Problem Areas In Legal Ethics

Problem Areas In Legal Ethics (Pale)
Justice Francisco P. Acosta
DOCTRINES
Director of Religious Affairs vs. Bayot , 74 Phil. 579
Law is a profession and a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who
stoops to and adopts the practice of merchantilism by advertising his services or
offering them to the public. The most worthy and effective advertisement possible,
even for a young lawyer 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. (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)
Cantiller vs. Potenciano (180 SCRA 246)
When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all
effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure to exercise due
diligence or the abandonment of a client's cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the
trust which the client had reposed on him.
Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in
dealing with their clients. The profession is not synonymous with an ordinary business
proposition. It is a matter of public interest.
In the Matter of Petition for Authority to Continue the Use of the Firm name
Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo (July 30, 1979)
A partnership for the practice of law is not a legal entity. It is a mere relationship or
association for a particular purpose. It is not a partnership formed for the purpose of
carrying on trade or business or of holding property.
Mauricio Ulep vs The Legal Clinic (223 SCRA 378)
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. To
engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristic
of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give advice or render any kind
of service that involves legal knowledge or skill.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It includes
legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments and contract
by which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or may not be
pending in a court.
In the practice of his profession, a licensed attorney at law generally engages
in three principal types of professional activity: legal advice and instructions to
clients to inform them of their rights and obligations, preparation for clients of
documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary
layman, and 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 interpretation and enforcement of law.

When a person participates in the a trial and advertises himself as a lawyer, he

is in the practice of law. One who confers with clients, advises them as to their
legal rights and then takes the business to an attorney and asks the latter to
look after the case in court, is also practicing law. 16 Giving advice for
compensation regarding the legal status and rights of another and the conduct
with respect thereto constitutes a practice of law. One who renders an opinion
as to the proper interpretation of a statute, and receives pay for it, is, to that
extent, practicing law.
The standards of the legal profession condemn the lawyer's advertisement of
his talents. A lawyer cannot, without violating the ethics of his profession.
advertise his talents or skill as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his
goods. The prescription against advertising of legal services or solicitation of
legal business rests on the fundamental postulate that the that the practice of
law is a profession.
Cayetano vs. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210

The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court; it
embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and
special proceeding, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of
clients before judges and courts, and in addition, conveying. In general, all advice to
clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation
services, assessment and condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before
judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditors claim in
bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment,
and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice.
Practice of law means any activity, in or out court, which requires the application of
law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience.
Efigenia M. Tenoso Vs. Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez
Time and again, this Court emphasizes that the practice of law is imbued with public
interest and that a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to
his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one
of the most important functions of the State the administration of justice as an
officer of the court.
In Re: Argosino (270 Scra 26)
The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the STRICT,
INTELLECTUAL and MORAL QUALIFICATIONS required of lawyers who are instruments in
the effective and efficient administration of justice.
In RE: Petition for Reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys, JUAN T. PUBLICO
Whether or not the applicant shall be reinstated rests to a great extent in the sound
discretion of the court, The court action will depend, generally speaking, on whether
or not it decides that the public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of
2

justice will be conserved by the applicant's participation therein in the capacity of an

attorney and counselor at law. The applicant must, like a candidate for admission to
the bar, satisfy the court that he is a person of good moral character a fit and
proper person to practice law. The court will take into consideration the applicant's
character and standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of the
charge for which he was disbarred, his conduct subsequent to the disbarment, and the
time that has elapsed between the disbarment and the application for reinstatement.
(5 Am. Jur., Sec. 301, p. 443).
EDUARDO A. ABELLA vs. RICARDO G. BARRIOS, JR. (June 18, 2013)
To note, "the possession of good moral character is both a condition precedent
and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to retain
membership in the legal profession." This proceeds from the lawyers duty to
observe the highest degree of morality in order to safeguard the Bars integrity.
Consequently, any errant behavior on the part of a lawyer, be it in the lawyers
public or private activities, which tends to show deficiency in moral character,
honesty, probity or good demeanor, is sufficient to warrant suspension or
disbarment.
Jurisprudence illumines that immoral conduct involves acts that are willful,
flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of
the upright and respectable members of the community. It treads the line of
grossness when it is so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act, or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed under
such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the communitys sense
of decency. On the other hand, gross misconduct constitutes "improper or
wrong conduct, the transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies a
wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment."
IN RE CUNANAN [94 Phil 534; Resolution; 18 Mar 1954]
In the judicial system from which ours has been evolved, the admission, suspension,
disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the profession
and their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and responsibility. We
have said that in the judicial system from which ours has been derived, the admission,
suspension, disbarment or reinstatement of attorneys at law in the practice of the
profession is concededly judicial.
In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A. EDILION
The right to practice law before the courts of this country should be and is a matter
subject to regulation and inquiry. And, if the power to impose the fee as a regulatory
measure is recognize, then a penalty designed to enforce its payment, which penalty
may be avoided altogether by payment, is not void as unreasonable or arbitrary.

In RE: Garcia (2 SCRA 984)

The aforementioned Treaty, concluded between the Republic of the Philippines and
the Spanish state could not have been intended to modify the laws and regulations
governing admission to the practice of law in the Philippines, for reason that the
Executive Department may not enroach upon the consitutional prerogative of the
Supreme Court to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law in the
Philippines, and the power to repeal, alter or supplement such rules being reserved
only to the Congress of the Philippines.
In the matter of the Disqualification of Bar Examinee, Haron S. Meiling in the 2002
bar examinations and for disciplinary action as member of Philippine Shari'a Bar,
Melendrez.
It has been held that good moral character is what a person really is, as distinguished
from good reputation or from the opinion generally entertained of him, the estimate
in which he is held by the public in the place where he is known. Moral character is
not a subjective term but one which corresponds to objective reality. The standard of
personal and professional integrity is not satisfied by such conduct as it merely
enables a person to escape the penalty of criminal law. Good moral character
includes at least common honesty.
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO RESUME PRACTICE OF LAW of BENJAMIN M. DACANAY
Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof
terminates membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to
engage in the practice of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure
terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a
privilege denied to foreigners.
The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a
citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is
because all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be
deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA
9225]. Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is
deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance
with RA 9225.
In Re INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES [49 SCRA 22, January 9,
1973]
Constitutionality of Bar Integration In all cases where the validity of Bar integration
measures has been put in issue, the Courts have upheld their constitutionality.
The judicial pronouncements support this reasoning:
Courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate the practice of law.
The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege; a privilege, moreover,
clothed with public interest, because a lawyer owes duties not only to his
client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the
4

nation; and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State, the
administration of justice, as an officer of the court.
Because the practice of law is privilege clothed with public interest, it is far
and just that the exercise of that privilege be regulated to assure compliance
with the lawyer's public responsibilities.
These public responsibilities can best be discharged through collective action;
but there can be no collective action without an organized body; no organized
body can operate effectively without incurring expenses; therefore, it is fair
and just that all attorneys be required to contribute to the support of such
organized body; and, given existing Bar conditions, the most efficient means of
doing so is by integrating the Bar through a rule of court that requires all
lawyers to pay annual dues to the Integrated Bar.
IN RE: VICTORIO D. LANUEVO

A.M. No. 1162 August 29, 1975
The concealment of an attorney in his application to take the Bar examinations of the
fact that he had been charged with, or indicted for, an alleged crime, is a ground for
revocation of his license to practice law is well settled. The practice of the law is
not an absolute right to be granted every one who demands it, but is a privilege to be
extended or withheld in the exercise of sound discretion. The standards of the legal
profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely enables one to escape the
penalties of the criminal law.
Re: 2003 Bar Examinations, BM No. 1222, Feb. 4, 2004
This Honorable court in the case of Burbe v. Magulta, A.C. No. 5713, June 10, 2002,
383 SCRA 276, pronounced the following reminder for lawyers: Members of the bar
must do nothing that may tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in
the fidelity, the honesty and integrity of the profession. In another case, it likewise
intoned: We cannot overstress the duty of a lawyer to at all times uphold the integrity
and dignity of the legal profession. He can do this by faithfully performing his duties
to society, to the bar, to the courts, and to his clients. (Reyes v. Javier, A.C. No. 5574,
February 2, 2002, 375 SCRA 538). It goes without saying that a lawyer who violates
this precept of the profession by committing a gross misconduct which dishonors and
diminishes the publics respect for the legal profession, should be disciplined.
Alawi v. Alauya, AM No. SDO-97-2-P, Feb. 24, 1997
The term attorney is reserved for those who pass the Philippine Bar. It cannot
be used by those who only took and passed the Sharia Bar.
Public officials and employees must, at all times, respect the rights of others
and refrain from doing any acts contrary to law, good morals, public policy,
good customs, and public order.

Donton v. Tansingco, AC No. 6057, June 27, 2006

A lawyer should not render any service or give advice to any client which will involve
defiance of the laws which he is bound to uphold and obey. A lawyer who assists a
client in a dishonest scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act
which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer.
IRRI v. NLRC 221 SCRA 760
This is not to say that all convictions of the crime of homicide do not involve moral
turpitude. Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree
of the crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown by
every known and intentional violation of statute, but whether any particular
conviction involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently depends
on all the surrounding circumstances. While . . . generally but not always,
crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita do not, it,
cannot always be ascertained whether moral turpitude does or does not exist by
classifying a crime as malum in se or as malum prohibitum, since there are crimes
which are mala in se and yet but rarely involve moral turpitude and there are crimes
which involve moral turpitude and are mala prohibita only. It follows therefore, that
moral turpitude is somewhat a vague and indefinite term, the meaning of which must
be left to the process of judicial inclusion or exclusion as the cases are reached.
Tolosa v. Cargo AM No. 2385, March 8, 1989
As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but
must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with
the highest moral standards of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar
and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or
the keeping of mistresses 1 but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing
the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.
Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos, AC No. 2884, Jan. 28, 1998
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.
Paras v. Paras, AC No. 5333, Oct. 18, 2000
It is a time-honored rule that good moral character 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.
Narag v. Narag, AC No. 3405, June 29, 1998

Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member of the

bar. Thus, when a lawyer fails to meet the exacting standard of moral integrity, the
Supreme Court may withdraw his or her privilege to practice law.
Guevarra v. Eala, AC No. 7136, Aug. 1, 2007
While it has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations
between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for
such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of
fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal
law, sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it
manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows
protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws.
Arciga v. Maniwang, AC No. 1608, Aug. 14, 1981
An applicant for admission to the bar should have good moral character. He is
required to produce before this Court satisfactory evidence of good moral
character and that no charges against him, involving moral turpitude, have
been filed or are pending in any court.
If good moral character is a sine qua non for admission to the bar, then the
continued possession of good moral character is also a requisite for retaining
membership in the legal profession. Membership in the bar may be terminated
when a lawyer ceases to have good moral character (Royong vs. Oblena, 117
Phil. 865).
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" (7 C.J.S. 959).
Where an unmarried female dwarf possessing the intellect of a child became
pregnant by reason of intimacy with a married lawyer who was the father of six
children, disbarment of the attorney on the ground of immoral conduct was
justified (In re Hicks 20 Pac. 2nd 896).
There is an area where a lawyer's conduct may not be inconsonance with the
canons of the moral code but he is not subject to disciplinary action because
his misbehavior or deviation from the path of rectitude is not glaringly
scandalous. It is in connection with a lawyer's behavior to the opposite sex
where the question of immorality usually arises. Whether a lawyer's sexual
congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should
7

be characterized as "grossly immoral conduct," will depend on the surrounding

circumstances.
Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, AC No. 4256, Feb. 13, 2004

A disbarment proceeding is warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife
and maintains an illicit relationship with another woman who had borne him a child.
Gonzalez v. Alcaraz, AC No. 5321, Sept. 27, 2006
Well-established is the rule that administrative cases against lawyers belong to
a class of their own. These cases are distinct from and proceed independently
of civil and criminal cases. Settled is the rule that, being based on a different
quantum of proof, the dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence does not necessarily foreclose the finding of guilt in
an administrative proceeding.
Whether in their professional or in their private capacity, lawyers may be
disbarred or suspended for misconduct. This penalty is a consequence of acts
showing their unworthiness as officers of the courts; as well as their lack of
moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor. When the misconduct
committed outside of their professional dealings is so gross as to show them to
be morally unfit for the office and the privileges conferred upon them by their
license and the law, they may be suspended or disbarred.
Gonzaga v. Realubin, AC No. 1955, March 14, 1995
This refers to a complaint filed by the Gonzaga brothers, Napoleon and
Ricardo, for the disbarment of Atty. Crisanto P. Realubin on grounds of
"malpractice, gross misconduct and violation of oath of office".
Notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it involves public interest
in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing
those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from
imposing upon the public and the court and administrative offices generally.
Chua v. Mesina, AC No. 4904, Aug. 12, 2004
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. The measure
of good faith which an attorney is required to exercise in his dealings with his client is
a much higher standard that is required in business dealings where the parties trade
at arms length. Business transactions between an attorney and his client are
disfavored and discouraged by the policy of the law. Hence, courts carefully watch
these transactions to assure that no advantage is taken by a lawyer 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. Thus, no
8

presumption of innocence or improbability of wrongdoing is considered in an

attorneys favor.
Reyes v. Gaa, AM No. 1048, July 14, 1995
Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a government official is of such a character as to
affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be
disciplined as a member of the bar on such grounds
Melendrez v. Decena, AC No. 2104, Aug. 24, 1989
Lawyers cannot "without special authority, compromise their clients' litigation
or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim, but the full amount in cash.
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 Rollo of Attorneys. 7 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 Re Soriano, G.R. No. L-24114, June 30, 1970
The entry of appearance of a counsel in a case which has long been sealed and
terminated by a final judgment, besides being an unmitigated absurdity in
itself and an unwarranted annoyance to the court which pronounced the
judgment, is a sore deviation from normal judicial processes. It detracts
heavily from the faith which should be accorded final judgments of courts of
justice, generating as it does in the minds of the litigants, as well as of the
public, an illusory belief that something more can be done toward overturning
a final judicial mandate.
Before taking over a case handled by a peer in the Bar, a lawyer is enjoined to
obtain the conformity of the counsel whom he would substitute. And if this
cannot be had, then he should, at the very least, give notice to such lawyer of
the contemplated substitution.
Cuaresma v. Daquis, G.R. No. L-35113, March 25, 1975
Every member of the bar should realize that candor in the dealings with the Court is
of the very essence of honorable membership in the profession.
Tan Tek Beng v. David, 126 SCRA 389, 1983

Malpractice involves soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally
or through paid agents or brokers.
Practice of law is a profession, not a business.
Khan, Jr. v. Simbillo, AC No. 5299, Aug. 19, 2003

It has been repeatedly stressed that the practice of law is not a business. It is a
profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary
consideration. Lawyering is not primarily meant to be a money-making venture,
and law advocacy is not a capital that necessarily yields profits. The gaining of
a livelihood should be a secondary consideration. The duty to public service
and to the administration of justice should be the primary consideration of
lawyers, who must subordinate their personal interests or what they owe to
themselves.
Nonetheless, the solicitation of legal business is not altogether proscribed.
However, for solicitation to be proper, it must be compatible with the dignity of
the legal profession and must not be misleading. If it is made in a modest and
decorous manner, it would bring no injury to the lawyer and to the bar.
Dacanay v. Baker & McKenzie, AC No. 2131, May 10, 1985
Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines.
Respondents use of the firm name constitutes a representation that they could
render legal services of the higher quality to multinational business enterprises and
others engaged in foreign trade and investment. This is unethical, as Baker &
McKenzie is unauthorized to practice here.
Rabanal v. Tugalde, AC No. 1372, June 27, 2002
The absence of a written contract does not preclude a finding that there was a
professional relationship which merits attorneys fees for professional services
rendered. A written contract is not an essential element in the employment of
an attorney; the contract may be express or implied. To establish the relation,
it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney is sought and
received in any matter pertinent to his profession.
To constitute professional employment it is not essential that the client should
have employed the attorney professionally on any previous occasion. . . It is
not necessary that any retainer should have been paid, promised, or charged
for: neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not afterward
undertake the case about which the consultation was had. If a person, in
respect to his business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his attorney
in his professional capacity with the view to obtaining professional advice or
assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or acquiesces in such
consultation, then the professional employment must be regarded as
established.
Williams v. Entiquez, AC No. 6353, Feb. 27, 2006
10

Implicit in a lawyers mandate to protect a clients interest to the best of his/her

ability and with utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law and legal
developments, and participate in continuing legal education programs. Thus, in
championing the interest of clients and defending cases, a lawyer must not only be
guided by the strict standards imposed by the lawyers oath, but should likewise
espouse legally sound arguments for clients, lest the latters cause be dismissed on a
technical ground.
Dinsay v. Cioco, AC No. 2995, Nov. 27, 1996

The doctrine of res adjudicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial
proceedings and not to the exercise of the [Courts] administrative powers, as in
this case.
As a general rule, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be
disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties
as a government official. However, if that misconduct as a government official
is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral
delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of the bar on such
ground.
Santiago v. Sagucio, AC No. 6705, March 30, 2006
A government lawyer is thus bound by the prohibition "not [to] represent conflicting
interests." However, this rule is subject to certain limitations. The prohibition to
represent conflicting interests does not apply when no conflict of interest exists,
when a written consent of all concerned is given after a full disclosure of the facts or
when no true attorney-client relationship exists. Moreover, considering the serious
consequence of the disbarment or suspension of a member of the Bar, clear
preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the administrative
penalty.
Huysen v. Gutierrez, AC No. 6707, March 29, 2006
Lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official task have more
restrictions than lawyers in private practice. Want of moral integrity is to be
more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office.
A lawyer in the 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.
PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 151809-12, April 12, 2005
11

Rule 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter which he had
intervened while in said service.
Matter is defined any discrete, isolatable act as well as identifiable
transaction or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party, and
not merely an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency
procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law. The act
of advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said banks
liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of Manila
is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
On the other hand, intervention is defined as: 1: the act or fact of
intervening: INTERPOSITION; 2: interference that may affect the interests of
others.
Samala v. Palana, AC No. 6595, April 15, 2005

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. To
this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might
tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and
integrity of the profession.
Leda v. Tabang, AC No. 2505, Feb. 21, 1992
Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the
lawyers appearing and pleading before them.
It cannot be overemphasized that the requirement of good moral character 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
(People v. Tuanda, Adm. Case No. 3360, 30 January 1990, 181 SCRA 692). As so
aptly put by Mr. Justice George A. Malcolm: "As good character is an essential
qualification for admission of an attorney to practice, when the attorney's
character is bad in such respects as to show that he is unsafe and unfit to be
entrusted with the powers of an attorney, the courts retain the power to
discipline him (Piatt v. Abordo, 58 Phil. 350 [1933]).
Camacho v. Panguluyan, AC No. 4807, March 22, 2000
A lawyer should not in any way 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. It is
incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to
mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise him
as to law.
12

Castillo v. Padilla, Jr. AC No. 2339, Feb. 24, 1984

Among the duties of an attorney are: (1) to observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts of justice; and (2) to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance
no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness unless required by
the justice of the cause with which he is charged. The Canons of Professional Ethics
likewise exhort lawyers to avoid all personalities between counsel.
Andres v. Cabrera, AC No. 585, Dec. 14, 1979
The power to punish persons for contempt is inherent in all courts and essential to the
preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of their lawful
orders and decisions (Montalban v. Canonoy, 38 SCRA 1). A 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.
(Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, L-27072, Jan. 9, 1970, 31 SCRA 1; In re
Almacen, 31 SCRA 562; Montecillo v. Gica, 6Q SCRA 234). Such power, however, should
be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle and on the
corrective and not on the retaliatory idea of punishment. (Weigal v. Shuster, 11 Phil.
340; Villavicencio v. Lucban, 39 Phil. 778; People v. Marcos, 70 Phil. 468, 480;
Victorino v. Espiritu, 5 SCRA 653; Reliance Procoma, Inc. v. Phil-Asia Tobacco Corp., 57
SCRA 370, Fontelera v. Amores, 70 SCRA 37). Furthermore, contempt power should not
be utilized for mere satisfaction of natural inclination to strike back at a party who
has shown lesser respect to the dignity of the court. (Royeca v. Animas, 71 SCRA 1).
Tolentino v. Baylosis, 110 Phil. 1010, 1 SCRA 396
It is the generally accepted rule that counsel, parties, or witnesses are
exempted from liability in libel or slander for words otherwise defamatory
published in the course of judicial proceedings, provided that the statements
are connected with, or relevant, pertinent or material to, the cause in hand or
subject of inquiry (see 53 C.J.S. 170-171; Tupas vs. Parreno, et al., G.R. No. L12545, April 30, 1959, and authorities cited therein). For, as aptly observed in
one case, while the doctrine of privileged communications is liable to be
abused, and its abuse may lead to great hardships, yet to give legal sanction to
such suits as the present would, we think, give rise to far greater hardships.
TEST OF RELEVANCY: in order that matter alleged in a pleading may be
privileged, it need not be in every case material to the issues presented by the
pleadings. It must be legitimately related or so pertinent to the subject of
controversy that it may become the subject of inquiry in course of trial.
In Re Laureta, March 12, 1987, 148 SCRA 382
The constitutional right of freedom of speech or right to privacy cannot be used as a
shield for contemptuous acts against the Court.
Yap Tan v. Sabandal, BM No. 44, Nov. 29, 1983
13

Whether or not respondent shall be admitted to the Philippine Bar rests to a great
extent in the sound discretion of the Court. An applicant must satisfy the Court that
he is a person of good moral character, fit and proper to practice law.
Cambaliza v. Cristal-Tenorio, July 14, 2004
The lawyers duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized
practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. Public policy requires that
the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education
and character. The permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and
limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of
moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the
client, and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to
practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon
a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the
profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his name to be used in
aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal
or corporate. And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary
action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law.
Republic v. Kenrick Development Corp., 529 Phil. 876 (2006)
Only the signature of either the party himself or his counsel operates to validly
convert a pleading from one that is unsigned to one that is signed. Counsels
authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to him. He may not delegate
it to just any person. Procedural requirements which have been labeled as
mere technicalities have their own valid raison d eitre. To summarily brush
them aside may result in arbitrariness and injustice. Procedural rules are
promulgated into law designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases and while
the court related the rules from time to time, it must not let it be the last
bastion for erring litigants.
The signature of counsel constitutes an assurance by him that he has read the
pleading; that, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, there is a
good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. Under the
Rules of Court, it is counsel alone, by affixing his signature, who can certify to
these matters.
Cruz v. Mijares, G.R. No. 154464, September 11, 2008
Sec. 34 or Rule 138 recognizes the right of an individual to represent himself in any
case to which he is a party. The Rules state that a party may conduct his litigation
personally or with the aid of an attorney, and that his appearance must either be
personal or by a duly authorized member of the Bar. The individual litigant may
personally do everything in the course of proceedings from commencement to the
termination of the litigation. Considering that a party personally conducting his
litigation is restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as those qualified
14

to practice law, petitioner, not being a lawyer himself, runs the risk of falling into the
snares and hazards of his own ignorance. Therefore, Cruz as plaintiff, at his own
instance, can personally conduct the litigation. He would then be acting not as a
counsel or lawyer, but as a party exercising his right to represent himself.
Five J. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 11474, Aug. 22, 1994
Article 222 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 3 of Presidential Decree
No. 1691, states that non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any labor
arbiter only (1) if they represent themselves, or (2) if they represent their
organization or the members thereof.
Furthermore, the statutory rule that an attorney shall be entitled to have and
recover from his client a reasonable compensation for his services necessarily
imports the existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition for the
recovery of attorney's fees, and such relationship cannot exist unless the
client's representative is a lawyer.
Director of Lands v. Adorable, No. 8197, Oct. 2, 1946
Attorney Manuel F. Zamora, for the claimants and appellees, acting under the highest
standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility as becomes a deserving member of
the bar, instead of taking advantage of claimant-appellant's ignorance of what really
happened in the Court of Appeals, informed this court that the case had been decided
in favor of said claimant and appellant by the Court of Appeals, filing to said effect
the copy of the decision promulgated on September 9, 1942, sent to him by said
court, to save the appellant the trouble of waiting for the reconstitution of this case
and this tribunal the trouble of deciding again a case already decided.
Florido v. Florido, AC No. 5624, Jan. 20, 2004
Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The burden cast on the
judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is
asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of
verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Even with due
recognition then that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in the
defense of a clients cause, it must never be at the expense of the truth.
A lawyers language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as
befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession.
The lawyers arguments whether written or oral should be gracious to both
court and opposing counsel and should be of such words as may be properly
addressed by one gentlemen to another.
Erectors, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-71177, Oct. 28, 1988
For a lawyers duty to his client does not mean freedom to set up false or fraudulent
claims especially with respect to provisions of law or administrative rules and that
while lawyers are bound to exert utmost legal skill in prosecuting their clients cause
or defending it, their duty, first and foremost, is to the administration of justice. The
15

office of attorney does not permit, much less demand, to support a clients case,
violation of law or otherwise, fraud or chicanery. A lawyer must obey his own
conscience and not that of his client.
Gavida v. Sales, Jr. G.R. No. 124893, April 18, 1997
Every pleading before the COMELEC must be printed, mimeographed or typewritten in
legal size bond paper and filed in at least ten (10) legible copies. Pleadings must be
filed directly with the proper Clerk of Court of the COMELEC personally, or, by
registered mail. Filing a pleading by facsimile transmission is not sanctioned by the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, much less by the Rules of Court. A facsimile is not a
genuine and authentic pleading.
MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp. G.R. No. 170633, Oct. 17, 2007
Electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document
under the Best Evidence Rule, as long as it is a printout or output readable by sight or
other means, showing to reflect the data accurately. Thus, to be admissible in
evidence as an electronic data message or to be considered as the functional
equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule, the writing must
foremost be an electronic data message or an electronic document.
Bagasing v. Espanol, G.R. No. 133090, Jan. 19, 2001
But a lawyer should not be carried away in espousing his clients cause
(Buenaseda v. Flavier, 226 SCRA 645, 656). He should not forget that he is an
officer of the court, bound to exert every effort and placed under duty, to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice pursuant to Canon
12, Canons of Professional Responsibility (Gomez v. Presiding Judge, RTC, Br.
15, Ozamis City, 249 SCRA 432, 439). He should not , therefore, misuse the
rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice per Rule 10.03. Canon 10 of the
Canons of Professional Responsibility, or unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgment or misuse court processes, in accordance with Rule
12.04, Canon 12 of the same Canons (Ibid).
Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in
the administration of justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede or
obstruct the administration of justice contravenes such lawyers duty.
Ang v. Castro, G.R. No. 66371, May 15, 1985
The use of disrespectful or contemptuous language against a particular judge in
pleadings presented in another court or proceeding is indirect, not direct, contempt
as it is not tantamount to a misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court or judge
as to interrupt the administration of justice. Stated differently, if the pleading
containing derogatory, offensive or malicious statements is submitted in the same
court or judge in which the proceedings are pending, it is direct contempt because it
is equivalent to a misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or
judge as to interrupt the administration of justice.
16

Rheem of the Phils. v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-22979, June 26, 1967
By now, a lawyer's duties to the Court have become common place. Really, there
could hardly be any valid excuse for lapses in the observance thereof. Section 20 (b),
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, in categorical terms, spells out one such duty: "To
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers." As
explicit is the first canon of legal ethics which pronounces that "[i]t is the duty of the
lawyer to maintain towards the Courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the
temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme
importance." That same canon, as a corollary, makes it peculiarly incumbent upon
lawyers to support the courts against "unjust criticism and clamor." And more. The
attorney's oath solemnly binds him to a conduct that should be "with all good fidelity .
. . to the courts." Worth remembering is that the duty of an attorney to the courts
"can only be maintained by rendering no service involving any disrespect to the
judicial office which he is bound to uphold."
Ceniza v. Sebastian, G.R. No. L-39914, July 2, 1984
Contempt power inay be availed of by a judge, who is the victim of insulting and
offensive epithets. A member of the bar as an officer of the court is not justified to
use vile and disrespectful language. If there be such a failing on his part, he cannot
complain if he is adjudged guilty of contempt, Where the words appear in a pleading
submitted to the Court, that is contempt in facie curiae and therefore may be dealt
with in a summary manner.
Caoibes v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 132177, July 19, 2001
The Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal
complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves an administrative matter. The
Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court personnel filed
before it, referred to the Supreme Court for determination as to whether and
administrative aspect is involved therein. This rule should hold true regardless of
whether an administrative case based on the act subject of the complaint before the
Ombudsman is already pending with the Court. For, aside from the fact that the
Ombudsman would not know of this matter unless he is informed of it, he should give
due respect for and recognition of the administrative authority of the Court, because
in determining whether an administrative matter is involved, the Court passes upon
not only administrative liabilities but also other administrative concerns, as is clearly
conveyed in the case of Maceda vs. Vasquez.
Angeles v. Desierto, G.R. No. 133077, Sept. 8, 2006
Time and again, the Court has ruled that the Ombudsman has the full
discretion to determine whether a criminal complaint should be dismissed or
the necessary Information be filed in the appropriate court. His determination
and evaluation of the adequacy of evidence in this regard are unfettered. His is
an exercise of powers based upon a constitutional mandate and the courts
should not interfere in such exercise.
17

Indeed, we have consistently ruled that unless there are good and compelling
reasons, we cannot interfere in the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigating
and prosecutory powers. Without good and compelling reasons to indicate
otherwise, the Court cannot freely interfere in the Ombudsman's exercise of his
investigatory and prosecutory powers. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith
if he finds it to be insufficient in form or substance or if he otherwise finds no
ground to continue with the inquiry; or he may proceed with the investigation
if the complaint is, in his view, in due and proper form. However, while the
Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case
should be filed, the Court is not precluded from reviewing his action when
there is an abuse of discretion.
Laxina v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 153155, Sept. 30, 2005

At the onset, it must be stressed that the rule on forum-shopping applies only
to judicial cases or proceedings, and not to administrative cases.
The mandate of the Ombudsman to investigate complaints against erring public
officials, derived from both the Constitution and the law gives it jurisdiction
over the complaint against petitioner. The Constitution has named the
Ombudsman and his Deputies as the protectors of the people who shall act
promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or
employees of the government.
Diman v. Alumbres, 299 SCRA 459 (1998)
It is also the law which determines when a summary judgment is proper. It
declares that although the pleadings on their face appear to raise issues of fact
-- e.g., there are denials of, or a conflict in, factual allegations -- if it is shown
by admissions, depositions or affidavits, that those issues are sham, fictitious,
or not genuine, or, in the language of the Rules, that "except as to the amount
of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entiled to a judgment as a matter of law, the Court shall render
a summary judgment for the plaintiff or the defendant as the case may be.
Parenthetically, the existence or appearance of ostensible issues in the
pleadings, on the one hand, and their sham or fictitious character, on the
other, are what distinguish a proper case for a summary judgment from one for
a judgment on the pleadings under Rule 19 of the 1964 Rules. In the latter
case, there is no ostensible issue at all, but the absence of any because of the
failure of the defending party's answer to raise an issue.
On the other hand, in the case of a summary judgment, issues apparently exist
-- i.e., facts are asserted in the complaint regarding which there is as yet no
admission, disavowal or qualification; or specific denials or affirmative
defenses are in truth set out in the answer -- but the issues thus arising from
the pleadings are sham, fictitious, not genuine, as shown by admissions,
depositions or admissions. In other words, as a noted authority remarks, a
judgment on the pleadings is a judgment on the facts as pleaded while a
18

summary judgment is a judgment on the facts as summarily proven by

affidavits, depositions or admissions. Another distinction is that while the
remedy of a judgment on the pleadings may be sought only by a claimant (one
seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim or to obtain a
declaratory relief, supra), a summary judgment may be applied for by either a
claimant or a defending party.
Re: Suspension of Atty. Bagabuyo, AC No. 7006, Oct. 9, 2007
Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute
and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are
devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain
obligations.[18] Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a
lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers
and [he] should insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that
a lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities only.
P/Supt. Hansel Marantan v. Atty. Diokno, et al., G.R. No. 205956, Feb. 12, 2014
The sub judice rule restricts comments and disclosure pertaining to the judicial
proceedings in order to avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court or
obstructing the administration of justice. A violation of this rule may render one liable
for indirect contempt under Sec. 3(d) Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
In Re Almacen, G.R. No. L-27654, Feb. 18, 1970
For his intestiture 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.
The decisions of the judge must be obeyed because he is the tribunal

appointed to decide, and the bar should at all times be the foremost in rendering
respectful submission.
Cabansag v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-8974, Oct. 18, 1957
Courts have the power to preserve their integrity and maintain their dignity without
which their administration of justice is bound to falter or fail. This is the preservative
power to punish for contempt. This power is inherent in all courts and essential to
their right of self- preservation. In order that it may conduct its business unhampered
by publications which tend to impair the impartiality of its decisions or otherwise
obstruct the administration of justice, the court will not hesitate to exercise it
regardless of who is affected. For, "as important as is the maintenance of an
unmuzzled press and the free exercise of the rights of the citizen is the maintenance
of the independence of the judiciary." The reason for this is that respect of the courts
guarantees the stability of their institution. Without such guaranty, said institution
would be resting on a very shaky foundation.
19

People v. Nadera, Jr. 324 SCRA 490, 2000

Only faithful performance by counsel of his duty towards his client can give
meaning and substance to the accused's right to due process and to be
presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Hence, a lawyer's duty, especially
that of a defense counsel, must not be taken lightly. It must be performed with
all the zeal and vigor at his command to protect and safeguard the accused's
fundamental rights.
Atty. Brotonel, as counsel de oficio, had the duty to defend his client and
protect his rights, no matter how guilty or evil he perceives accused-appellant
to be. The performance of this duty was all the more imperative because the
life of accused-appellant hangs in the balance. His duty was no less because he
was counsel de oficio.
People v. Espina, 45 SCRA 614, 1972
the decision aforementioned be set aside and that the case be remanded to the lower
court for new trial, upon the authority of several decisions of this Court, 1 there being
nothing in the record to indicate that the meaning of the charges preferred against
the defendants had been adequately explained to them and that they were
reasonably posted on the import of the plea of guilty entered by them.
Francisco v. Portugal, AC No. 6155, March 14, 2006
The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate the
attorney-client relation at anytime with or without cause. The right of an attorney to
withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however,
considerably restricted. Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an
attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its
conclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause. A lawyers
right to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises only from the
clients written consent or from a good cause.
Villafuerte v. Cortez, G.R. No. 3455, April 14, 1998
A lawyer's fidelity to the cause of his client requires him to be ever mindful of the
responsibilities that should be expected of him.[3] He is mandated to exert his best
efforts to protect, within the bounds of the law, the interests of his client. The Code
of Professional Responsibility cannot be any clearer in its dictum than when it has
stated that a "lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence," decreeing
further that he "shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him."
Cruz v. Jacinto, AC No. 5235, March 22, 2000
Business transactions between an attorney and his client are disfavored and
discouraged by the policy of the law. Hence, courts carefully watch these
transactions to be sure that no advantage is taken by a lawyer over his client. This
20

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. Thus, no
presumption of innocence or improbability of wrongdoing is considered in an
attorneys favor.
Dagohoy v. Atty. Artemio San Juan, AC No. 7944, June 4, 2013

failure to file a brief resulting in the dismissal of an appeal constitutes inexcusable
negligence. It is a fundamental rule of ethics that an attorney who undertakes to
conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion.
Ylya v. Atty. Gacott, AC No. 6475, Jan. 30, 2013

The relationship between a lawyer and his client should ideally be imbued with the
highest level of trust and confidence. Necessity and public interest require that this
be so. Part of the lawyers duty to his client is to avoid representing conflicting
interests.
Lim v. Villasosa, AC No. 5303, June 15, 2006

There is representation of conflicting interests if the acceptance of the new retainer
will require the attorney to do anything which will injuriously affect his first client in
any matter in which he represents him and also whether he will be called upon in his
new relation, to use against his first client any knowledge acquired through their
connection.
The rule on conflict of interests covers not only cases in which confidential
communications have been confided but also those in which no confidence has been
bestowed or will be used.
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is 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 also whether he will be called upon in his new
relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquire in the previous
employment. The first part of the rule refers to cases in which the opposing parties
are present clients either in the same action or in a totally unrelated case; the second
part pertains to those in which the adverse party against whom the attorney appears
is his former client in a matter which is related, directly or indirectly, to the present
controversy.
The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing new clients whose interests oppose
those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same
action or in totally unrelated cases.
PCGG v. Sandiganbayan, supra
21

The evils sought to be remedied by the Rule do not exist where the government
lawyer does an act which can be considered as innocuous such as drafting,
enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or
briefing abstract principles of law. In fine, the intervention cannot be insubstantial
and insignificant.
Quiambao v. Bamba, AC No. 6708, Aug. 25, 2005

The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation
where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated
action. It is of no moment that the lawyer would not be called upon to contend for
one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for the other client, or that there
would be no occasion to use the confidential information acquired from one to the
disadvantage of the other as the two actions are wholly unrelated.
Samala v. Valencia, AC No. 5339, January 22, 2007

A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for
a person whose interest conflicts with that of his present or former client. He may not
also undertake to discharge conflicting duties any more than he may represent
antagonistic interests. This stern rule is founded on the principles of public policy and
good taste. It springs from the relation of attorney and client which is one of trust
and confidence. Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the client's
confidence, but also to avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only
then can litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of
paramount importance in the administration of justice.
One of the tests of inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance of a new
relation would prevent the full discharge of the lawyer's duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance of that duty.
The stern rule against representation of conflicting interests is founded on principles
of public policy and good taste. It springs from the attorney's duty to represent his
client with undivided fidelity and to maintain inviolate the client's confidence as well
as from the injunction forbidding the examination of an attorney as to any of the
privileged communications of his client.
An attorney owes loyalty to his client not only in the case in which he has represented
him but also after the relation of attorney and client has terminated. The bare
attorney-client relationship with a client precludes an attorney from accepting
professional employment from the client's adversary either in the same case or in a
different but related action. A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent
22

client against a former client when the subject matter of the present controversy is
related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which
he appeared for the former client.
Pomento v. Ponteverde, AC No. 5128, March 31, 2005

A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client
when the subject matter of the present controversy is related, directly or indirectly,
to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former
client. Conversely, he may properly act as counsel for a new client, with full
disclosure to the latter, against a former client in a matter wholly unrelated to that of
the previous employment, there being in that instance no conflict of interests.
Where, however, the subject matter of the present suit between the lawyers new
client and his former client is in some way connected with that of the former clients
action, the lawyer may have to contend for his new client that which he previously
opposed as counsel for the former client or to use against the latter information
confided to him as his counsel. As we have held in Maturan vs. Gonzales:
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 clients case. He learns from his client the weak points of
the action as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and
guarded with care. No opportunity must be given him to take advantage of the clients
secrets. A lawyer must have the fullest confidence of his client. For if the confidence
is abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof.
Artezuela v. Maderazo, AC No. 4354, April 22, 2002
To be guilty of representing conflicting interests, a counsel-of-record of one party
need not also be counsel-of-record of the adverse party. He does not have to
publicly hold himself as the counsel of the adverse party, nor make efforts to
advance the adverse partys conflicting interests of record. It is enough that the
counsel of one party had a hand in the preparation of the pleading of the other
party, claiming adverse and conflicting interests with that of his original client. To
require that he also be counsel-of-record of the adverse party would punish only the
most obvious form of deceit and reward, with impunity, the highest form of
disloyalty.
Abaqueta v. Florido, AC No. 5948, Jan. 22, 2003

It is axiomatic that no lawyer is obliged to act either as adviser or advocate for every
person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline such
employment, subject, however, to Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such
cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He
23

must serve the client with competence and diligence and champion the latters cause
with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion.
A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for
a person whose interest conflicts with that of his former client. 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. Indeed, as we stated in Sibulo v. Cabrera, The
relation of attorney and client is based on trust, so that double dealing, which could
sometimes lead to treachery, should be avoided.
Gonzales v. Cabucana, AC No. 6836, Jan. 23, 2006
It is well-settled that lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests except
by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Such
prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste as the nature of
the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.
Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence but also to
avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount
importance in the administration of justice.
Frias v. Lozada, AC No. 6656, Dec. 13, 2005
A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case and by independent advice and he or she shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after
a full disclosure of the facts.
Reyes v. Vitan, AC No. 5835, April 15, 2005
Indeed, when a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due
diligence in protecting his rights. The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and
attention expected of a good father of a family makes such lawyer unworthy of the
trust reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but
also to the legal profession, the courts and society
Perez v. De la Torre, AC No. 6160, March 30, 2006
Buted et al. v. Atty. Hernando, AC No. 1359, Oct. 17, 1991
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon,
a lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to
contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose.
24

The obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his
secrets or confidence forbids also the subsequent acceptance of retainers or
employment from others in matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with
respect to which confidence has been reposed.
Berbano v. Barcelona, AC No. 6084, Sept. 3, 2003
The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes and the
courts but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with
clients and the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.
Instead of promoting respect for law and the legal processes, respondent callously
demeaned the legal profession by taking money from a client under the pretext of
having connections with a Member of the Court.
25

Problem Areas In Legal Ethics

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Problem Areas In Legal Ethics

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Problem Areas In Legal Ethics (Pale)

Justice Francisco P. Acosta