Sec 2-6 Requirements for applicants for admission to the bar

CASE # 3
Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente Ching
B.M No. 914, October 1, 1999.
TOPIC: Requirement for admission to the bar
Facts:
Vicente Ching is born from a Filipino mother and a father of Chinese national on April 11, 1964.
He took the bar exam subject upon submission of proof of his Phil. Citizenship.
He passed the bar at the age of 35 years old.
There was a question regarding his citizenship therefore he was not allowed to take oath. The Solicitor
General was asked to give comment on the case at bar.
ISSUE: WON Ching can be admitted to take oath in consideration of the status of his citizenship.
RULING:
The court ruled that Ching, being the "legitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother born under
the 1935 Constitution was a Chinese citizen and continued to be so, unless upon reaching the age of majority
he elected Philippine citizenship" 1 in strict compliance with the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 625
entitled "An Act Providing for the Manner in which the Option to Elect Philippine Citizenship shall be
Declared by a Person Whose Mother is a Filipino Citizen."
He should elect his Phil. Citizenship within a reasonable period of time upon reaching the age of majority
which is 21 years old at that time.
With almost 14 years that elapsed upon reaching his age of majority, Ching failed to exercise such right of
citizenship election beyond a reasonable period of time therefore he cannot be admitted in the Phil. Rolls of
atty. for being a Chinese citizen.

Good Moral Character
CASE #4 In Re: Argosino
B.M. No. 712 July 13, 1995
TOPIC: Good moral character; admission to the bar; oath of taking
FACTS:
This is a matter for admission to the bar and oath taking of a successful bar applicant.
Argosino was previously involved with hazing that caused the death of Raul Camaligan but was sentenced
with homicide through reckless imprudence after he pleaded guilty.
He was sentenced with 2 years imprisonment where he applied for a probation thereafter which was granted
by the court with a 2 yr probation.
He took the bar exam and passed but was not allowed to take oath.
He filed a petition to allow him to take the attorneys oath of office averring that his probation was already
terminated.
The court note that he spent only 10 months of the probation period before it was terminated.
ISSUE: WON Argosino may take oath of office.

RULING:
The court upheld the principle of maintaining the good morals of all Bar members, keeping in mind that such
is of greater importance so far as the general public and the proper administration of justice are concerned,
than the possession of legal learning.
Hence he was asked by the court to produce evidence that would certify that he has reformed and have
become a responsible member of the community through sworn statements of individuals who have a good
reputation for truth and who have actually known Mr. Argosino for a significant period of time to certify he
is morally fit to the admission of the law profession.
The court also ordered that said a copy of the proceeding be furnished to the family/relatives of Raul
Camaligan.

CASE #8: In Re: Lanuevo
66 SCRA 254 August 29, 1975
TOPIC: Admission to the Bar; judgment; SC exclusive power; practive of law is priviledge, not right; etc.

FACTS:
This is an administrative proceeding against Victorio Lanueva who was the Bar Confidant during the 1971
Bar Examination emanating from the revelation of one Oscar Landicho, a bar examinee of the same bar exam,
in his confidential letter that the result of the bar exam of one of the bar examinee later identified as Ramon
Galang was raised before the result was released to make him pass the bar.
Acting upon said letter, the court called the 5 bar examiners and the Bar Confident Lanuevo to submit their
sworn statements on the matter.
It appears that each of the 5 bar examiners were approached by Lanuevo with the examination booklet
asking them to re-evaluate the grades of the bar examiner explaining that it is a practice policy in bar exams
that he will review the grades obtained in all subjects by an examinee and when he finds a candidate to have
extraordinary high grades in other subjects and low grade in one subject he can bring it to the examiner for
reconsideration to help the candidate pass.
In good faith of trust and confidence to the authority of Lanuevo, the examiners re-evaluated the exam of the
candidate and reconsider the grade they give for each subject matter.
Further investigation also revealed that Ramon Galang was charged with crime of slight physical injuries in
the Mla. MTC but did not revealed the information in his application to take the bar examination.

ISSUE: WON Lanuevo has the authority to ask bar examiners to re-evaluate and re-correct the examination result
of a bar candidate.

RULING:
The court ruled that it is evident that Lanuevo has deceptively staged a plot to convince each examiner
individually to re-evaluate the grades of Galang in order to help him pass the bar without prior authorization
of the Court.
His duty as a Bar Confident is limited only as a custodian of the examination notebooks after they are
corrected by the examiners where he is tasked to tally the general average of the bar candidate.
All requests for re-evaluation of grades from the bar exam shall be made by the candidate themselves. With
the facts fully established that Lanuevo initiated the re-evaluation of the exam answers of Galang without the
authority of the Court, he has breached the trust and confidence given to him by the court and was disbarred
with his name stricken out from the rolls of attorneys.
Galang was likewise disbarred for fraudulently concealing the criminal charges against him in his application
for the bar exam while under oath constituting perjury.
The court believed that the 5 bar examiners acted in good faith and thereby absolved from the case but
reminded to perform their duties with due care.
CASE #11
LEGARDA V COURT OF APPEALS
PER CURIAM; June 10, 1992
FACTS
- Victoria Legarda was the defendant in a complaint for a specific performance with damages filed by private
respondent New Cathay House Inc (NCHI). The complaint is aimed at compelling Victoria Legarda to sign a
lease contract involving her house and lot which Cathay House Inc. intended to use in operating a restaurant.
As prayed for in the complaint, the lower court issued a TRO enjoining Victoria Legarda and her agents from
stopping the renovation of the property.
- Thereafter, Antonio Coronel of the Coronel Law office entered his appearance as counsel for Legarda.
- He filed an urgent motion for extension of 10 days which was granted by the court. However, Legarda was
not able to file her answer within the 10 days given so she was declared in default, thereby paving way for
the presentation of evidence ex parte
- The lower court then rendered a decision by default leaving Legarda on the losing end. Upon appeal, the CA
found the petition unmeritorious and dismissed it. It said, It is our belief that this case is one of pure and
simple negligence on the part of the defendants counsel, who simply failed to file the answer in behalf of the
defendant.
- But inspite of the CAs tirade on his professional competence, Atty. Coronel did not lift a finger to file a
motion for reconsideration, neither did he initiate moves towards an appeal on the decision which was
adverse and prejudicial to his client. Thus the CA decision became final.
- Victoria Legarda then got a new lawyer and won the case.
- The court then required Atty. Coronel to show cause w/in 10 days from notice why he should not be held
administratively liable for his acts and omissions w/c resulted in grave injustice to petitioner.
- He filed for another 30-day extension. Then another 30-day extension. Not filed in time, the 2
nd
motion was
denied

ISSUE
WON Atty. Colorado was negligent thus violating Canon 18 of the Professional Code of Responsibility

HELD
Yes.
- Atty. Colorado violated Canon 18 which states that A lawyer shall serve his client w/ competence and
diligence specifically Canon 18.03, a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.
- This is not the only case wherein in dealing w/ the courts orders, Atty. Coronel appears to exhibit a pattern
of negligence, inattention to his obligations as counsel, sloppiness and superciliousness. In Imelda Marcos vs
PCGG, the court imposed a fine on him after he was found guilty of negligence
Ratio
- Lawyers are indispensable part of the whole system of administering justice in this jurisdiction. At a time
when strong disturbing criticisms are being hurled at the legal profession, strict compliance w/ ones oath of
office and the canons of professional ethics is an imperative.
- Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing w/ their clients.
The profession is not synonymous w. an ordinary business proposition. It is a matter of public interest.

Authority to Bind Clients
Section 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by any
agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial
procedure. But they cannot, without special authority, compromise their client's litigation, or receive anything in
discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash.

CASE # 14
As a general rule, a client is bound by the mistakes of his counsel. Only when the application of the general rule
would result in serious injustice should an exception thereto be called for. - Villa Rhecar
Bus v. Dela Cruz
Ponente: Justice PUNO, 1994
FACTS:
Petitioner prays that the Resolution of Undersecretary Laguesma declaring respondent union as the soleand
exclusive bargaining agent of all the Magnolia Sales Personnel in Northern Luzon be set aside forhaving been
issued in excess of jurisdiction and/or grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioner questions the appropriateness of the bargaining unit sought to be represented by respondentunion. It
claimed that its bargaining history in its sales offices, plants and warehouses is to havea separate bargaining
unit for each sales office
Petitioners Counsel
Atty. Batalla withdrew petitioner's opposition to a certification election and agreed to consider all the sales
offices in northern Luzon as one bargaining unit.
Petitioner appealed to the Secretary of Labor. It claimed that Atty. Batalla was only authorized to agreeto the
holding of certification elections subject to the following conditions:(1) There would only be one general
election;(2) In this general election, the individual sales offices shall still comprise separate bargaining units.
ISSUES: Petition for Certiorari
W/N Respondent Union represents an appropriate bargaining unit
W/N Petitioner is bound by its lawyers act of agreeing to consider the sales personnel in the North Luzon Sales
Area as one bargaining unit
DECISION:
Court dismissed the petition.Court finds that the respondent union sought to represent the sales personnel in the
various Magnoliasales offices in northern Luzon has:
(1)Similarity of employment status for only the regular sales personnel in the north Luzon area is covered.
(2) Have the same duties and responsibilities and substantially similar compensation and workingconditions.
(3) Commonality of interest among the sales personnel in the north Luzon. In fact, in thecertification election held on
November 24, 1990, the employees concerned acceptedrespondent union as their exclusive bargaining agent.
Clearly, they have expressed their desire to be one.
Court has categorically ruled that the existence of a prior collective bargaining history is neither decisive nor
conclusive in the determination of what constitutes an appropriate bargaining unit.
In the alleged "mistake" of the substitute lawyer, the court finds that the mistake was the direct result of the
negligence of petitioner's lawyers.
It will be noted that Atty. Ona was under the supervision of two (2) other lawyers, Attys. Jacinto de la Rosa, Jr.
and George C. Nograles.
There is nothing in the records to show that these two (2) counsels were likewise unavailable at that time.
Instead of deferring the hearing, petitioner's counsels chose to proceed therewith.
Lawyers allegedly actively involved in SMC's labor case should have adequately and sufficiently briefed the
substitute lawyer with respect to the matters involved in the case and the specific limits of his authority.
The negligence of its lawyers binds the petitioner.

CASE # 15
People v Salido
It is a well-settled rule that the client is bound by his counsel's conduct, negligence, and mistakes inhandling the
case and the client cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been different had his lawyer proceeded
differently.
Ponente: Justice MELO, 1996
FACTS:
Kawasa appeals on the decision of the RTC convicting him, together with two others, of the crime
of kidnapping and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to indemnify offendedparty,
jointly, the sum of P20,000.00.
He seeks for a retrial. He asserts that there was a mistrial resulting in a miscarriage justice insofar as he is
concerned due to the inefficiency and negligence of his counsel.
Accused-appellant denies involvement in the crime and claims he was deprived the opportunity tosubmit his
evidence and to disprove the evidence for the prosecution due to the inefficiency andnegligence of his counsel,
for which reason, accused-appellant urges us to reopen the case with respectto him.
ISSUES:W/N Kawasa is bound by the acts of his counsel.
DECISION:
The Court denied Kawasas petition and modified the amount of Civil Indemnity from P20, 000.00 to
P50,000.00 in accordance to the current jurisprudence.In TESORO VS. CA, the court stated, "a client is bound by the
action of his counsel in the conduct of a case and cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been
different had he proceeded differently. A client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer. If such grounds were to be
admitted and reasons for reopening case, there would never be an end to a suit so long as new counsel could be
employed who could allege and shown that prior counsel had not been sufficiently diligent or experienced or
learned. Mistakes of attorneys are not proper grounds for a new trial, unless the incompetency of counsel is so great
that his client is prejudiced and prevented from properly presenting his case."

CASE #16
TUPAS v. CA
PONENTE: Justice Cruz
TOPIC: Authority to appear, Authority to Bind Clients, Compensation, Attys Lien
AEQUETAS NUNQUAM CONTRAVENIT LEGIS EQUITY NEVER CONTRAVENES THE LAWS
FACTS:
Petitioners received a copy of the RTC and then they filed their respective motion for reconsideration 14days later.
The motion was denied, instead, of filling the petition for review with the court of appeals with the remainder of the
15 day reglementary period , that is, a day after they received the order, petitioner filed the said petition 14 days
after. The petition was denied by the Court of Appeals on grounds of tardiness. Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration. They allege that they should not be prejudiced by the mistakes of their counsel because they are
laymen and not familiar with the intricacies of the law.
DECISION: The motion was denied with finality by the Court. The Court found that the petitioners have not shown
that their counsel was exceptionally inept or motivated by bad faith or excusably misled by the facts. There is no
reason why we should not apply the rule that clients should be bound by the acts of their counsel, including his
mistakes
The Court stated, Now petitioner wants us to nullify all of the antecedent proceedings and recognize his earlier
claims to the disputed property on the justification that his counsel was grossly inept. Therewould be no end to
litigation if this were allowed as every shortcoming of counsel could be the subjectof challenge by his client through
another counsel who, if he is also found wanting, would likewise bedisowned by the same client through another
counsel, and so on.
CASE # 21
TESORO v CA
Ponente: Justice MAKASIAR, 1973
FACTS:
In a mayoralty election in Ilocos, private respondent Sanidad was declared winner over petitioner Tesoro.
Alleging poll anomalies, the latter filed a protest. In the trial court, both parties agreed, afterdue hearing, to just
submit the case for decision on the basis of the ballots and other documentaryexhibits (election returns,
certificate of candidacy, etc.) without abduction (act of leading someone awayby fraudulent persuasion) of
further evidence and then let the court render its decision based on theseand nothing more.
After examining the ballots involved in the protest and counter-protest, the trial court found thepetitioner the
election winner over private respondent.
Then, private respondent filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. CA granted the motion of the originalcounsel
of private respondent, after which, the new counsel filed a motion to remand for a new trial toallow him to
present additional evidence.
The Court of Appeals granted the petition of the respondent by setting aside the decision of the trialcourt and
directing a remand of the case.
Petitioner filed a motion for Certiorari on the said decision.
ISSUES:W/N to remand the case in light of additional evidences from the private respondent.
DECISION:Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and ordered to render another decision
basedexclusively on the evidence submitted at trial.Respondent Sanidad is now stopped from seeking a second
chance to submit additional evidence, afterhe and his previous counsel submitted the case for decision on the basis
of evidence already before the trial court. He had ample time during the trial to seek the assistance of handwriting
and fingerprintexperts either from the NBI or from the private sector. He should not now be rewarded for
hismiscalculations or strategic error.The alleged newly discovered evidence was actually forgotten evidence, which
respondent Sanidad andhis counsel already knew or should have known during the trial. Such forgotten evidence
does not justifya new trialAppellate courts do not sit to remedy the tactical mistake committed by the parties or their
counsel atthe trial.It has been repeatedly enunciated that "A client is bound by the action of his counsel in the
conduct of acase and cannot be heard to complain that the result might have been different had he
proceededdifferently. A client is bound by the mistakes of his lawyer.

CASE #22
Salonga v CA
Ponente: Justice PANGANIBAN, 1997
FACTS:
Private Respondent Izon, as President of Paul Geneve Corporation, agreed into a joint ventureenterprise with
Petitioner Salonga, as owner of Solid Intertain; and that is, both companies will form anew corporation. This
joint venture will then provide leasehold holding rights of the property in Makatifrom the former to the latter.
Documents were prepared for the joint venture. Private resp ondent signed the document, and it wasthen
delivered to petitioner for his signature. However, the said documents were not signed by thepetitioner.
With the memorandum of agreement still unsigned, not notarized, and in the possession of petitioner,the latter
transferred all his equipments to the said property in Makati. Club Ibiza was thus opened and made operational
on the leased premises in question under Solid Intertain Corporation.
Private Respondent was totally left out.Private Respondent filed a complaint to Respondent RTC for specific
performance with temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction with prayer for damages against
herein petitioners toenforce a memorandum of agreement that was supposedly perfected between the parties.
A TRO was then served to petitioner which they referred to their counsel, Atty. Garlitos.Only the private
respondents appeared on the hearing for Injunction. Private respondent sought to citepetitioner for contempt
on grounds that the latter disobeyed the temporary restraining order.
Petitioners again failed to appear on the second hearing for the motion for writ of preliminary injunction. The
court then acted, on the private respondents motion and it was granted a few daysafter.
Despite two motions for extension, petitioner failed to answer the court.
Due to failure of petitioner to file an answer, private respondent submitted a third ex parte motion todeclare
petitioner, as defendant in Default which the court favorably acted.
A month after, RTC rendered a decision, holding the petitioner in default, in favor of the privaterespondent.
A few more months after, Petitioner Salonga was adjudged guilty of civil contempt.
In defense, petitioner raised before the Respondent Court of Appeals the following arguments:
(a) Fraud on the part of the petitioners counsel
Petitioner alleged that his counsel Atty. Garlitos acted fraudulently in handling the CivilCase based on the
following observations of the petitioner on his counsel:
o i.Very late arrival on the first hearing on preliminary injunction
o ii.Failure to appear on the second hearing on preliminary injunction
o iii.Failure to appear on the motion for dissolution of injunction
o iv.Failure to file an answer within the period required by the Rules of Court
o v.Failure to appear on petitioners motion of reconsideration
o vi.Failure to appear on a hearing in which private respondents counsel successfully obtained a denial
of the aforementioned motion.
Petitioner contend that there is extrinsic fraud when a party was prevented from
having presented all of his case to the court as when the lawyer connives at his defeat or corruptly sells out
his client's interests
(b)He was deprived of his basic rights to due process
Petitioners motion was denied.
ISSUES:W/N The judgment of the lower court should be annulled on grounds of extrinsic fraud and denial of due
process.
DECISION:The court denied the motion of the petitioner, and in affirmed the decision of the lower courts.
On Annulment of Judgment
There are only 2 grounds in annulment of judgment:
(a)Void for want of jurisdiction or lack of due process of law
(b)If it has been obtain by fraud
No Extrinsic Fraud
Contrary to the petitioners contention, the Court notes that the previously enumerated negligent actsattributed to
petitioner's former counsel Garlitos were in no way shown or alleged to have been causedby private respondents.
Atty. Garlitos neither connived nor sold out to the latter.
Negligence of Counsel Binds Client
The court held that Any act performed by a lawyer within the scope of his general or implied authority is regarded
as an act of his client. Consequently, the mistake or negligence of petitioners' counsel mayresult in the rendition of
an unfavorable judgment against them. Exceptions to the foregoing have beenrecognized by the Court in cases
where reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the client of dueprocess of law, or when its application
"results in the outright deprivation of one's property through atechnicality." None of these exceptions has been
sufficiently shown in the present case.
Counsels Negligence Simple or Gross?
The court held that counsel Garlitos was merely guilty of simple negligence. Although his failure to file atimely
answer had led to a judgment by default against his clients, his efforts at defending their causewere palpably real,
albeit bereft of zeal.
No Denial of Due Process
The court held that due process was never denied for petitioners Salonga and Solid IntertainCorporation because the
trial court had given them a reasonable opportunity to be heard and presenttheir side in all the proceedings before it.
The records reveal that the judgment by default was rendered by the trial court in faithful compliance with Rule 18
of the Rules of Court and the constitutionalguaranty of due process.
Petitioner Guilty of Indirect Contempt?
The Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals, in which, it correctly ruled that "(in) indirectcontempt
proceedings such as in the case at bar, a mere motion to that effect will suffice for the (trialcourt) to acquire
jurisdiction."
For after all, Section 3 of the Rules of Court requires merely that "acharge in writing has been filed, and an
opportunity given to the accused to be heard by himself orcounsel" before one guilty of indirect contempt may be
punished therefore.

Quantum Meruit
CASE # 23
IN RE TESTATE ESTATE OF DOA GABINA RAQUEL.VICENTE J. FRANCISCO, petitioner-appellee, vs.
AUREA MATIAS, oppositor-appellant.
On July 16, 1952, said AureaMatias named as executrix in the will engaged the services of Atty. Vicente
Francisco, who, with the assistance of Atty. Agbunag and of Attorneys Alberto J. Francisco and J. Gonzales Orense,
personally handled the case before three different judges successively.
After the decision of this Court had become final, said attorney filed on October 7, 1958, in the Cavite court, in this
testate proceeding, motion to fix his attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit. He alleged, among other things,
that the Supreme Court had approved the probate of the will of Gabina Raquel, that he had agreed to receive a
contingent fee of P15,000.00 under his erroneous belief, due to misrepresentations of AureaMatias, that Gabina
Raquel had left properties worth only P167,000.00; that he learned, after the decision of the Supreme Court that the
said properties actually amounted to much more than that sum; and that, consequently, he was not bound by his
agreement to receive a contingent fee of P15,000.00 only. Atty. Francisco prayed that his compensation be fixed at
30% of the market value of the estate.
In deciding the main petition in view of the testimonial and documentary evidence, it brushed aside, as immaterial,
the alleged misrepresentation in the making of the written contract, since "reasonable amount" had become the
real issue.
It appears that the will of Gabina Raquel, who died without forced heirs, bequeathed the greatest part of the estate to
appellant, and the rest to Santos Matias, Rafael Matias (her brothers) and to VictorinaSalud, Santiago Salud and
PolicarpioSalud.Atty. Francisco said he contracted with her as the executrix. The will (shown to him) designated her
as such;. She later asked to be noted in the estate proceedings, the amount of P15,000.00 (Francisco's fees) as a lien
upon the estate (p. 103, R.A.); 3. In her motion ex-parteof July 20, 1959, she petitioned for authority to pay from the
estate, the sum of P2,000.00 as part of the retainer fees of Atty. Francisco; 4 She included in her statement of accounts as
executrix, Francisco's attorney's fees in the amount of P11,000.00; and 5. The statement of assets and liabilities of the
estate filed by her with the lower court on January 10, 1959, listed appellee's fees in the amount of P15,000.00 as an
item of estate liability.
Generally speaking, where the employment of an attorney is under an express valid contractfixing the compensation
for the attorney, such contract is conclusive as to the amount of compensation.
At any rate, we may take judicial notice of the general information that the market value of real property in the
provinces is usually three or more times the assessed valuation thereof. Citing Section 22, Rule 127 of the Rules of
Court which says that "an attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services". This Supreme Court has held the following as the guidelines to be observed in
determining the compensation of an attorney: (a) the amount and character of the services rendered; (b) the labor,
time and trouble involved; (c) the nature and importance of the litigation or business in which the services were
rendered; (d) the responsibility imposed; (e) the amount of money or the value of the property affected by the
controversy, or involved in the employment; (f) the skill and experience called for in the performance of the services;
(g) the professional character and standing of the attorney; (h) the results secured; (i) and whether or not the fee is
absolute or contingent, it being a recognized rule that an attorney may properly charge a much larger fee when it is
to be contingent than when it is not." (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. III [1957 Ed.] pp. 644, 645, citing
Haussermann vs. Rahmeyer.
The whole estate would have passed to the oppositorBasiliaSalud, who is the first cousin of the deceased Gabina
Raquel to the exclusion of appellant and the other legatees named in the will. AureaMatias, whose father is a first
cousin of the deceased, stands five degrees removed from Gabina Raquel, whereas BasiliaSalud is only four degrees
removed from her; and under our rules on succession 13 in case of intestate or legal succession, the relative nearer in
degree excludes the more remote ones and considering also, that in the collateral line, the right of representation
holds only where nephews and nieces survive with brothers and sisters of the deceased. 14 Note incidentally, that
the will favored Aurea because the latter lived with, and rendered services to, her aunt Gabina for more than 32
years.
Indeed, the legal services rendered in the lower court were expectably quite exacting. The trial alone covered almost
a period of four years. The preparation and presentation of evidence called for strenuous work. Thirty-one
documents were presented as evidence for the proponent of the will. The transcript of the stenographic notes
consisted of more than a thousand pages. Numberless motions were filed. After the closing of the evidence, a
memorandum had to be filed to answer the oppositor's motion to reject the will. And then, despite the extensive
study, research, and preparation of the evidence, and notwithstanding the skill and experience of Atty. Francisco,
the Cavite court denied the probate of the will.
Taking into account all the variables of the process, in the light of our several pronouncements on the matter of
contingent lawyer's fees, we feel that modifying the appealed resolution and awarding 12.5% of the market value to
the herein appellee would accomplish substantial justice. This figure represents a compromise, some members
having voted for a bigger amount, while others voted for less. The Suntay and the Harden cases were specially
mentioned, since they belonged to the million-peso class. This award sets a higher ratio than the first, because the
latter involved over three million pesos and because Atty. Francisco rendered much greater services to this estate.
For one thing, he handled tedious trial work which lasted for about four years and for another, the fee was
contingent. The Harden ratio (20%) was not applied, because attorney and client had entered therein into a valid
written contract.
Several circumstances account for this drastic reduction, among them: (a) 25% of P1,236,993.46 equals P309,248.36;
but Atty. Francisco expressed willingness to receive P100,000.00 only, in his letter of September 15, 1958 (Record on
Appeal, p. 132); (b) although admittedly the leading legal counsel, he got the assistance of three other attorneys; (c)
believing the estate amounted to P167,000.00, he agreed to receive P15,000.00 as contingent fee, i.e. 9% only; and (d)
he has already received a total of P11,000.00.

Unlawful retention of funds and charging liens
Practice of Law by government employee
Authority to appear for government



3. Rule 139 The Integrated Bar of the Philippines
CASE # 44
RE: 1989 ELECTIONS OF THE INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
PER CURIAM; October 6, 1989
NATURE
An inquiry into the 1989 Elections of the integrated bar of the Philippines. The Supreme Court, en banc, exercising its
power of supervision over the Integrated Bar, resolvd to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP officers=elect and to
inquire into the veracity of the reports.

FACTS
- June 3, 1989, the election of the national officers of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) was held at the
Philippine International Convention Center (PICC).The newly elected officers were set to take their oath of office on
July 4, 1989, before the Supreme Court. However, because of widespread reports about the intensive electioneering
and overspending by the candidates, the Supreme Court resolved to suspend the oath-taking of the IBP officers-elect
to investigate.
- the elections were led by the main candidates for the office of IBP President, namely Attorneys Nereo Paculdo,
Ramon Nisce, and Violeta C. Drilon.
- Among the allegations were the use of government planes, and the officious intervention of certain public officials
to influence the voting, all of which were done in violation of the IBP By-Laws. (poured heart, soul, money and
influence to win over the 120 IBP delegates.)
- Emil Jurado (Manila Standard) reported that there was rampant vote-buying by some members of the U.P. Sigma
Rho Fraternity as well as by some lawyers of ACCRA, and that government positions were promised to others by
the office of the Labor Secretary.
- There was also the billeting of out-of-town delegates in plush hotels where they were reportedly wined and dined
continuously, women, and subjected to endless haggling over the price of their votes xxx which ranged from P15K to
P20K, and on election day, to as much as P50K.
- In a resolution calling for investigations, the Court called to mind that a basic postulate of the IBP xxx 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.
- Article I, Section 4 of IBP By-Laws emphasizes the strictly non-political character of the IBP:
SEC. 4. Non-political Bar. the IBP is strictly non-political, and every activity tending to impair this basic feature is
strictly prohibited and shall be penalized accordingly. No lawyer holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, or
prosecutory office in the government xxx shall be eligible for election or appointment to any position in the IBP or
any chapter thereof.
- Section 14 of By-Laws enumerates the prohibited acts relative to IBP elections:
o Distribution of election campaign material;
o Distribution of campaign material other that a statement of the biodata of candidate not more than one
page of legal paper;
o Campaigning for or against any candidate, whle holding an elective, judicial, quasi-judicial, prosecutory
office in Govt;
o Formation of tickets, single slates, or combinations of candidates, as well as the advertisement thereof;
o For purpose of influencing a member, by payment of dues or other indebtedness of the member; giving
of food, drink, entertainment, transpo, any article of value; making a promise or causing an expenditure
to be made.
- Section 12(d) of the By-Laws prescribes the sanctions:
o Violation of the by-laws of the IBP shall be a ground for the disqualification of a candidate or his
removal from office if elected, without prejudice to the imposition of sanctions upon any erring member
xxx
- Atty. Paculdo admitted having spent some P250K during his three weeks of campaigning; Atty. Nisces hotel bills
at the Hyatt amounted to P216K ++, not including previous expenses for his campaign; Atty . Drilons campaign
rang up over P600K in hotel bills (Westin).
ISSUE
WON the candidates are guilty of massive electioneering, inappropriate use of government resources, and vote-
buying during the IBP national elections.
HELD
Ratio
- IBP elections should be as they are annulled.
- The provisions of the IBP By-Laws for direct election by the House Delegates of officers, IBP President, and exec.
VP be repealed.
- Former sstem of IBP President and Exec. VP elected by Board of Governors from among themselves should be
restored.
- At the end of Presidents 2-year term, the EVP shall automatically succeed to the office of the president. The
incoming board of governors shall elect an EVP from among themselves.
Reasoning
- It is evident that the manner in which the principal candidates for the national positions in the Integrated Bar
conducted their campaign preparatory to the elections violated Sec. 14 of the IBP By-laws and made a travesty of the
idea of a strictly non-political IBP shrined in Sec. 4.
- 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 constitutionand the laws;
- Duty to promote respect for law and legal processes;
- Abstain from activities aimed at defiance of law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
- It is speculated that the IBP ticket to the Judicial and Bar Council as provided in Art. VIII Sec. 8 may be the reason
why the position of IBP president has attracted so much interest among the lawyers.
- The decision is meant to impress upon participant the seriousness of their misconduct, and to restore the non-
political character of the IBP.


What is the practive of law?
CASE # 48
CAYETANO V MONSOD
PARAS; September 3, 1991

TOPIC: Petition to review decision of Commission on Appointments
FACTS
- April 25, 1991 Atty. Christian Monsod was appointed by Pres. Aquino as Chairman of COMELEC
- Rene Cayetano opposed such appointment as citizen and taxpayer because Monsod allegedly does not possess the
required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years
- June 18, 1991 Monsod took his oath of office
- Monsods credentials
> member of Philippine Bar since 1960
> after bar, worked in law office of his father
> 1963-1970 in World Bank Group as operations officer in Costa Rica and Panama involves getting acquainted with
laws of member-countries, negotiating loans and coordinating legal, economic and project work
> 1970 in Meralco Group as CEO of investment bank
> since 1986 rendered service to various companies as legal and economic consultant or CEO
> 1986-1987 secretary-general and national chairman of NAMFREL (election law)
> co-chairman of Bishops Businessmens Conference for Human Development
> 1990 - Davide Commission quasi-judicial body
> 1986-1987 member of Constitutional Commission as Chairman on Accountability of Public Officers
- AIX-C Sec1(1) - Commission on Elections chairman shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been
engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years
- no jurisprudence on what constitutes the practice of law

ISSUE
WON Monsod is qualified as Chairman of COMELEC in fulfilling the requirement engaged in the practice of law
for at least ten years

HELD
YES. Practice of Law means any activity, in or out of court which requires the application of law, legal procedure,
knowledge, training and experience. Monsod as lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, lawyer-
negotiator, and lawyer-negotiator is proof he is engaged in practice of law for more than 1- years
- Blacks Law Dictionary
> Rendition of service requiring the knowledge and application of legal principles and technique to serve the interest
of another with his consent
> not limited to appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the
preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the
preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and giving all legal advice to clients
- Land Title Abstract and Trust Co v Dworken
> one who in representative capacity engages in business of advising clients as to their rights under law, or while so
engaged performs any act or acts either in court or outside of court
- UP Law Center
> advocacy, counseling, public service
- Alexander SyCip
> appearance of lawyer in litigation is most publicly familiar role of lawyers as well as an uncommon role for the
average lawyer
> more legal work is transacted in law offices that in the courtrooms
> business counseling than trying cases; as planner, diagnostician, trial lawyer, surgeon
- article on Business Star
> emerging trends in corporate law

SEPARATE OPINION
NARVASA [concur]
- concur only in the result

PADILLA [dissent]
- Practice refers to actual performance of application of knowledge as distinguished from mere possession of
knowledge; it connotes active, habitual, repeated or customary action TF lawyer employed as business executive or
corporate manager, other than head of Legal Department cannot be said to be in the practice of law
- People v Villanueva
> Practice is more than an isolated appearance for it consists in frequent or customary actions, a succession of acts of
the same kind
- Commission on Appointments memorandum
> practice of law requires habituality, compensation, application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure, and
attorney-client relationship
CRUZ [dissent]
- sweeping definition of practice of law as to render the qualification practically toothless
- there is hardly any activity that is not affected by some law or government regulation the businessman must know
about and observe
- performance of any acts in or out of court, commonly understood to be the practice of law which tells us
absolutely nothing
GUTIERREZ [dissent]
- practice is envisioned as active and regular, not isolated, occasional, accidental, intermittent, incidental, seasonal or
extemporaneous
- nothing in the bio-data even remotely indicates Monsod has given the law enough attention or a certain degree of
commitment and participation
- difficult if not impossible to lay down a formula or definition of what constitutes the practice of law
- Monsod was asked if he ever prepared contracts for parties in real-estate transaction; he answered very seldom
- Monsod may have profited from his legal knowledge, the use of such is incidental and consists of isolated activities
which do not fall under the denominations of practice of law
CASE # 49
ULEP V LEGAL CLINIC
REGALADO; June 17, 1993
FACTS
- Petitioner prays that respondent cease and desist from issuing ads similar to annexes A and B and to prohibit them
from making ads pertaining to the exercise of the law professions other than those allowed by law
- Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560 for a valid marriage
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA.
THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.
Pls call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041
8:30am-6pm
7F Victoria Bldg, UN Ave, Mla
- Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
An Atty in Guam, is giving FREE BKS on Guam Divorce thru the Leg Clinic beg Mon-Fri during office hours
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Probs, Visa ext. Quota/Non-quota Res and Special Retirees
Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa
for Filipina Sp/Shil. Call Marivic
THE LEGAL CLINIC, etc
Petitioners Claim:
-Ads are unethical and demeaning of the law profession and destructive of the confidence of the community in the
integrity of the members of the bar.
-As a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the ads
Respondents Comment:
-They are not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of leg support services thru paralegals with the use
of modern computers and electronic machines
- Even if they are leg services, the act of advertising them should be allowed under Bates v. State bar of Arizona
ISSUES
1. WON the services offered by The Legal Clinic constitutes practice of law?
2. WON their services can be advertised?
HELD
1. Yes. The Practice of law involves any activity, in or out of the court, which requires the application of law, legal
procedures, knowledge, training and expertise
- To engage in the practice is to perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession; to give advice or render
any kind of service that involves legal knowledge/skill
- Not limited to the conduct of cases in court; includes legal advice and counsel and preparation of legal instruments
and contracts by which legal rights are secured regardless of WON theyre pending in court
3 types of legal profession activity:
1. legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations
2. preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary layman
3. appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power and authority to determine rights of life,
liberty and property according to law, in order to assist in proper inter and enforcement of law

Respondents description of its services shows it falls within the practice of law:
Giving info by paralegals to laymen and lawyers thru the use of comps and modern info tech
- computerized legal research, document search, evidence gathering, locating parties/witnesses to a case, fact
finding investigations, assistance to laymen in need of services from agencies like birth, marriage, prop, bus
registrations, etc.
*even if some of the services offered merely involve mechanical and technical know how like installing computer
system for law offices, this doesnt make it an exception to the general rule
- gives out leg info to laymen and lawyersnot non-advisory and non-diagnostic
ex. foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption have to explain to client the intricacies of the law and advise
him on the proper course of action
- what its ads represent and what it will be paid for
- It doesnt matter that they dont represent clients in court since practice of law isnt limited to ct appearances but
also leg research, leg advice and drafting contracts
Phil Star Art Rx for Leg Probs, int by proprietor Atty Nogales:
- Takes care of probs as complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion domestic sit
- lawyers, who like drs, are specialists in various fields and can take care of it (taxation, crim law, medico-leg probs,
labor, litigation, fam law)
- backed up by paralegals, counselors and attys
- caters to clients who cant afford big firms
- can prepare a simple deed of sale or affidavit of loss and also those w/ more extensive treatment

-The fact that they employ paralegals to carry out its services doesnt matter; whats important is that its engaged in
the practice of law cause of the nature of the services it renders, which brings it within the statutory prohibitions
against ads
only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and whos in good and regular standing is entitled to the
practice of law
- public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and
character to protect the public, court, client and bar from incompetence/dishonesty of those unlicensed to the
practice and not subject to the discipline of court

2.No. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer, in making known his legal services, shall use
only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective info/statement of facts
- not supposed to use any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement re
his qualifications/legal services
- not supposed to pay representatives of the mass media in return for publicity to attract legal business

Canons of professional Ethics (before CPR) provides that lawyers shouldnt resort to indirect ads for professional
employment like furnishing newspaper comments, publishing his pictures with causes the lawyers been engaged
in, importance of his position and other self-laudation
Stands of legal profession condemn lawyers advertisement of his talents like a merchant does of his goods because
of the fact that law is a profession.
The canons of profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct
Good and efficient service to a client and the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public
attention; this shouldnt be done thru propaganda

EXCEPTIONS:
1. expressly allowed publication in reputable law lists of informative data thats not misleading and may include
only: name, professional assoc, adds, nos, branches of law practiced, date and place of birth and admission to the
bar, schools attended w/ dates of grad, degrees , public offices, posts of honor, legal authorships, legal teaching
positions, membership and offices in bar association, legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities, listings in
other reputable law lists, names and adds of references with written consent and clients regularly represented
- cant be mere supplemental feature of paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical thats published for other
purposes
- never in a law list that are calculated or likely to deceive/injure the public/the bar or lower the dignity/standing of
the profession
- ordinary simple professional card allowed name, law firm, add, no and special branch of law practiced
- publication of simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or change in partnership, assoc, firm name or
office add, for the convenience of the profession
- have name listed in phone directory but not under designation of special branch of law
2. necessarily implied from the restrictions

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona: allowed lawyer to publish a statement of leg fees for an initial consultation or give,
upon request, a written schedule of fees or estimate for spec servicess as an exception to the prohibition against
advertisements by lawyers
- none expressly/impliedly provided for in the Canons of Professional Ethics or Code of Professional Responsibility
*survey conducted by the American Bar Assoc on the attitude of the public about lawyers after viewing TC
commercials pub opinion dropped significantly:
Trustworthy 71-14%
Professional 71-14%
Honest 65-14%
Dignified 45-14%

With the present situation of our legal and judicial system, to allow the publication of like advertisements would
aggravate whats already a deteriorating pub of the legal profession whose integritys been under attack by media
and the community in general
- all efforts should be made to regain the high esteem formerly accorded to the leg profession
Atty Nograles (prime incorporator, major stockholder and proprietor of the Leg Clinic) is REPRIMANDED w/ a
warning that a repetition will be dealt w/ more severely for misbehavior in advertising his servIces and aid a
layman in the unauthorized practice of law