Rule 20.

03
A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and
consent of the 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.
 It is the duty of an
Attorney
RULE 138 SECTION 20 (E), RULES OF
COURT

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.

ADD A FOOTER
2
Rule 20.04 A lawyer shall avoid
controversies with clients
concerning his compensation
and shall resort to judicial
action only to prevent
imposition, injustice or fraud.
3
 Rules of Court
Section 24, Rule
138
An attorney shall be entitled to have and
recover from his client no more than a
reasonable compensation for his
services, with a view to the importance
of the subject matter of the controversy,
the extent of the services rendered, and
the professional standing of the attorney.
No court shall be bound by the opinion
of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the
proper compensation, but may disregard
such testimony and base its conclusion
on its own professional knowledge. A
written contract for services shall control
the amount to be paid therefor unless
found by the court to be unconscionable
or unreasonable.
4
Section 32, Rule
138
Compensation for attorneys de oficio-
Subject to availability of funds as may be
provided by law the court may, in its
discretion, order an attorney employed
as counsel de oficio to be compensated in
such sum as the court may fix in
accordance with Sec. 24 of this rule.
Whenever such compensation is
allowed, it shall not be less than thirty
pesos (30) in any case, nor more than the
following amounts: (50) in light felonies
(P100) in less grave felonies; (P200) in
grave felonies other than capital offense;
(P500) in capital offense.
ADD A FOOTER
 Ramos V. Atty.
Ngaseo
AC No. 6210, DECEMBER 9, 2004
FACTS:
Frederico Ramos went to Atty. Patricio Ngaseo’s
to engage his services as counsel in a case
involving a piece of land in Pangasinan. Atty.
Ngaseo agreed to handle the case for an
acceptance fee of P20,000.00, appearance fee of
P1000.00 per hearing and the cost of meals,
transportation and other incidental expenses.
Ramos alleged that he did not promise to pay the
respondent 1,000 sqm of land as appearance fees.
On September 16, 1999, Ramos went to Atty.
Ngaseo’s office to inquire about the status of the
case.
5
Atty. informed him that the decision was
adverse to them because a congressman
exerted pressure upon the trial judge.
However, Atty. Ngaseo assured him that
they could still appeal the adverse
judgement and asked for the additional
amount of P3,850.00 and another P2,000.00
on September 26, 2000 as allowance for
research made. On January 29, 2003, Ramos
received a demand letter from Atty. Ngaseo
asking for the delivery of 1,000 sqm piece of
land which he allegedly promised as
payment for his appearance fee.
In the same letter, Atty. also threatened to
file a case in court if the complainant would
not confer with him and settle the matter
within 30 days. On July 18, 2001, the court
of Appeals rendered a favorable decision
ordering the return of the disputed 2-
hectare land to the Ramos and his siblings.
The said decision became final and
executory on January 18, 2002. Since then
complainant allegedly failed to contact
Atty. Ngaseo, which compelled him to send
a demand letter on January 29, 2003. Ramos
then filed a complaint before the IBP
charging his former counsel, Atty. Ngaseo,
of violation of the code of professional
responsibility for demanding the delivery
of 1,000 sqm parcel of land which was the
subject of litigation. IBP Commissioner
found the Atty. Ngaseo guilty of grave
misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a
Lawyer in violation of the CPR and
recommend that he be suspended from the
practice of law for 1 year.
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT:
He did not violate Art. 1491 of the Civil
Code because when he demanded the
delivery of the 1,000sqm of land which was
offered and promise to him in lieu of the
appearance fees, the case has been
terminated, when the appellate court
ordered the return of the 2 –hectare parcel
of land to the family of the complainant. He
further contends that he can collect the
unpaid appearance fee even without a
written contract on the basis of the principle
of quantum meruit. He claims that his
acceptance and appearance fees are
reasonable because a Makati based legal
practitioner would handle a case for an
6
Acceptance fee of only P20,000.00 and
P1,000.00 per court appearance.
ISSUE:
Whether Art. 1491 NCC prohibiting
lawyers from acquiring either by purchase
or assignment the property or rights
involved which are the object of the
litigation in which they intervene by virtue
of their profession is violated by Atty.
Ngaseo.
RULLING:
NO. In the actual case, there was no actual
acquisition of the property in litigation
since the respondent only made a written
demand for its delivery which the
complainant refuse to comply. Mere
demand for delivery of the litigated
property does not cause the transfer of
ownership, hence, not a prohibited
transaction within the contemplation of
Article 1491. Even assuming that such
demand letter is unethical, respondent’s act
does not fall within the purview of article
1491. The IBP resolution does not clearly
specify which acts of the respondent
constitute gross misconduct or what
provisions of the CPR have been violated.
We find the recommended penalty of
suspension for 6 months too harsh and not
proportionate to the offense committed by
the respondent. Only in a clear case of
misconduct that seriously affects the
standing and character of the bar will
disbarment or suspension be imposed as a
penalty. All considered, a reprimand is
deemed sufficient and reasonable.
7
 Wherefore
In view of the foregoing, respondent Atty.
Ngaseo is found guilty of conduct unbecoming a
member of the legal profession in violation of
Rule 20.04 of Canon 20 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. He is
REPRIMANDED with a warning that repetition
of the same act will be dealt with more severely.

8
 Canon 21
A lawyer shall preserve the confidences or secret of his client even
after the attorney-client relation is terminated.
9
 Rules of Court
Section 20(E), Rule138
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.
10
Section 21 (B), Rule 130
Children whose mental maturity is
such as to render them incapable of
perceiving the facts respecting which
they are examined and of relating
them truthfully.
ADD A FOOTER
 Article 208, RPC
Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance
- The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period and suspension shall be
imposed upon any public officer, or officer of the
law, who, in the 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.

11
 a.) When authorized by the client after

Rule 21.01 acquainting him of the consequences

A lawyer shall not reveal the
confidences or secrets of his client
except:
of the disclosure;
b.) Required by law;
c.) When necessary to collect his fees
or to defend himself, his employees or
associates or by judicial action.

12
 A lawyer shall not, to the

Rule 21.02 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
third person, unless the client with
full knowledge of the circumstances
consents thereto.
13

Uy, V. Atty. Gonzales
A.C. NO. 5280, MARCH 30, 2004
FACTS:
William S. Uy filed before this Court an
administrative case against Atty. Fermin L.
Gonzales for violation of the confidentiality of
their lawyer-client relationship. Complainant
engaged the services of respondent lawyer to
prepare and file a petition for the issuance of a
new certificate of title. After confiding with
respondent the circumstances surrounding the
lost title and discussing the fees and costs,
respondent prepared, finalized and submitted to
him a petition to be filed before the Regional
Trial Court.
14
When the petition was about to be filed, respondent
went to complainant’s office demanding a certain
amount other than what was previously agreed upon.
Respondent left his office after reasoning with him.
Expecting that said petition would be filed, he was
shocked to find out later that instead of filing the
petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title,
respondent filed a letter-complaint against him with
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for Falsification
of Public Documents. The letter-complaint contained
facts and circumstances pertaining to the transfer
certificate of title that was the subject matter of the
petition which respondent was supposed to have
filed. Respondent claims that he gave complainant a
handwritten letter telling complainant that he is
withdrawing the petition he prepared and that
complainant should get another lawyer to file the
petition thereby terminating the lawyer-client
relationship between him and complainant;
that there was no longer any
professional relationship between the
two of them when he filed the letter-
complaint for falsification of public
document; that the facts and
allegations contained in the letter-
complaint for falsification were culled
from public documents procured from
the Office of the Register of Deeds. The
IBP found him guilty of violating Rule
21.02, Canon 21 of the Canons of
Professional Responsibility and
recommended for his suspension for 6
months.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent violated
Canon 21 of the CPR?
15
RULLING:
No. Evidently, the facts alleged in the
complaint for Estafa Through Falsification of
Public Documents filed by respondent
against complainant were obtained by
respondent due to his personal dealings with
complainant. Respondent volunteered his
service to hasten the issuance of the
certificate of title of the land he has redeemed
from complainant. Clearly, there was no
attorney-client relationship between
respondent and complainant. The
preparation and the proposed filing of the
petition was only incidental to their personal
transaction.
Whatever facts alleged by respondent
against complainant were not obtained by
respondent in his professional capacity but
as a redemptioner of a property originally
owned by his deceased son and therefore,
when respondent filed the complaint for
estafa against herein complainant, which
necessarily involved alleging facts that
would constitute estafa, respondent was
not, in any way, violating Canon 21.
16
There is no way we can equate the filing
of the affidavit-complaint against herein
complainant to a misconduct that is
wanting in moral character, in honesty,
probity and good demeanor or that
renders him unworthy to continue as an
officer of the court. To hold otherwise
would be precluding any lawyer from
instituting a case against anyone to
protect his personal or proprietary
interests.
PETITION DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Thank You!
MARIANO L. CALDINGON

Subject

Legal Ethics