADD A FOOTER MM.DD.20XX

LINSANGAN vs. TOLENTINO

12 ADD A FOOTER MM.DD.20XX

LINSANGAN vs. TOLENTINO

13 ADD A FOOTER MM.DD.20XX

LINSANGAN vs. TOLENTINO

14 ADD A FOOTER MM.DD.20XX

LINSANGAN vs. TOLENTINO

LINSANGAN vs. TOLENTINO

LINSANGAN vs. TOLENTINO

17 ADD A FOOTER MM.DD.20XX

LINSANGAN vs. TOLENTINO

18 ADD A FOOTER MM.DD.20XX

19 ADD A FOOTER MM.DD.20XX

You might also like