TIJAM - LEGAL ETHICS 2011 - New PDF

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.
5/13/2011
The Code of Professional Responsibility does not

cease to apply to a lawyer simply because he has
joined the government service. In fact, by the
express provision of Canon 6 thereof, the rules
governing the conduct of lawyers “ shall
apply to lawyers in government in the
discharge of their official tasks.” Thus,
where a lawyer’s misconduct as a
JUSTICE NOEL G. TIJAM government official is of such nature as to
affect his qualification as a lawyer or to
Court of Appeals show moral delinquency, then he may be
ar
disciplined as a member of the bar on
such grounds.
1 4
es
bl
o
ar
R
an
H
Hadjula vs. Madianda, A.C. No. 6711; July 3,
es
The Supreme
eme Court
Cour held that the Respondent’s act 2007
h
ng advant
of taking advantage of his office as the Registry of Held: Complainant went to respondent, a lawyer
bl
Deeds and ememploying his knowledge of the rules who incidentally was also then a friend, to bare
C
governing land registration for the benefit of his what she considered personal secrets
sec and sensitive
documents for the purpose off obtaining
obtain legal
o
relatives has clearly demonstrated his unfitnesss
r
not only to perform the functions of a civil servant
rvant advice and assistance. The moment
momen the
R
Ba
but also to retain his membership in the bar.
complainant approached hed the then
th receptive
respondent to seek legall advice,
advi a variable lawyer-
an
client relationship evolved

evolv d between the two. Such
es
relationship imposes
poses upon
up the lawyer certain
restrictions circumscribed
ircumsc by the ethics of the
h
profession.
bl
C
2 5
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
bl
Among the burdens of the relationshipnship is that

th
C
Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional ondent in this case,

which enjoins the lawyer, respondent
Responsibility provides that a lawyer in the nforma
to keep inviolate confidential information
o
acquired or revealed during ng legal co

consultations.
government service shall not use his public
he end of the day, not
The fact that one is, at the
R
position to promote or advance his private inclined to handle thee clients ccase is hardly
an
interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with tle mome

consequence. Of little moment, too, is the fact that
his public duties. Respondents conduct sional en
no formal professional engagement follows the
manifestly undermined the people’s confidence consultation. Nor will it make any difference that
h
in the public office he used to occupy and cast ct whatsoev

no contract whatsoever was executed by the
doubt on the integrity of the legal profession. parties to memori
memorialize the relationship.
C
The ill- conceived use of his knowledge of the

intricacies of the law calls for nothing less than
the withdrawal of his privilege to practice law.
3 6
1
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
5/13/2011
The High Court reiterated its ruling in Burbe vs. 1). Where legal advice of any kind is sought
Magulta ( 432 Phil. 840(2002), thus.- 2). From a professional legal adviser in his capacity
A lawyer- client relationship was established from as such.
the very first moment complainant asked 3). The communications relating to that purpose
respondent for legal advise regarding the former’s 4). Made in confidence
business. To constitute professional employment, 5). By the client
it is not essential that the client employed the 6). Are at his instance permanently protected
attorney professionally on any previous occasion. 7). From disclosure by himself or by legal advisor
8). Except the protection be waived
r
Ba 7 10
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
It is not necessary that
hat any retainer be paid, The Sup
Supreme Court, however, held that the
an
arged; nei
promised or charged; neither is it material that the seri
seriousness of respondents offense
attorney did not afterward
afterw handle the case for notwithstanding, there is room for compassion,
es
which his service w was sought. If a person, in absent compelling evidence that respondent acted
h
respectt to busine
business affairs or troubles of any kind, with ill will. At the end of the day it appears that
bl
consultsts a lawyer
law with a view to obtaining
C
respondent was actuated by the urge to retaliate

professional advice or assistance , and the without perhaps realizing that,at, in the process of
o
attorney voluntarily permits or aquiesces with the
r
giving vent to a negative sentiment,
ntiment, she was
consultation, then professional employment is entiality.
violating rule of confidentiality.
R
Ba
established.
an
es
h
bl
C
8 11
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
Likewise, a lawyer-client relationship exists Disposition: Respondent was

bl
C
notwithstanding the close personal relationship

onished to be
reprimanded and admonished
between the lawyer and the complainant or the
o
non-payment of the former’s fees. circumspect in her handling

handlin of
R
ired as a result of a
information acquired
lawyer-client relationship.
relation
an
Citing Dean Wigmore, the Supreme Court listed the

following essential factors to establish the
existence of the attorney-client communication:
Respondentt was also
al sternly warned
repetit
against a repetition of the same or
h
similar act.
ac
C
9 12
2
5/13/2011
` Competence, Diligence and ` He must serve the client with competence

and diligence and champion the latter’s
Fidelity to Client’s Cause cause with wholehearted fidelity, care and
devotion. Else wise stated, he owed entire
devotion to the interest of the client, warm
Canon 17 – A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of zeal in the maintenance and defense of his
client’s rights, and the exertion of his utmost
his client and he shall be mindful of the trust learning and ability to the end that nothing
and confidence reposed in him. be taken or withheld from his client, save by
Canon 18 – A lawyer shall serve his client with the rules of law, legally applied. This simply
means that his client is entitled to the benefit
competence and diligence. of any and every remedy and defense that is
authorized by the law of the land and he may
expect his lawyer to assert every such
r
remedy or defense.
Ba 13 16
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
an
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer

law shall not neglect a
` If much is demanded from an attorney, it
legal matter
er entrusted
entru to him and his
es
negligence
ence in connection
co therewith shall
is because the entrusted privilege to
h
er him liable.
render l practice law carries with it the correlative
bl
duties not only to the client but also to the

C
Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep his client

informed of the status of his case and shall
he public.
court, to the bar and to the p A
o
lawyer who performs his duty with
r
respond within a reasonable time to the e
diligence and candor or not only
on protects the
R
Ba
client’s request for information.
nt; he also
interest of his client; a serves the
an
ends of justice, do
does ho
honor to the bar and
helps maintainin the respect
r of the
es
community y to the legal profession.”
h
bl
C
14 17
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
bl
` Canoy vs. Ortiz

C
A.C. No. 5485; March 16, 2005 ` Consolidated Farms, Inc. c. vs. Alpon,
Alp Jr.
o
“Lawyers who devote their professional A.C. No. 5525; March h 4, 2005
practice in representing litigants who could
“This Court has always
ways reminded
rem the
R
ill afford legal services deserve

commendation. However, this mantle of members of the legal
egal profession
pro that
an
public service will not deliver the lawyer, no

matter how well-meaning, from the every case they handle deserves full and
y hand
consequences of negligent acts. It is not undivided attention,
ttention diligence, skill and
enough to say that all pauper litigants should
be assured of legal representation. They nce, rega
competence, regardless of its importance,
h
deserve quality representation as well.” ether they

and whether th accept it for a fee or for
“Once he agrees to take up the cause of a
C
client, a lawyer owes fidelity to such cause nd to constantly

free, and c keep in mind that
and must always be mindful of the trust and not only the property but also the life of
confidence reposed in him.
their clients may be at stake.”
15 18
3
5/13/2011
` Cheng vs. Agravante

` Rollon vs. Naraval (A.C. No. 6424; March A.C. No. 6183; March 23, 2004
4, 2005)
“In this case, respondent’s filing of the
“Ordinarily, lawyers are not obliged to act Memorandum of Appeal four (4) days after
either as advisers or as advocates of any the deadline proves that his efforts fell short
person who may wish to become their of the diligence required of a lawyer. His
client. They may decline employment and failure to perfect an appeal within the
refuse to accept representation, if they prescribed period constitutes negligence and
are not in a position to carry it out malpractice proscribed by the Code of
effectively or competently. But once they Professional Responsibility, which provides
agree to handle a case, attorneys are that a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
required by the Canons of Professional entrusted to him and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him
r
Responsibility to undertake the task withh
zeal, care and utmost dedication. liable.”
Ba 19 22
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
an
` Bar
Barbuco vs. Beltran
A.C. No. 5092; August 11, 2004
es
` Abiero vs. Juanin
Juanino “The fact that respondent was involved in
h
o. 5302; February 18, 2005

A.C. No. a vehicular accident and suffered physical
bl
injuries as a result thereof cannot serve

C
awyer has the duty to exert his best

“The lawyer
judgment in the prosecution or defense of to excuse him from filing hishi pleadings on
time considering that he e was a member of
o
r
the case entrusted to him and to exercise
a law firm composed off not just
j one
ence
reasonable and ordinary care and diligence
R
Ba
lawyer. X x respondent
ndent cocould have asked
in the pursuit or defense of the case. x x” any of his partners in the law office to file
an
the Appellant’s Brie

Brief for
fo him or, at least,
to file a Motion
on for Extension of Time to
es
file the said pleading.
d plead
h
bl
C
20 23
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
bl
B.R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. nc. vs. Court

C
C
`
` De Guzman vs. Basa
of Appeals
A.C. No. 5554; June 29, 2004
o
G.R. No. 41862; February ary 7, 199

1992
Rule 12.03, Code of Professional
The confusion in the office ofo the law firm
R
Responsibility: A lawyer shall not, after

following the death h of one of its partners is
an
obtaining extensions of time to file

cation for failing to file the
not a valid justification
pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the
eceipt of the notice to file the
brief. Upon receipt
period lapse without submitting the same
brief, the law firm should
s have re-assigned
h
or offering an explanation for his failure to

the case to anoth
another associate.
do so.
C
21 24
4
5/13/2011
` Abay vs. Montesino (A.C. No. 5718; ` Amaya vs. Tecson, A.C. No. 5996; February 7,
2005
December 4, 2003) It is not enough that a practitioner is qualified to
“x x Even if respondent was ‘honestly and handle a legal matter; he is also required to
prepare adequately and to give the appropriate
sincerely’ protecting the interests of attention to his legal work.
complainant, the former still had no right Disbarment is the most severe form of
disciplinary sanction, and as such, the power to
to waive the appeal without the latter’s disbar must always be exercised with great
knowledge and consent. If indeed, caution for only the most imperative reasons
respondent felt unable or unwilling to and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the
standing and moral character of the lawyer as an
continue his retainership, he should have officer of the court and a member of the bar.
properly withdrawn his appearance and Disbarment should not be decreed where
punishment less severe – such as a reprimand,
r
allowed the client to appoint another suspension, or fine – would accomplish the end
Ba
lawyer.” desired.
25 28
es
o
r
R
Ba
an
` Edquibal vs. Ferrer

errer ` De Juan vs. Baria III (A.C. No. 5817; May
87; February
A.C. No. 5687; Febru 3, 2005 27, 2004)
es
- Section 2, Rule 44, Rules of Court of
“x x (A)n attorney who undertakes an
h
ls:
Appeals:
action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its
bl
“The counse
counsel x x of the parties in the court
C
gin shall
of origin sh be respectively considered as termination, that is, until the case becomes
their counsel x x in the Court of Appeals.” wyer is
final and executory. A lawyer i not at
o
- The practice of law does not require
r
extraordinary diligence (exactissima liberty to abandon his client a
and withdraw
R
Ba
diligentia) or that “extreme measure of care his services withoutt reasonable
reasona cause and
and caution which persons of unusuall propr
only upon notice appropriate in the
an
prudence and circumspection use for or circumstances. x x”

securing and preserving their rights.
hts. All that
t
es
is required is ordinary diligence (diligentia)
(dilig
g
or that degree of vigilance expected
xpected of a
h
bonus pater familias.

bl
C
26 29
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
bl
` Bergonia vs. Merrera (A.C. No. 5024; ` Perea vs. Almadro

C
February 20, 2003) ( A.C. Case No. 5246; March 20, 2003)
2003
o
Lawyers should fully familiarize themselves Respondent lawyer’s negligence

gligence was
w
with the causes of their clients before
compounded by his attemptempt to have
h the tribunal
R
advising the latter on the soundness of

believe the story of how
ow his draft,
d stored in a
an
litigating. If they find that the intended suit

is devoid of merit or that the pending action
magnetic diskette, mysteriously
myste disappeared and
is defenseless they should promptly inform how the absencee of such file in his diskette led
eve that th
him to believe the same was already filed in
h
and dissuade their clients accordingly.

“A motion for extension to file an appellant's court. It was, said the High Court, “a very
C
brief carries with it the presumption that the ous story”

preposterous st and avoids the simple fact
applicant-lawyer will file the pleading within that respondent lawyer failed to submit the
the period granted.” demurrer.
27 30
5
5/13/2011
Respondent lawyer claimed he had not met

` Anderson, Jr. vs. Cardeño
complainants before, hence, could not ascertain
A.C. No. 3523; January 17, 2005
their identities during the signing of the
“x x (I)t was incumbent upon respondent lawyer
to insist on his client’s participation. x x As a
quitclaims. He claimed that he went to the labor
lawyer representing the cause of his client, he arbiter’s office on the request of his clients who
should have taken more control over the told him that complainants would be there to
handling of the case. Knowing that his client was submit their quitclaims. However, the minutes of
based in the United States should, with more the proceedings in a related case, belied his claim
reason, have moved him to secure all the legal that he had not met the complainants before.
means available to him either to continue
representing his client effectively or to make the
necessary manifestation in court, with the
r
client’s conformity, that he was withdrawing as s
Ba
counsel of record. x x”
31 34
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
Furthe
Furthermore, by his own information, the Labor
an
` Fernandez
z vs. Cabrera
C II Arbiter
A was entertaining doubts on the true
es
A.C. No.
o. 5623;
5623 December 11, identity of those who executed the quitclaims.
h
2003 3 The High Court said that as an officer of the

bl
court, a lawyer must assist in the

C
“Acceptance
epta of money from a administration of justice, and any conduct on
nd a
client establishes an attorney-
o
his part that tends to obstruct,

truct, perverts
pe or
r
client relationship and gives rise impedes the administration
tration of justice
R
Ba
to the duty of fidelity to the constitutes misconduct. Respondent lawyer
uct. Res
an
was found guilty of nnegligence

lig and gross
client’s cause. x x” misconduct was as suspended
suspe from the practice
es
of Law for 6 months.
months
h
bl
C
32 35
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
bl
C
Complainants in this administrative case were Republic vs. Kenrick Developmentment Co

Corporation
among the complainant’s in a labor case which (G.R. No. 149576; Aug 8, 2006) 06)
o
was decided in their favor. After the decision A counsel’s authority and duty tot sign a
R
became final and executory , individual pleading are personal to him. He may not
Release, Waiver and Quitclaims were ny person.
delegate it to just any perso
an
purportedly signed and sworn to buy the onstitute an assurance that he

His signature constitutes
complainants before the labor arbiter and in has read the pleading, that to the best of his
the presence of respondent lawyer, who was
h
knowledge,e, informa
information and belief, there is a
the opposing parties, in the labor case. The und to su
good ground support it, and that it is not
C
complainants denied signing quitclaims under interposedd for delay. It is counsel alone, by
oath before the labor arbiter, or having receive affixing his signature, who can certify to these
the considerations therefore. matters.
33 36
6
5/13/2011
` Court's Ruling:
` Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
The preparation and signing of a provides:
` “A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
pleading constitute legal work interests except by written consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the
involving practice of law which is facts.”
` A lawyer may not, without being guilty of
reserved exclusively for the members professional misconduct, act as counsel for a person
whose interest conflicts with that of his present or
of the legal profession. Counsel may former client. The test is whether, on behalf of one client,
it is the lawyer's duty to contest for that which his duty to
delegate the signing of a pleading to another client requires him to oppose or when the
possibility of such situation will develop. The rule covers
another lawyer but cannot do so in not only cases in which confidential communications
have been confided, but also those in which no
favor of one who is not. A signature confidence has been bestowed or will be used. In
addition, the rule holds even if the inconsistency is
r
by agents of a lawyer amounts to remote or merely probable or the lawyer has acted in
good faith and with no intention to represent conflicting
Ba
signing by unqualified persons. interests.
37 40
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
` The termination
term of attorney-client relation provides no
justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse
jjustific
Conflict of Interests
Inter
an
to or in conflict with that of the former client. The

client's
lie confidence once reposed should not be divested
by mere expiration of professional employment. Even
Rule 15.03
5.03 – A lawyer shall
es
after the severance of the relation, a lawyer should not
do anything which will injuriously affect his former
h
repres
not represent conflicting client in any matter in which he previously represented
him nor should he disclose or use any of the client's
bl
rest except by written

interests
C
confidences acquired in the previous relation.

`
consent of all concerned ` In relation to this, Canon 17 of the Code
C of
o
r
Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes
ovides th
fidelity to the cause of his clientt and shall
s be mindful of
re
given after a full disclosure
R
the trust and confidence reposed

p on him. His highest
and most unquestioned dutyy is to protect the client at all
of the facts.
an
hazards and costs even to himself.

imse The protection given
to the client is perpetual
ua and d does not cease with the
termination of the litigation,
litigatio
g nor is it affected by the
party's ceasing too employ
p tthe attorney and retaining
another, or by anyy other change of relation between
h
them. It even survives

surv the death of the client.
l
C
38 41
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
` In the case at bar, respondent admitted d having

jointly represented Lydio and Raleigh gh as defendants
g def
bl
C
in the first civil case. Evidently, the attorney-client

he attorne
relation between Lydio and respondent pondent w
p was
o
established despite the fact that it wa was only Raleigh

` Respondent was the former counsel of the late Lydio who paid him. The case off Hilado vv. David tells us
Falame, complainants' father, in a forcible entry
R
that it is immaterial whether ther such employment was

case (first civil case) filed against the Lydio. paid, promised or charged rged for.
Consequently, the MTC ruled in favor of Lydio
an
Falame. Despite of the termination of the case, ` As defense counsel sel in the first civil case,
Lydio engaged Respondent's service until his death. respondent advocatedcated the sstance that Lydio solely
Subsequently, Respondent became the counsel of owned the propertypertyy subj
p subject of the case. In the
spouses Raleigh and Noemi Falame, who file a second civil case involv
involving the same property,
complaint for declaration of nullity of deed of sale respondent, nt, as counsel
coun for Raleigh and his spouse,
and its TCT (2nd civil case) involving the property has pursued inconsistent position that Raleigh
ed the in
subject in the first civil case against the owned the same property in common with Lydio,
complainants and Sugni corporation before the with complainants, who inherited the property,
RTC. committing acts which debase respondent's rights as
a co-owner.
` The IBP Board of Governor dismissed the
disbarment complaint.
39 42
7
5/13/2011
` The fact that the attorney-client relation had ceased by

reason of Lydio's death or through the completion of the
specific task for which respondent was employed is not 2. If the acceptance of the new retainer will
reason for respondent to advocate a position opposed to require the attorney to perform an act which will
that of Lydio. Precedents tell us that even after the
termination of his employment, an attorney may not act as injuriously affect his first client in any manner in
counsel against his client in the same general matter, even which he represents him, and also, whether he
though, while acting for his former client, he acquired no
knowledge which could operate to his client's disadvantage will be called upon in his new relation to use
in the subsequent adverse employment. And while against his first client any knowledge acquired
complainants have never been respondent's clients, they
derive their rights to the property from Lydio's ownership through their connection.
of it which respondent maintained in the first civil case.
` For representing Raleigh's cause which is adverse to
that of his former client — Raleigh's supposed co- 3. Whether the acceptance of a new relation will
ownership of the subject property — respondent is guilty of prevent an attorney from the full discharge of
representing conflicting interests. Having previously
undertaken joint representation of Lydio and Raleigh, his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his
respondent should have diligently studied and anticipated client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
r
the potential conflict of interest.
` Respondent was found guilty of representing double dealing in the performance thereof.
Ba
mand.
conflicting interest and meted the penalty of reprimand.
43 46
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
` Quiambao vs. Bambaba
gust 25,
A.C. No. 6708; August 25 2005
an
Termination
r of the attorney-client relationship
The prohibitionion again
against representing conflicting precludes an attorney from representing a new
es
interests is founde
founded on principles of public
nd good taste.
policy and ta client whose interest is adverse to his former
h
ooves lawyers
It behooves law not only to keep inviolate the client.
bl
s confid
client’s confidence, but also to avoid the
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
C
rance of treachery and double dealing for

appearance
only then can litigants be encouraged to entrust Responsibility- A lawyer shall all n
not represent
their secrets to their lawyers, which is of conflicting interests except byy wri
written consent
o
r
paramount importance in the administration n of
justice. of all concerned given after er a full
ful disclosure of
R
Ba
facts.
` Santos, Sr. vs. Beltran Canon 21 of the Code off Professional
Profe
an
A.C. 5858; December 11, 2003 Responsibility- A law er shall preserve the
lawyer
y
“There is conflict of interest when a lawyer
confidences and d secre
secrets of his client even after
es
represents inconsistent interests of two or more
opposing parties. x x” the attorney-- client pprivilege is terminated.
h
bl
C
44 47
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
A lawyer may not, without being guilty uiltyy of

bl
Quiambao vs. Bamba, A.C. No. 6708; professional misconduct, act as counsel for a
C
`
August 25, 2005 person whose interest conflicts ts with that
t of his
o
present or former client. He mayy not n also

` Santos, Sr. vs. Beltran, A.C. 5858; undertake to discharge conflicting duties
December 11, 2003
R
represen
p
anymore than he may represent antagonistic
` Northwestern University, Inc. vs. fo
interests. This stern rule is founded on the
an
Arquillo, A.C. No. 6632; August 2, 2005 principle of public ppolicyy in good taste. It springs
from the relation n of attor
attorney and client which is
Tests: nd confidence.
one of trust and confi Lawyers are
1. Whether or not in behalf of one client, expected not onlyy to keep inviolate the clients
it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue ce, but also
confidence, al to avoid the appearance of
treachery and d double- dealing for only then can
or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for litigants be encouraged to entrust their secrets to
the other client. their lawyers, which is of paramount importance
in the administration of justice.
45 48
8
5/13/2011
` Quiambao vs. Bamba, A.C. No. 6708; August 25, 2005

“The proscription against representation of ` When the case involves matters in which a
conflicting interests applies to a situation where the
opposing parties are present clients in the same
lawyer intervened while in government
action or in an unrelated action. It is of no moment service
that the lawyer would not be called upon to contend Rule 6.03 – A lawyer shall not, after leaving
for one client that which the lawyer has to oppose for
the other client, or that there would be no occasion to government service, accept engagement or
use confidential information acquired from one to employment in connection with any matter
the disadvantage of the other as the two actions are
wholly unrelated. It is enough that the opposing
in which he had intervened while in said
parties in one case, one of whom would lose the suit, service.
are present clients and the nature or conditions of
the lawyer’s respective retainers with each of them
would affect the performance of the duty of
r
undivided fidelity to both clients.”
Ba 49 52
es
bl
o
r
R
` The representationon of conflicting

c interests made
Ba
` PCG vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.
PCGG
an
nd with honest intention on the

in good faith and G
G.R. Nos. 151809-12; April 12, 2005
awyer does
part of the lawyer do not make the prohibition
es
inoperative.
ve. “Matter” - “any discrete, isolatable act
h
“It must noted that the proscription against

ust be note as well as identifiable transaction or
bl
representation
sentatio of conflicting interests finds conduct involving a particular
C
application
ation where the conflicting interests arise situation and specific party, and not
with respect to the same general matter however ng, enf
merely an act of drafting, enforcing or
o
r
slight the adverse interest may be. It applies
even if the conflict pertains to the lawyer’s
interpreting government ent or agency
R
Ba
private activity or in the performance of a lations or
procedures, regulations o laws, or
function in a non-professional capacity. In the rincip
briefing abstract principles of law.”
an
process of determining whether there is a “Intervention”-- must

m t be substantial
conflict of interest, an important criterion
iterion is
es
probability, not certainty, of conflict.”
flict.”
and significant
ant
h
bl
C
50 53
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
` Gamilla, et al. vs. Mariño, Jr.

bl
A.C. Case No. 4763; March 20, 2003 ` Withdrawal of Services

C
A lawyer cannot continue representing a Canon 22. – A lawyer shall withdraw his
ll withd
client, even with the client’s consent, after the
services only for good cause and
a upon
o
lawyer brings suit in his own behalf against the

same defendant, if it is uncertain whether the notice appropriate in
n the circumstances.
cir
R
defendant will be able to satisfy both

judgments.
an
A lawyer is not authorized to have financial ` Santeco vs. Avance e (A.C.

(A.C No. 5834;
stakes in the subject matter of the suit brought
in behalf of his client. December 11, 2003)
The objective of a disciplinary case is not so While the right
ight of the client to terminate
h
much to punish the individual attorney as to the relation

ion is absolute,
ab i.e., with or
protect the dispensation of justice by
sheltering the judiciary and the public from without cause, the right of the attorney to
C
misconduct or inefficiency of officers of the withdraww or terminate the relation other

court. Restorative justice not retribution is the
goal in this type of proceedings. than for sufficient cause is considerably
restricted.
51 54
9
5/13/2011
` Rule 22.01, Code of Professional

Responsibility:
A lawyer may withdraw his services in ` Facts:
any of the following cases: ` Complainant Wilfredo M. Catu is a co-owner of a lot and
the building erected thereon located at 959 San Andres
a) When the client pursues an illegal or Street, Malate, Manila. His mother and brother, Regina
Catu and Antonio Catu, contested the possession of
immoral course of conduct; Elizabeth C. Diaz-Catu and Antonio Pastor of one of the
b) When the client insists that the lawyer units in the building. The latter ignored demands for
them to vacate the premises. Thus, a complaint was
pursue conduct violative of the canons initiated against them in the Lupong Tagapamayapa of
and rules; Barangay 723, Zone 79 of the 5th District of Manila
where the parties reside.
c) When his inability to work with co- ` Respondent, as punong barangay of Barangay 723,
counsel will not promote the best interest summoned the parties to conciliation meetings. When
the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement,
r
of his client; respondent issued a certification for the filing of the
appropriate action in court.
Ba 55 58
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
` Therea
Thereafter, Regina and Antonio filed a complaint for
ejectm
ejectment against Elizabeth and Antonio Pastor in the
an
d) When the mental anda physical condition of Me

Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 11.
nders it difficult
the lawyer renders d for him to carry Respondent entered his appearance as counsel for the
es
ployment effectively;
out the employment
defendants in that case. In the course thereof, he
e) When client deliberately fails to pay the
n the clien
h
r the serv
fees for services or fails to comply with the prepared and signed pleadings including the answer with
bl
er agreement;
retainer agree counterclaim, pre-trial brief, position paper and notice of
C
f) Whenn the lawyer is elected or appointed to appeal.

public office; and ` Because of this, complainant filedd the instant
ins
o
r
g) Other similar cases. administrative complaint with the IBP, claiming
c that
Whether or not a lawyer has a valid cause for or respondent committed an act off impr
impropriety as a lawyer
R
Ba
withdrawing from a case, he may only retire e and as a public officer when stood as counsel for the
hen he sto
from a case either by written consent of his is defendants despite the factt that h
he presided over the
an
client or by permission of the court after er due conciliation proceedings between

ngs b w the litigants as punong
notice and hearing, in which event the he lawyer barangay.
s
co
should see to it that the name of the new counsel
is recorded in the case. ` Issue: Whether er or not R
Respondent violated the Code of
le
h
Professional Resp
Responsibility when he acted as counsel for
Responsib
Elizabeth and Anto
Antonio
on Pastor.
C
56 59
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
` Ruling:
` Good Moral Character and the Lawyer’s
bl
` While certain local elective officials (like

ike govern
governors,
C
Private Affairs mayors, provincial board memberss and councilors)

coun are
Canon 1. A lawyer shall uphold the expressly subjected to a total or partial
artial proscription
pro to
o
constitution, obey the laws of the land practice their profession or engage in an any occupation, no
and promote respect for law and legal such interdiction is made on punong barangay and
n the puno
R
processes. the members of the sangguniang

uniang b barangay. Expressio
unius est exclusio alterius.
us. Sinc
an
Since they are excluded from

Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in any prohibition, the presumption
presump is that they are allowed
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful to practice their profession.
rofession. And this stands to reason
conduct. because they are not mandated
man to serve full time. In fact,
h
Canon 7 – A lawyer shall at all times the sangguniang barangay is supposed to hold regular
niang baran
sessions only
nly twice a month.
C
uphold the integrity and dignity of the

` Accordingly, as ppunong barangay, respondent was not
legal profession, and support the forbidden to practice his profession. However, he
activities of the Integrated Bar. should have procured prior permission or
authorization from the head of his Department,
as required by civil service regulations.
57 60
10
5/13/2011
` Public confidence in the law and in lawyers may be eroded by the

irresponsible and improper In acting as counsel for a party
without first securing the required written permission,
respondent not only engaged in the unauthorized practice of law
but also violated civil service rules which is a breach of Rule 1.01
of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
` Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. In acting as Rule 7.03 – A lawyer shall not
counsel for a party without first securing the required written
permission, respondent not only engaged in the unauthorized engage in conduct that adversely
practice of law but also violated civil service rules which is a
breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: reflects on his fitness to practice
` Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. law, nor should he, whether in
` For not living up to his oath as well as for not complying with the
exacting ethical standards of the legal profession, respondent public or private life, behave in a
failed to comply with Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility: scandalous manner to the discredit
` CANON 7. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and the dignity of the legal profession and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
of the legal profession.
r
` Indeed, a lawyer who disobeys the law disrespects it. In so doing,ng,
he disregards legal ethics and disgraces the dignity of thee legal
leg
Ba
profession.
61 64
es
bl
o
ar
R
` For not living up to hiss oath as

a well as for not
complying with the exacting ethical standards of the
an
ponde failed to comply with

p
legal profession, respondent
ode of Professional
Canon 7 of the Code P Responsibility: As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in
A
CANON 7. A lawyer
law shall at all times
es
`
uphold the e integr
g
integrity and the dignity of the legal fact be of good moral character but must also be
h
sion and support

profession s the activities of the seen to be of good moral character and leading
ated Bar.
Integrated Bar
bl
lives in accordance with the highest moral

C
` Indeed,, a lawyer
lawy who disobeys the law disrespects it.
ing he disregards legal ethics and disgraces
In so doing, standards of the community.
the dignity of the legal profession. Good moral character- what a person really is, as
o
r
` conduct of a member of the bar. Every lawyer should uld distinguished from good reputation,
eputati or from the
act and comport himself in a manner that promotes es
R
Ba
public confidence in the integrity of the legal opinion generally entertained
ertained of
o him, or the
profession. estimate in which he is held by
b the public in the
an
` A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended

pended
from his office as an attorney for violation of the place where he is known.
know
lawyer's oath 20 and/or for breach of thee ethics oof the Moral character is not a subjective term but one
es
ode of
legal profession as embodied in the Code
which corresponds
sponds to
t objective reality.
h
Professional Responsibility.
bl
C
62 65
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
Atty. Vicente G. Rellosa was, therefore, It is difficult to state with precisio

precision and
bl
C
found GUILTY of professional ard as tto what

to fix an inflexible standard
o
misconduct for violating his oath as a is grossly immoral conduct

onduct or
o to specify
lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule
R
the moral delinquency ency and obliquity

1.01 of the Code of Professional which will renderr a lawyer
law unworthy of
an
Responsibility. He was suspended continuing ass a member

mem of the bar. The
from the practice of law for a period rule implies what appears to be
lies that w
h
of six months effective from his unconventional

entiona behavior to the
C
receipt of the resolution. straight- laced

lace may not be the immoral
conduct that warrants disbarment.
63 66
11
5/13/2011
` Tolentino vs. Mendoza

` Bustamante-Alejandro vs. Alejandro
A.C. No. 5151; October 19, 2004 A.C. No. 4256; February 13, 2004
The requirement of good moral character is No distinction has been made as to
not only a condition precedent to membership whether the misconduct was committed in
in the Philippine Bar but is also a continuing the lawyer’s professional capacity or in his
requirement to maintain one’s good standing private life. This is because a lawyer may
in the legal profession.
` Aldovino vs. Pujalte not divide his personality so as to be an
A.C. No. 5082; February 17, 2004 attorney at one time and a mere citizen at
“x x Membership in the legal profession is a another. He is expected to be competent,
privilege. And whenever it is made to appear honorable and reliable at all times since he
that an attorney is no longer worthy of the who cannot apply and abide by the laws of
trust and confidence of the public, it becomes private affairs, can hardly be expected to
not only the right but also the duty of this
do so in other relations.
r
Court, which made him one of its officers andnd
gave him the privilege of ministering within
thin its
Ba
Bar, to withdraw the privilege.”
67 70
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
` Dantes vs. Danteses
an
A.C. No. 6486;; September

Sept 22, 2004
nduct - conduct which is so
Immoral conduct C
Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Palma
willful, flagrant,
agrant,
g or shameless as to
es
show indifference
ndiffere to the opinion of good A
A.C. 2474 ; June 30, 2005
h
and respecta
respectable
p members of the
For the purpose of determining
bl
community.
munity
C
To bee the basis of disciplinary action, whether a person is legally

leg free
the lawyer’s conduct must not only be
o
immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, to
r
it must be so corrupt as to constitute ea
contract a secondnd marriage,
marr a
R
Ba
criminal act or so unprincipled as to o be
reprehensible to a high degree or tion that the first
judicial declaration
an
committed under such scandalous ous or

revolting circumstances as to shock tthe marriage was as null
nu and void ab
es
common sense of decency.
initio is essential.
ssentia
h
bl
C
68 71
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
The fact that respondent lawyer p provided

rovided well
bl
` Purposes of the requirement of good moral for his children is not sufficient nt to show
sh his
C
character: moral fitness to continue being ing

g a me
member of
(a) to protect the public; the noble profession of the law. It has always
been the duties of parents support,
ts to sup
o
(b) to protect the public image of lawyers; educate and instruct their children
heir child
(c) to protect prospective clients; and according to right preceptscepts
p anand good
R
(d) to protect errant lawyers from themselves. example; and to give them llove,
companionship and understanding, as well
d under
an
as moral and spiritual

ritual gguidance ( Article
Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of 220, Family Code But what respondent
de )). Bu
morality, not only upon admission to the Bar forgot is that he has a also
but also throughout their legal career, in order duties to his s wife. As a husband, he is obliged
h
to maintain their good standing in this to live with

th her;; observe
o mutual love, respect
exclusive and honored fraternity. They may be and fidelity;y; and render help and support (
ity;
suspended from the practice of law or Article 68,
8,, Family
Fam Code ). And most
disbarred for any misconduct, even if it important of all, he is obliged to remain
pertains to his private activities, as long as it faithful to her until death.
shows him to be wanting in moral character,
honesty, probity or good demeanor.”
69 72
12
5/13/2011
Estrada vs. Escritor In this particular case and under these distinct
circumstances, respondents conjugal
A.M. No. P-02-1651;June 22,2006 arrangement cannot be penalized as she made
The Supreme Court resolved to apply the out a case for exemption from the law based on
“compelling state interest test” and directed the her fundamental right to freedom of religion.
Office of the Solicitor General to intervene to: State interest must be upheld in order that
freedoms – including religious freedom- may be
(a) Examine the sincerity and centrality of respondent’s enjoyed. In the area of religious exercise as
claimed religious belief and practice; preferred freedom , however man stands
(b) Present the evidence on the states “compelling accountable to an authority higher that the state,
interest” to override respondent’s religious belief and so the state interest sought to be upheld
and practice; and must be so compelling that its violation will
(c) Show that the means that the state adopts in erode the very fabric of the state that will also
protect the freedom. In the absence of a showing
r
pursuing its interest is the least restrictive to that such state interest exists, man must be
respondent’s religious freedom.
Ba
allowed to subscribe to the Infinite.
73 76
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
The Solicitor General ral conceded
conc that the sincerity ` Spou
Spouses Olbes vs. Deciembre
an
resp
p
and centrality of respondent’s claimed A.C.
A.C No. 5365; April 27, 2005
lief and practice
religious belief p were beyond “A high standard of excellence and ethics
es
oubt. Th
serious doubt. Thus, the burden shifted to the is expected and required of members of
h
nment to demonstrate
government d that the law or the bar. Such conduct of nobility and
bl
ce justif
practice jjustified a compelling secular objective uprightness should remain with them,
C
and thatat it is
i the least restrictive means of whether in their public or r in their private
achieving that objective. The Solicitor General,
o
lives. As officers of the courts and
r
however failed to show the “gravest abuses,,
endangering paramount interest” which could ould keepers of the public’s
ic’s faith, they are
R
Ba
limit or override respondent’s fundamental ntal burdened with the e highest
highes degree of
social responsibility and are thus
y an
an
right to religious freedom. Neither did d the

government exert any effort to show w that the
th mandated to behave
hav at all times in a
es
itimate state
means it sought to achieve its legitimate s manner consistent
sistent with truth and honor.”
objective is the least intrusive means.
h
bl
C
74 77
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
It is not enough to contend that the state’s

bl
C
interest is important, because our Constitution “x x Good moral character includes

nclude at
itself holds the right to religious freedom sacred. least common honesty. No moral mo
o
The state must articulate in specific terms the qualification for bar r membership
membe is
state interest involved in preventing the
more important than an truth
truthfulness and
R
exemption, which must be compelling, for only

the gravest abuses, endangering paramount candor. The rigorousrous ethics
et of the
an
interest can limit the fundamental right to profession placesces a premium

p on honesty
religious freedom. To rule otherwise would be to and condemns ns duplicitous
dupl behavior.
emasculate the Free Exercise Clause as a source m
Lawyers must be ministers of truth.
h
of right by itself. The government must do more mu not mislead the court
Hence, they must
than assert the objectives at risk if exemption is
or alloww it to be misled by any artifice.
C
given; it must precisely show how and to what

extent those objectives will be undermined if i dealings, they are expected to
In all their
exemptions are granted. act in good faith.”
75 78
13
5/13/2011
The High Court noted that respondent did not

deny his adulterous relationship with
Facts: Complainant filed a complaint for
disbarment against respondent lawyer for complainant’s wife; what he merely denied was
carrying on an illicit relationship with his wife. having flaunted such relationship. This, said the
Respondent denied complainant’s allegation that Supreme Court, constituted a negative pregnant
he and complainant’s wife were flaunting their where the qualifying circumstances alone are
adulterous relationship, arguing that their denied while the facts itself are admitted.
relationship was low profile and known only to The High Court also considered as a negative
the immediate members of their respective pregnant, respondent’s denial of having personal
families. Respondent likewise disputed knowledge of the birth certificate of the child
complainant’s allegation that his acts constituted born by complainant’s wife, noting that
r
gross moral depravity, arguing that his
relationship with complainant’s wife was not respondent never denied being the father of the
Ba
under scandalous circumstances. child.
79 82
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
Later , complainantss wife gav
gave birth to a baby girl, Further
Furthermore, the Court noted that the affidavit of
an
ate of Live
and the Certificate L Birth bearing the he records custodian of the hospital where the
the
signature of complainant’s
complain wife, showed child was born stated that it was complainant’s
es
respondentent as the father.
f Respondent denied wife who supplied the information on the child’s
h
persona knowledge of the birth certificate.

having personal paternity. The Court also observed that the
bl
C
Respondent
ndent also
a moved to dismiss the complaint signature of complainant on her marriage
due to the pendency of a civil case filed by hat appearing
certificate was the same as that app on the
o
r
complainant for the annulment of his marriage, e, birth certificate.
and a criminal complaint for adultery against
R
Ba
ected respondent’s
The Supreme Court rejected resp
respondent and complainant’s wife.
n constitute gross
assertion that his acts did not
an
immoral conduct ct beca

because they were supposedly
es
ndalous circumstances.
not under scandalous
h
bl
C
80 83
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
While the administrative case was being According to the High Court, this case involved
invol a
bl
C
investigated, respondent manifested that relationship between a married d lawyer and a

complainant’s petition for the nullity of his married woman who is not his is wife; it
i is
o
marriage was granted by the RTC, and the immaterial whether the affair was carried out
criminal for adultery was withdrawn by discreetly. The Court reiterated
eiterated that even if not
R
complainant. all forms of extra-marital relations are

tal rela
an
Held: The Supreme Court held that the adulterous

punishable under penal law , sexual relations
outside marriagege is disgraceful
disgr and immoral as it
relationship between respondent and
manifest deliberate
berate disregard
d of the sanctity of
complainants wife was proven by more than
h
marriage and the marital

m vows protected by the
clearly preponderant evidence. Constitution (Vitug vs. Rongcal A.C. No. 6313;
ion (Vit
C
Septemberr 77, 2
2006). The Court further
reiterated that carrying on an illicit affair with a
married woman constitutes grossly immoral
conduct
81 84
14
5/13/2011
and is indicative of an extremely low regard for ` Client’s Money/Property to be Held in Trust
the fundamental ethics of the legal profession. Canon 15 – A lawyer shall observe candor, fairness,
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his
Said the Supreme Court that the marriage client.
between complainant his wife was subsequently Canon 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and
properties of his client that may come into his
declared void ab initio was immaterial. The acts possession.
Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all money or
complained of took place before the marriage property collected or received for or from the client.
Rule 16.02 – A lawyer shall keep the funds of each
was declared null and void. As a lawyer, client separate and apart from his own and those of
respondent should be aware that a man and a others kept by him.
Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds and
woman deporting themselves as husband and property of his client when due or upon demand.
However, he shall have a lien over the funds and may
wife are presumed, unless proven otherwise, to apply so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his
lawful fees and disbursements, giving notice promptly
have entered into a lawful contract of marriage. thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien to the
r
same extent on all judgments and executions he has
In carrying on an extra-marital affair with secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of
Ba
Court.
complainant’s wife prior to the judicial
p nant
declaration that her marriage with complainant
85 88
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
Was null and void, and despite
despi respondent himself
an
showe disrespect for an

being married , he showed
eld sacred by the law, and he betrayed
institution held
Although a lawyer’s lien over a clients
es
his unfitnessss to be a lawyer.
h
mplainant withdrawal of his petition for

As for complainant’s property and satisfaction of his lawful
bl
ci prosecutor’ dismissal of his

review of the city
fees and disbursement is recognized,
C
criminalal com
complaint for adultery, the High Court
noted that before complainant filed his motion to xercis
the same cannot be exercised
o
r
withdraw, the DOJ already reversed the dismissal ssal attorney
haphazardly. The attorney-client
R
of the complaint for adultery by the city
Ba
prosecutor. fiducia relationship
relationship is a fiduciary
an
which requireses a high

h g degree of
es
d good faith.
fidelity and
h
bl
C
86 89
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
Adultery being a private offense , the DOJ had no

bl
choice but to grant complainant’s motion to ` Hernandez vs. Go

C
withdraw. But even if the Information for adultery A.C. No. 1526; January 31,, 2005
was filed in court and respondent and
o
“(Respondent’s) acts off acquiring

acquir for
complainant’s wife were to be acquitted of himself complainant’s t’s lots entrusted
e to
R
adultery after trial, the same would not have been him are, by any standard,
ndard, acts
a bar to the administrative complaint against constituting gross misconduct, a
s misc
an
respondent since administrative cases against grievous wrong,ng, a forbidden

for act, a
lawyers belong to a class of their own and may dereliction in duty, willful in character,
proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.
h
and implies
ies a wrongful
wro intent and not
Disposition: Respondent was disbarred mere error judgment. Such conduct
ror in ju
C
on the part
art of the respondent degrades
not only himself but also the name and
honor of the legal profession. x x”
87 90
15
5/13/2011
Almendarez Jr. vs. Langit ` Villanueva vs. Ishiwata

A.C. No. 5041; November 23, 2004
(A.C. No. 7057; July 25, 2006) “The relationship between an attorney and his
client is highly fiduciary in nature. Under his
Respondent lawyer committed a oath, a lawyer pledges himself not to delay any
man for money and he is bound to conduct
flagrant violation of his oath when he himself with good fidelity to his clients. A lawyer
should thus refrain from any action whereby for
received the monthly rentals intended his personal benefit or gain, he abuses or takes
advantage of the confidence reposed in him by
for his client, without accounting for his client. Accordingly, any money collected for
and returning such sum to its rightful the client or other trust property coming into the
lawyer's possession should promptly be reported
owner. by him. A lawyer must at all times conduct
himself, especially in his dealings with his clients
r
and the public at large, with honesty and
integrity in a manner beyond reproach. x x”
Ba 91 94
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
` Shulz vs.
v Flores
Respondent lawyer’s er’s failure
failu to turn over the A.C. No.
N 4219; December 8, 2003
an
“Where
Wh a client gives money to his lawyer for a specific
plainti despite demand gives
money to the plaintiff purpose, such as to file an action, appeal an adverse
presump
rise to the presumption that he had judgment, consummate a settlement, or pay the
es
purchase price of a parcel of land, the lawyer should,
ted the money
converted m for his personal use and upon a failure to take such step and spend the money
h
for it, immediately return the money to his client. The

it. This, is a gross violation of general
benefit. fact that a lawyer has a lien for his attorney’s fees on the
bl
money in his hands collected for his client does not

C
ity as well as of professional ethics,

morality relieve him from the obligation to make a prompt
accounting. Neither is a lawyer entitledntitl to unilaterally
impairing public confidence in the legal appropriate his client’s money for or himse
himself by the mere
o
ar
fact alone that the client owes him attorney’s
atto fees.
profession. More specifically, it renders “The failure of an attorney to return tthe client’s money
R
respondent lawyer liable not only for upon demand gives rise to
misappropriated it for his
o the ppresu
presumption that he has
is own ususe to the prejudice and
violating the Code of Professional violation of the trust reposed ed in him by the client. It is
an
not only gross violation on of thehe general

g morality as well
Responsibility but also for contempt, pt, as hics;; it
as of professional ethics; i also impairs public
egal
confidence in the legalg p pro
profession and deserves
stated in Section 25, Rule 138 off the Rules
Rule of punishment. In short,, x x the unjustified withholding
of money belongingging
g g to h
his client, as in this case,
h
Court: mpositio
mp
warrants the imposition of disciplinary action.”
l
C
92 95
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
Sec. 25. Unlawful retention of

bl
C
` Lemoine vs. Balon

client’s funds; contempt- When A.C. 5829; October 28, 2003 3
o
an attorney unjustly retains in his “That respondent had a lien on

complainant’s funds for r his atto
attorney’s fees
R
hands money of his client after it has did not relieve him of his dutydu to account for
it. The lawyer’s continuing
tinuing exercise of his
been demanded he may be punished retaining lien presupposes
suppos
pp that the client
agrees with the amount of attorney’s fees to
for contempt as an Officer of the be charged. In n case o of disagreement or when
Court who has misbehaved in his the client contests
ontests ththat amount for being
unconscionable,
onable, however,
h the lawyer must
official transactions; but proceedings not arbitrarily y apply
arily a the funds in his
possession n to the
t payment of his fees. He
under this section shall not be a bar to can file, if he deems it desirable, the
a criminal prosecution necessary action or proper motion with the
proper court to fix the amount of such fees.”
93 96
16
5/13/2011
` Ong vs. Grijaldo

A.C. No. 4724; April 30, 2003 ` Ramos vs, Pallugna
“A lawyer, under his oath, pledges himself not to A.C. No. 5908; October 25, 2004
delay any man for money or malice and is bound
The lawyers’ office does not permit violation of
to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his
clients. He is obliged to report promptly the the law or any manner of fraud or chicanery.
money of his client that has come into his A lawyer’s responsibility to protect and
possession. He should not commingle it with his advance the interests of his client does not
private property or use it for his personal warrant a course of action propelled by ill
purposes without his client’s consent. motives and malicious intentions against the
Respondent, by converting the money of his other party. Mandated to maintain the dignity
client to his own personal use without her of the legal profession, they must conduct
consent, was guilty of deceit, malpractice and themselves honorably and fairly. They
gross misconduct. Not only did he degrade advance the honor of their profession and the
r
himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he best interests of their clients when they render
besmirched the fair name of an honorable service or give advice that meets the strictest
Ba
profession.” principles of moral law.
10
97 0
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
` Youn vs. Batuegas, et al.
Young
an
` Candor, Fairness
rness and Respect to Court, A.
A.C. No. 5379; May 9, 2003
Colleagueses and Opposing
O Party “A lawyer must be a disciple of truth.”
es
“He should bear in mind that as an officer of
h
Canon n 10 - A llawyer owes candor, the court his high vocation is to correctly
ess and good faith to the court.
fairness
bl
inform the court upon the law and the facts

C
10 1 - A lawyer shall not do any

Rule 10.1 of the case and to aid it in doing justice and
arriving at the correct conclusion.
clus The
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of o
o
courts, on the other hand, are entitled

en to
r
any in court; nor shall he mislead or r expect only complete honesty y ffrom lawyers
nesty
R
Ba
allow the court to be misled by any y appearing and pleading ding before
befo them.”
“While a lawyer has s the solemn
so duty to
artifice.
an
defend his client’s’s rights

hts and is expected to
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in display the utmost
most zezeal in defense of his
unlawful, dishonest, immoral ral or client’s cause,, his conduct
con must never be at
e
the expense e of truth.”
trut
h
deceitful conduct.
bl
C
10
98 1
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
` Heirs of the late Herman Rey Romero vs. Reyes,

bl
` Vda. De Fajardo vs. Bugaring

C
Jr.
A.C. No. 6192; June 23, 2005 A.C. No. 5113; October 7, 200404
“To be sure, a lawyer is entitled to
t the
o
When they appear before a tribunal, lawyers act

not merely as representatives of a party but, first protection of the courts s against any attempt
R
and foremost, as officers of the court. Thus, on the part of a client to escap
escape payment of
their duty to protect their clients’ interests is legitimate attorney’ss fees. However, such
an
secondary to their obligation to assist in the protection must not be sought at the expense
speedy and efficient administration of justice. plete can
of truth. Complete candor or honesty is
While they are obliged to present every available expected fromm lawye
lawyers, particularly when
h
legal remedy or defense, their fidelity to their ar and pl

they appear plead before the courts for
clients must always be made within the their ownn causes against former clients, as in
C
parameters of law and ethics, never at the this case. With his armada of legal
expense of truth, the law, and the fair
administration of justice.
knowledge and skills, respondent clearly
enjoyed the upper hand. x x”
10
99 2
17
5/13/2011
` Hueysuwan-Florido vs. Florido

` In Re Almacen A.C. No. 5624; January 20, 2004
31 SCRA 562 [1970] “Candor and fairness are demanded of every
“x x [D]isciplinary proceedings x x are sui lawyer. The burden cast on the judiciary would be
generis. Neither purely civil nor purely intolerable if it could not take at face value what is
criminal, this proceeding is not – and does not asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be
devoted just to the task of verification of
involve – a trial of an action or a suit, but is allegations submitted could easily be imagined.
rather an investigation by the Court into the Even with due recognition then that counsel is
conduct of its officers. Not being intended to expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense
inflict punishment, it is in no sense a criminal of a client’s cause, it must never be at the expense
prosecution. Accordingly, there is neither a of the truth. x x”
plaintiff nor a prosecutor therein. It may be A lawyer’s language should be forceful but
initiated by the Court motu proprio. Public dignified, emphatic but respectful as befitting an
advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the
interest is its primary objective, and the real legal profession. The lawyer’s arguments, whether
question for determination is whether or not the
r
written or oral, should be gracious to both court
attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the and opposing counsel and should be of such words
Ba
privileges as such. x x” as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to
another.
10 10
3 6
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
an
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly ` Can

Canon 8 – A lawyer shall conduct himself
with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward
es
misr
misquote or misrepresent the contents of a
paper,, the language
lang or the argument of his professional colleagues, and shall avoid
h
sing counsel,
opposing cou or the text of a decision harassing tactics against opposing counsel.
bl
C
thorit or knowingly cite as law a

or authority, Rule 8.01 – A lawyer shall not, in his
provision already rendered inoperative by professional dealings, usee language
langu which
o
r
repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact ct otherwi
is abusive, offensive or otherwise
improper.
R
Ba
that which has not been proved.
an
es
h
bl
C
10 10
4 7
o
r
R
Ba
an
s
le
h
` Allied Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

C
G.R. No. 144412; November 18, 2003

“The syllabus of cases in official or unofficial
reports of Supreme Court decisions or ` In an answer to a petition forr cancellatio
cancellation of registration
resolutions is not the work of the Court, nor Sugigaono
gg
and franchise filed against Sugigaonon Rural Banking
R
does it state this Court’s decision. The syllabus is Corporation before the Bangko ngko Sentral
Sen ng Pilipinas, Atty.
simply the work of the reporter who gives his in-hous counsel, stated, inter
Larong, the Rural Bank’ss in-house
an
understanding of the decision. The reporter alia:

writes the syllabus for the convenience of ` “That this is anotherer in the sseries of blackmail suits
lawyers in reading the reports. A syllabus is not filed by plaintiff [herein ccomplainant Jose C. Saberon]
and his wife to coerce ththe Bank and Mr. Bonpin for
h
a part of the court’s decision. A counsel should ain.”

financial gain.”
not cite a syllabus in place of the carefully ` Atty. Larong
ngg made the
t same statement of the same tenor
C
considered text in the decision of the Court.” nder to

in his Rejoinder t complainant's reply.
“x x It is the duty of all officers of the court to ` Finding the aforementioned statements to be
cite the rulings and decisions of the Supreme “totally malicious, vicious and bereft of any factual and
Court accurately.” legal basis,” complainant filed a complaint against Atty.
Larong with the IBP.
10 10
5 8
18
5/13/2011
` Ruling:
` While a lawyer is entitled to present his case
with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify ` Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan
the use of offensive and abusive language. Language G.R. No. 159486-88; November 25, 2003
abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic “Criticism or comment made in good faith on the
but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating correctness or wrongness, soundness or unsoundness,
but not offensive. of a decision of the Court would be welcome, if well-
` On many occasions, the Supreme Court has reminded founded, such reaction can enlighten the court and
members of the Bar to abstain from all offensive contribute to the correction of an error if committed.”
personality and top advance no fact prejudicial to the “The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will
honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required not denounce criticism made by anyone against the
by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. In Court for, if well-founded, (it) can truly have
keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer's constructive effects in the task of the Court, but it will
language even in his pleadings must be dignified.
not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion
` It is of no consequence that the allegedly malicious of our people’s faith in the judicial system, let alone, by
statements of respondent were made not before a court but those who have been privileged by it to practice law in
before the BSP. the Philippines.
` Utterances, petitions and motions in the course of “x x In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives
judicial proceedings have consistently been considered as
r
absolutely privileged, however false or malicious they may ayy and questioning the impartiality, integrity and
be, but only for so long as they as pertinent and relevant to authority of the members of the Court, (the lawyer) has
only succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and
Ba
the subject inquiry.
pervert the dispensation of justice.”
10 11
9 2
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
Re : L
Letter dated February 21, 2005 of Atty. Noel
an
` Canon 11 - A lawye
lawyer shall observe and S. Sorreda (A.M. No. 05 – 3 – 04- SC ; July 22,
2005)
es
resp
maintain the respect due to the courts “ Mr. Chief Justice, I believe the manner the Court
h
and too judicial officers and should insist comported itself in the aforesaid case is totally
execrable and atrocious, entirely unworthy of
bl
milar conduct
on similar c by others. the majesty and office of the highest tribunal of
C
` Rule 11
11.03-
03 A lawyer shall refrain from the land. It is the action not off men
m of reason or
those who believe in the rule e of law
law, but rather of
o
scandalous, offensive and menacing
r
bullies and tyrants from whom “might “m is right” .
language or behavior before the courts. ts. I say, shame on the High gh Court, for
g f shoving
R
Ba
down a hapless suitor’ r’ s throat a ruling which,
` Rule 11.04- Lawyers shall not attributebute to from all appearances, it couldcoul not justify. “
an
a judge motives not supported by y the “ Mr. Chief Justice, th no only unjust; that is
that is not
record or having no materiality ty to the craven cowardice, ce, to d
deal with an adversary like
somethin I would have expected
that . It is not something
case. preme judges
from the supreme ju of the land.”
e
h
bl
C
11 11
0 3
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
Rule 11.05: A lawyer shall submit

bl
“ Sadness as counsel, to come to the

C
grievances against a judge to the

st instit
realization that the highest institution of
proper authorities only.
o
which I am an officer has sunk to such a

low. Indignation as a citizen , that the
R
Canon 13 public officers whoo are su

supposed to serve
an
him and help him m find justice, should

Rule 13.02: A lawyer shall not make udgeme
instead give judgements that so insult the
public statements in the media intelligence glare with iniquity”
ce and gla
h
regarding a pending case tending to

C
arouse public opinion for and against

a party.
11 11
1 4
19
5/13/2011
Supreme Court :
Submitting pleadings containing countless
“ Unfounded accusations or allegations
or words tending to embarrass the insults and diatribes against the NLRC
court or to bring it into disrepute have and attacking both its moral and
no place in a pleading. Their intellectual integrity, hardly measures to
employment serves no useful purpose. the sobriety of speech demanded of a
On the contrary, they constitute direct
contempt of court or contempt in facie lawyer. It mattered not that the remarks
curiae and a violation of the lawyers were address to Commissioners of the
oath and a transgression of the Code of NLRC, and not to members of the
Professional Responsibility.” judiciary, because in addressing the
r
NLRC, respondent lawyer nonetheless
Ba
remain a member of the Bar.
11 11
5 8
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
an
“ While a lawyer owes abs absolute fidelity to the

lient , ful
cause of his client full devotion to his clients W recognized is the right of a lawyer, both
Well
es
erest and warm zeal in the
genuine interest
maintenanceance and defense of his clients rights, as as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to
h
well as the exert

exertion of his utmost learning and criticize in properly respectful terms and
bl
ability,, he mus
must do so only within the bounds of
through legitimate channels, the acts of
C
w. A lawyer
the law. la is entitled to voice his
criticism within the context of the constitutional courts and judges. Though h a lawyer’s
law
o
guarantee of freedom of speech which must be
r
exercised responsibly. After all, every right language may be forcefull and emphatic
em it
carries with it the corresponding obligation..
R
Ba
Freedom is not freedom from responsibility, y, but
gnified and
should always be dignified an respectful,
freedom with responsibility. The lawyers fidelit fidelity lega profession. The
befitting the dignity of legal
an
to his client must not be pursued at the e expen

p
expense sary language
use of unnecessary la is proscribed if
of truth and orderly administration of jjustice.
justice It
s
must be done with the confines of reason and mote high
we are to promote hi esteem in the courts
le
h
common sense.”
and trust inn jud
judicia administration.
judicial
C
11 11
6 9
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
C
The Supreme Court, citing the case of Uy vs.

o
Depasucat (455 Phil. 9 [2003]) held that a lawyer Held: The Supreme Court approved the t
shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
R
recommendation of the office BarBa Confidant.

menacing language or behavior before the courts.
The High Court held thatat respondent
resp violated Rule
an
The language vehicle does not run short of

expressions which are emphatic but respectful, 11.05 of Canon 11 of the Co
Code of Professional
convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but st
Responsibility which states that a lawyer “ shall
not offensive. A lawyer’s language should be
h
forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as vances against

submit grievances ag a judge to the proper
befitting an advocate and in keeping with the R
authorities only.” Respondent also violated Rule
C
dignity of the legal profession. 13.02 of Canon 13 which stated that a “ lawyer shall
not make public statements in the media regarding
a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for
or against a party.
11 12
7 0
20
5/13/2011
Respondent also violated the Lawyer’s Oath as he Rayos- Ombac vs. Rayos,
A.C. No. 2884; January 28, 1998
has sworn to conduct himself as a lawyer “ . . . A case of suspension or disbarment may
according to the best of his knowledge and proceed regardless of interest or lack of interest of
the complainant. What matters is whether, on the
discretion with all the good fidelity as well to the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the
courts as to his clients. charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has
been duly proven. This rule is premised on the
According to the Supreme Court, it is not against nature of disciplinary proceedings. A proceeding
lawyers raising grievances against erring judges for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a
civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff
but the rules clearly provide for the proper venue and the respondent lawyer is a defendant.
and procedure for doing so, precisely because Disciplinary proceedings involve no private
interest and afford no redress for private
respect for the institution must always be grievance. They are undertaken for the purpose of
maintained. preserving courts of justice from the official
r
ministration of persons unfit to practice in them.
Disposition: Respondent was suspended from m the The attorney is called to answer to the court for
Ba
his conduct as an officer of the court. X x “
practice of law for 1 year.
12 12
1 4
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
When the lawyer has been criminally
an
charged
ha and convicted by final judgment.
Spouses Williams vs. Enriquez
es
o. 6353; F
A.C. No. February 27, 2006 ` Nuñez vs. Astorga
h
“ xx Cano
Canon 5 of the Code of A.C. No. 6131; February 28, 2005
bl
C
essio
Professional Responsibility requires The mere existence of pending criminal
that a lawyer be updated in the latest charges cannot be a ground for
und fo
o
r
laws and jurisprudence. Indeed, when hen disbarment or suspension ion of the lawyer.
R
Ba
the law is so elementary, not to knowow it However, in case thehe lawyer has been
or to act as if one does not know it convicted of a crime involving moral
me invo
an
constitutes gross ignorance of the lalaw. turpitude, suspension

ens n or o disbarment may
Xx” atter of
follow as a matter o course, pursuant to
es
Section 27 of Rule 138.
1
h
bl
C
12 12
2 5
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
Who may file an administrative complaint? ` Barrios vs. Martinez

bl
A.C. No. 4585; November 12, 2004

Cojuangco , Jr. vs. Palma
C
“Moral turpitude ‘includes everything which ich is done

don contrary
A.C. No. 2474; June 30, 2005 to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.’ It involves "an
act of baseness, vileness, or depravity private duties
y in the pr
“ Disbarment proceedings are undertaken which a man owes his fellow men, or to soci society in general,
o
solely for public welfare. The only question contrary to the accepted and customarytomary y rule of right and duty
between man and woman, or conduct onduct con
contrary to justice,
for determination is whether respondent is honesty, modesty, or good morals.” rals.”
R
fit to be a member of the bar. The The act of a person in issuing a check knowing at the time of
the issuance that he or she does not have h sufficient funds in,
Complainant or the person who called the
an
or credit with, the drawee bank for the check in full upon its
attention of this Court to the lawyer’s alleged estation of moral turpitude.”
presentment, is a manifestation
“x x ‘A proceeding for r suspension
suspensi
p or disbarment is not in any
misconduct is in no sense a party and sense a civil action where the complainant is plaintiff and the
generally has no interest in the outcome respondent lawyer r is a defendant.
defe Disciplinary proceedings
involve no privateate interest and afford no redress for private
h
except as all good citizens may have in the grievance. Theyey y are unde
undertaken and prosecuted solely for the
proper administration of justice. Thus, this re,, and for the purpose of preserving courts of
public welfare,
justice from the offic
official ministrations of persons unfit to
C
Court may investigate charges against m.’ x x ”

practice them.’
lawyers, regardless of complainant’s
standing. In fact, it can do so motu proprio.
X x”
12 12
3 6
21
5/13/2011
Soriano vs. Dizon Siy vs NLRC

A.C. No. 6792; January 25, 2006 G.R. No. 158971; August 25, 2005
“x x x . Homicide may or may not involve “ A finding of contempt on the part of a lawyer does not
preclude the imposition of disciplinary sanctions
moral turpitude depending on the degree of against him for his contravention of the ethics of
the crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in legal profession.”
every criminal act and is not shown by every “ . . . The power to punish for contempt and the power
known and intentional violation of statute, to disbar are separate and distinct, and that the
exercise of one does not exclude the exercise of the
but whether any particular conviction other. A contempt proceeding for misbehavior in
involves moral turpitude may be a question court is designed to vindicate the authority of the
of fact and frequently depends on all the court ; on the other hand , the object of a disciplinary
proceeding is to deal with the fitness of the court’s
surrounding circumstances. X x x” ( Citing officer to continue in that office, to preserve and
International Research Institute (IRRI) vs. protect the court and the public from the official
NLRC, 221 SCRA 760 (1993) ) ministrations of persons unfit or unworthy to hold
such office
r
Ba 12
7
13
0
es
bl
o
r
R
Po Cham vs. Pizarro

rro
Ba
an
A.C. No. 5499 ; Augus

August 16, 2005 The principal purpose of the exercise of the
T
es
power to cite for contempt is to safeguard
h
uld be em
“ It should emphasized that a finding of the functions of the court (while that) of
bl
n the c
guilt in criminal case will not the exercise of disciplinary authority by
C
il result in a finding of liability in

necessarily su respect for
the Supreme Court is to assure
o
the administrative case. Conversely, the orders of such court by atto

attorneys who,
r
respondent’s acquittal does not necessarilyarily respon
as much as judges , are responsible for the
R
Ba
exculpate him administratively.” orderly administration
tion of justice
j .
an
es
h
bl
C
12 13
8 1
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
When the administrative ive

bl
C
Jimenez vs. Jimenez awn.

complaint is withdrawn.
A.C. No. 6712; February 6, 2006
` Pariñas vs. Paguinto
into
o
“ The long- settled rule is that the dismissal of a

criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of A.C. No. 6297; July 13 13, 2004
R
evidence against an accused who is also a

respondent in an administrative case does not A compromise e or withdrawal
w of
an
necessarily foreclose the administrative

proceedings against him or with it the relief charges does es not terminate an
from administrative liability. The Quantum of trative complaint
administrative
evidence needed in a criminal case is different
h
from that required in an administrative case. againstt a lawyer

law especially in
In the former, proof beyond reasonable doubt
C
is needed; while the latter , a substantial se where

this case w the lawyer
evidence defined as such relevant evidence as
a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
admitted his misconduct.
support a conclusion, is enough. X x”
12 13
9 2
22
5/13/2011
“x x although the law does not

Tomlin II vs. Moya II forbid lawyers from being
A.C. No. 6971; February 23, 2006 witnesses and at the same time
counsel for a cause, the
Forum- shopping applies only to preference is for them to refrain
from testifying as witnesses,
judicial cases or proceedings,
unless they absolutely have to;
not to disbarment proceedings. and should they do so, to
withdraw from active
r
management of the case.”
Ba 13
3
13
6
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
` Privile
Privileged Communication
Secti
Section 24(b), Rule 130, Rules of Court:
an
Testifying forr the clie

client
law
Rule 12.08 — A lawyer shall avoid “Sec. 24. Disqualification by reason of
es
privileged communication. — The following
ng in beh
testifying behalf of his client, except: persons cannot testify as to matters learned in
h
a) on formal matters, such as the confidence in the following cases:

bl
C
ng, authentication
mailing, au or custody of an (b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of
instrument and the like; his client, be examined as to any y communication
o
made by the client to him, or his ad advice given

b) on substantial matters, in cases where ere thereon in the course of, orr with a view to,
professional employment, nt, can an attorney's
R
Ba
his testimony is essential to the ends of secretary, stenographer,
her, or cl
clerk be examined,
without the consent off the cli
client and his
ring
justice, in which event he must, during
an
employer, concerningn any y ffact the knowledge of

ny
ca
his testimony, entrust the trial of the case which has been acquired
quir in
i such capacity;
es
to another counsel.
h
bl
C
13 13
4 7
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
` Santiago vs. Rafanan

bl
A.C. No. 6252; October 5, 2004 ` Section 20, Rule 138:

C
“. . . under the law, a lawyer is not disqualified from “Sec. 20. It is the duty of an attorney:
torney:
being a witness, except only in certain cases
o
pertaining to privileged communication arising from (e) To maintain inviolate e the confidence,
conf and at
an attorney-client relationship. The reason behind
R
every peril to himself, to preser

preserve the secrets of
such rule is the difficulty posed upon lawyers by the his client, and to accept
ept no compensation
co in
task of dissociating their relation to their clients as
an
witnesses from that as advocates. Witnesses are connection with his is client's business except from
expected to tell the facts as they recall them. In knowledg and approval;
him or with his knowledge
contradistinction, advocates are partisans — those
h
who actively plead and defend the cause of others. It Pr

Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility:
is difficult to distinguish the fairness and impartiality
of a disinterested witness from the zeal of an
C
advocate. The question is one of propriety rather Canon 17 - A law

lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
than of competency of the lawyers who testify for his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
their clients.” confidence reposed in him.
13 13
5 8
23
5/13/2011
` Considerations Favoring Confidentiality The privilege in reference to consummated and

Regala vs. Sandiganbayan future offenses
G.R. Nos. 105938 & 108113; Sept. 20, 1996
“Encouraging full disclosure to a lawyer by one ` People vs. Sandiganbayan
seeking legal services opens the door to a whole G.R. Nos. 115439-41; July 16, 1997
spectrum of legal options which would otherwise If the client seeks his lawyer's advice with
be circumscribed by limited information respect to a crime that the former has already
engendered by a fear of disclosure. An effective committed, he is given the protection of a virtual
lawyer-client relationship is largely dependent confessional seal which the attorney-client
privilege declares cannot be broken by the
upon the degree of confidence which exists attorney without the client's consent. The same
between lawyer and client which in turn privileged confidentiality, however, does not
requires a situation which encourages a dynamic attach with regard to a crime which a client
and fruitful exchange and flow of information. It intends to commit thereafter or in the future and
r
necessarily follows that in order to attain for purposes of which he seeks the lawyer's
effective representation, the lawyer must invoke
voke advice.
Ba
the privilege not as a matter of option but as a
matter of duty and professional responsibility.”
ity.”
13 14
9 2
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
Disclosure of Client’s Identity
Disclosu
an
` Mercado vs. Vitriolo

itriolo ` R
Regala vs. Sandiganbayan
08; May 26, 2005
A.C. No. 5108; G.R. Nos. 105938 & 108113; Sept. 20, 1996
es
h
Only byy such confidentiality

con and protection General rule: A lawyer may not invoke the privilege and
refuse to divulge the name or identity of his client.
bl
will a person be
b encouraged to repose his
C
Reasons:
ence in attorney.
confidence hat the client whose
1. The court has a right to know that
Abstinence from seeking legal advice in a privileged information is soughtt to be pprotected is flesh
o
r
and blood.
good cause is an evil which is fatal to the 2. The privilege begins to exist only
yaafter the attorney-
R
Ba
determination of justice. een establi
client relationship has been established. The attorney-
un there is a client.
client privilege does not attach until
an
ral pertains
3. The privilege generally erta to the subject matter
of the relationship.
onsiderat
4. Due process considerations require that the
es
hould, as
opposing party should, a a general rule, know his
h
adversary.
bl
C
14 14
0 3
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
bl
` Mercado vs. Vitriolo Exceptions:

C
A.C. No. 5108; May 26, 2005

Factors to establish the existence of the privilege: 1. Where a strong probability exists that revealing
revea the
o
1. There exists an attorney-client relationship, or a client’s name would implicate that hat client in the very
prospective attorney-client relationship, and it is by activity for which he sought the e lawyer’s aadvice.
reason of this relationship that the client made the 2. Where disclosure would open client to civil liability.
en the clie
R
communication.
3. Where the government’s lawyersawyers
y have
h no case against an
Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a lawyer are attorney’s client unless, by revealing the client's name, the
y revealin
an
protected by the rule on privileged communication even if said name would furnish the he only link that would form the
the prospective client does not thereafter retain the lawyer chain of testimony necessary
essary to convict an individual of a
or the latter declines the employment. crime.
2. The client made the communication in confidence. 4. If the content off anyy client
clien communication to a lawyer
h
The mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a lies is relevantt to the subj
subject matter of the legal problem
presumption of confidentiality. The client must intend the on which the e client seeks
see legal assistance. And,
communication to be confidential. 5. Where the nature o of the attorney-client relationship has
C
3. The legal advice must be sought from the attorney in his been previously disclosed and it is the identity which is
usly dis
professional capacity. intended to be confidential.
The communication made by a client to his attorney must Summary: Information relating to the identity of a client
not be intended for mere information, but for the purpose may fall within the ambit of the privilege when the client’s
of seeking legal advice from his attorney as to his rights or name itself has an independent significance, such that
obligations. disclosure would then reveal client confidences.
14 14
1 4
24
5/13/2011
Prohibited Transactions between Attorney and Client ` Taganas vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 118746; September 7, 1995
` Article 1491(5), Civil Code - prohibits lawyers from Contingent fee arrangement - an agreement laid down in
acquiring by purchase even at a public or judicial auction, an express contract between a lawyer and a client in which
properties and rights which are the objects of litigation in the lawyer’s professional fee, usually a fixed percentage of
which they may take part by virtue of their profession. what may be recovered in the action, is made to depend
(Fabillo vs. IAC, G.R. No. 68838; March 11, 1991) upon the success of the litigation.
` Valencia vs. Cabanting Section 24, Rule 138, Rules of Court - An attorney shall be
A.C. No. 1302; April 26, 1991 entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a
Public policy prohibits such transactions in view of the reasonable compensation for his services, with a view to
fiduciary relationship involved. It is intended to curtail the importance of the subject matter of the controversy,
any undue influence of the lawyer upon his client. Greed the extent of the services rendered, and the professional
may get the better of the sentiments of loyalty and standing of the attorney. x x A written contract for services
disinterestedness. shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless found
by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
The prohibition, however, applies only while the litigation
is pending. When it comes, therefore, to the validity of contingent
fees, in large measure it depends on the reasonableness of
r
A thing is said to be in litigation not only if there is some the stipulated fees under the circumstances of each case.
contest or litigation over it in court, but also from the The reduction of unreasonable attorney’s fees is within the
moment that it becomes subject to the judicial action
Ba
n of
o regulatory powers of the courts.
the judge.
14 14
5 8
es
bl
o
r
R
` Fabillo vs. IAC

Ba
an
` Factors to be considered (Rule 20.01, Canon 20 of the

Fact
G.R. No. 68838; March 11, 1991
8; Marc o of Professional Responsibility):
Code
A contract between a lawyer and his client (a) the time spent and the extent of services rendered or
es
required;
stipulatingg a contingent
conti fee is not covered by
h
(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;

rohibition under Article 1491 (5) of the
said prohibition (c) the importance of the subject matter;
bl
ode bec
Civil Code because the payment of said fee is not (d) the skill demanded;
C
made during the pendency of the litigation but (e) the probability of losing other employment as a result of
only after judgment has been rendered in the acceptance of the proffered case;
o
(f) the customary charges for similar ar services

servic and the
r
case handled by the lawyer.
pter to which
schedule of fees of the IBP chapter w the lawyer
` Mananquil vs. Villegas belongs;
R
Ba
A.C. No. 2430; August 30, 1990 (g) the amount involved in the controversy
contr and the benefits
resulting to the client from the ser
services;
an
By virtue of Article 1646 of the new Civil Code, (h) the contingency or cer
certainty
y of
o compensation;
the persons referred to in Article 1491 are he employment,
(i) the character of the empl whether occasional or
es
prohibited from leasing, either in person
erson or established; and
through the mediation of another, er, the properties
pro (j) the professional standing of the lawyer.
nal standi
h
or things mentioned in that article

rticle (Article
(Art 1491).
bl
C
14 14
6 9
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
bl
Attorney’s Fees ` Traders Royal Bank Employees yees Uni

Union-
C
` Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent vs.

Independent vs. NLRC, G.R. .R. No. 120592;
March 14, 1997
o
NLRC, G.R. No. 120592; March 14, 1997

General retainer, or retaining fee - the fee paid to a lawyer Quantum meruit (“as as much as he
to secure his future services as general counsel for any
R
ordinary legal problem that may arise in the routinary deserves”) - used as s the basis
b for
business of the client and referred to him for legal action.
determining the lawyer's
awyer' professional
an
The future services of the lawyer are secured and

committed to the retaining client. The fees are paid fees in the absence
nce of a contract, but
whether or not there are cases referred to the lawyer. The
reason for the remuneration is that the lawyer is deprived recoverable by him ffrom his client.
of the opportunity of rendering services for a fee to the
h
opposing party or other parties. The doctrine

rine of quantum
qu meruit is a
Special retainer - fee for a specific case handled or special device to prevent undue enrichment
o preven
C
service rendered by the lawyer for a client. A client may based on n the equitable postulate that it is
have several cases demanding special or individual
attention. If for every case there is a separate and unjust for a person to retain benefit
independent contract for attorney’s fees, each fee is
considered a special retainer. without paying for it.
14 15
7 0
25
5/13/2011
Lijauco vs. Terrado

( A.C. No. 6317; August 31,2006) Ulep vs Legal Clinic, Inc.
The lawyer’s claim that the attorney’s fee 223 SCRA 378 (1993)
pertained only to the recovery of the savings “ Practice of law means any activity, in or
deposit cannot be sustained, because records out of the court, which requires the
showed that he acted as complainant’s counsel application of the law, legal procedures,
in the drafting of the compromise agreement. knowledge, training and experience. To
The fee of P70,000.00 for the legal assistance engage in the practice of law is to perform
in the recovery of the savings deposit those acts which are characteristic of the
amounting to P180,000.oo was unreasonable. profession. Generally, to practice law is to
A lawyer, said the Supreme Court, shall charge give advice or render any kind of service
r
only fair and reasonable fees. that involves legal knowledge or skill.”
Ba 15
1
15
4
es
bl
o
r
R
Respondent lawyer’s
awyer admission that
Ba
an
“The
h practice of law is not limited to the conduct
he divided d the le
legal fees with two of the cases in court. It includes legal advice and
es
counsel, and the preparation of legal
other people asa referral fee did not
h
instruments and contracts by which legal rights

are secured, although such matter may or may
bl
se him from liability. Rule 9.02

release
C
not be pending in court.”

of the C
Code of Professional ofes
“ The standards of the legal profession
the lawyers advertisement off his talents.
tal
condemn
A
o
r
Responsibility provides that a lawyeryer lating
lawyer cannot, without violating g tthe ethics of his
profession, advertise his talents
lents or skills as in a
R
Ba
ide
shall not divide or stipulate to divide merchan advertising his
manner similar to a merchant
goods. The proscription n agai
g
against advertising legal
an
rsons
a fee for legal services with persons tio off le
services or solicitation legal business rests on
the fundamentall postulate
postu that the practice of
not licensed to practice law w except in
es
ion. “
law is a profession.
h
certain cases, to wit:

bl
C
15 15
2 5
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
(a) Where There is a pre-existing agreement with a

bl
Use of Judicial Titles

C
partner or associate that, upon the latter’s

death, money shall be paid over a reasonable ` San Jose Homeowners Association,iation, Inc.
In vs.
o
Romanillos
period of time to his estate or to the persons
A.C. No. 5580; June 15, 2005
specified in the agreement; or
R
“Justi
The use of titles such as “Justice” is reserved to
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete
an
incumbent and retired ed mem

members of the Supreme
unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; Court, the Court of Appea
Appeals and the
or Sandiganbayan, n, and m
may not be used by any
h
(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non- ial of the R

other official Republic, including those
given the rank of “ “Justice”. By analogy, the title
lawyer employees in a retirement plan , even if
C
hould be reserved only to judges,

“Judge” should
the plan is based in whole or in part on a incumbent and retired, and not to those who
profit- sharing agreement. were dishonorably discharged from the service.
15 15
3 6
26
5/13/2011
IBP Dues Saquing vs. Mora, A.C. No. 6678; October

` Letter of Atty. Cecilio Y. Arevalo, Jr., 9, 2006
Where the notarization of the document is done
Requesting Exemption from Payment of by a member of the Philippine bar at a time
IBP Dues when he has no authorization to do so, the
B.M. No. 1370; May 9, 2005 offender may be subjected to disciplinary action.
“ x x Payment of dues is a necessary
For one, performing a notarial without such
commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to
consequence of membership in the IBP, of obey the laws, more specifically, the notarial law.
which no one is exempt. This means that The two, by making it appear that he is duly
the compulsory nature of payment of dues commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal
subsists for as long as one’s membership in intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate
falsehood, which the lawyer’s oath similarly
the IBP remains regardless of the lack of proscribes. A lawyer shall not engage in
r
practice of, or the type of practice, the unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
Ba
member is engaged in.” conduct.
15 16
7 0
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
Cueto vs. Jimenez
In re Atty. Marcial al Edillon
Edil
an
`
A.C No. 5798; January 20, 2005
A.C.
Augus 3, 1978
A.C. No. 1928; August Canon 20, Rule 20.4, Code of Professional
“x x Whether er the p
practice of law is a property
es
Responsibility - A lawyer shall avoid controversies
right, inn the sens
sense of its being one that entitles with clients concerning his compensation and shall
h
older of a license to practice a profession,

the holder resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition,
injustice or fraud.
bl
her pause to consider at length, as

we do not here
it [is] clear that under the police power of the Canon 14 - Controversies with clients concerning
State, and under the necessary powers granted compensation are to be avoided by y the lawyer so far
as shall be compatible with his self-res
self-respect and with
o
to the Court to perpetuate its existence, the his right to receive reasonable recompense for his
le recomp
respondent’s right to practice law before the he service; and lawsuits with the clients should be
e client
R
Ba
courts of this country should be and is a matter resorted to only to prevent
ent injustice,
injustic imposition or
subject to regulation and inquiry. And,, if the fraud.
an
power to impose the fee as a regulatory Although every lawyer er must be paid what is due to
st b
measure is recognized, then a penalty designed
y desig him, he must never resort
resor to judicial action to
to enforce its payments, which penalty nalty may be
y ma recover his fees, in a man
manner that detracts from the
es
avoided altogether by payment, t, is not vo
void as dignity of the profession.
ofession
h
unreasonable or arbitrary.”
bl
C
15 16
8 1
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
bl
C
Heirs of the Late Spouses Lucas and Francisca ` Santuyo vs. Hidalgo
Villanueva vs. Beradio, A.C. No. 6270; Jan. A.C. No.5838; January ry 17, 2005
20
o
22, 2007
“Considering that the he respo
responsibility
R
Where admittedly the notary public had personal

attached to a notary ry public
pub is sensitive,
knowledge of a false statement or information
an
contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet ould ha

respondent should have been more
proceeds to affix his or her notarial seal on it, the discreet and cautious
cautiou in the execution
Court must not hesitate to discipline the notary of his duties such and should not
ies as su
h
public accordingly as the circumstances of the case have wholly

holly entrusted
en everything to
C
may dictate. Otherwise, the integrity and sanctity of the secretaries;

etari otherwise he should
the notarization process may be undermined and
not have been commissioned as notary
public confidence on notarial documents may be
diminished public.
15 16
9 2
27
5/13/2011
` Follosco vs. Mateo

A.C. No. 6186; February 3, 2004 Villanueva vs. Deloria A.C. No. 5018; Jan. 26, 2007
“The importance attached to the act of A formal investigation is a mandatory requirement
notarization cannot be overemphasized. which may not be dispensed with except for valid and
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, compelling reasons.
routinary act. It is invested with substantive Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally
public interest, such that only those who are addressed to the Supreme Court. If, at the outset, the
qualified or authorized may act as notaries Supreme Court finds a complaint to be completely
public. Notarization converts a private wanting in merit. It outrightly dismisses the case. If,
document into a public document thus making however, the Court deems it necessary that further
that document admissible in evidence without inquiry should be made, such as when the matter
further proof of its authenticity. A notarial could not be resolved by merely evaluating the
document is by law entitled to full faith and pleadings submitted, a referral is made to the IBP for a
credit upon its face. Courts, administrative formal investigation of the case during which the
agencies and the public at large must be able to parties are accorded an opportunity to be heard. An
r
rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a ex-parte investigation may only be conducted when
notary public and appended to a private
Ba
respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice.
instrument.”
16 16
3 6
es
o
r
R
Ba
an
` Zoreta vs. Simpliciano

pliciano
A.C. No. 6492;92; Novem
November 18, 2004 Ramientas vs. Reyala, A.C. No. 7055; July 31,2006
R
es
A lawyer’s s act of notarizing
n documents without A motion for reconsideration from IBP resolutions
h
quisite commission
the requisite co is “reprehensible,
is no longer a prohibited pleading. The motion
bl
ituting a
constituting as it does not only malpractice but
C
also . . . the crime of falsification of public may be filed within 15 days from the notice of the
documents.” Performing a notarial act without IBP resolution. The IBP mustt resolve
reso the motion
o
r
such commission is a violation of the lawyer’s r’s tion to the
before elevating the resolution t Supreme
R
Court.
Ba
oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the e
Notarial Law. By making it appear that he is
an
duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all

legal intents and purposes, indulging ng in
es
awyer’s o
deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer’s oath
h
similarly proscribes. x x”
bl
C
16 16
4 7
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
bl
` The Lawyer’s Oath

International Militia of People Against
C
I, _________________ of
Corruption and Terrorism, represented by ___________________ do solemnly lemnly swear
s / that I
o
Atty. Elly Velez Pamatong vs. Chief Hilario will maintain allegiance/ to the Repub
Republic of the
Davide, Jr. (Ret.) A.C. No. 7197; Jan 23, 2007 Philippines/ I will supportt and defe
defend its
R
Constitution/ and obey the he laws/

aws/ as well as the legal
The petition was summary in form and orders/ of the duly constituted
nstituted authorities
a therein/ I
an
consisted, for the most part, of self-serving and will do no falsehood// nor con
consent to its commission/
gratuitous conclusions and offensive I will not wittingly/
y/ or willingly/
willin promote or sue any
groundless/ false/e/ or unlawful
unla suit/ nor give aid nor
innuendos, when the Rules of Court requires consent to the e same/ I will not delay any man’s
h
that a complaint for disbarment shall state cause/ for money or malice/
m and will conduct myself/
clearly and concisely the facts complained of as a lawyer/
r/ according
accord to the best of my knowledge
C
and discretion/
tion/ with
w all good fidelity/ as well to the
and shall be supported by affidavits of persons courts as to my clients/ and I impose upon myself/
having personal knowledge of the facts therein this obligation voluntarily/ without any mental
alleged and or by such documents as may reservation/ or purpose of evasion/. So help me God.
substantiate facts.
16 16
5 8
28
5/13/2011
` Malecdan vs. Pekas, at al.

A.C. No. 5830; January 26, 2004
“An attorney’s only safe guide is high moral
principle, as the torch to light his way; his best
shield is a clear conscience and an unblemished
personal record; and his just reward is to find
the highest honor in a deserved reputation for
fidelity to private trust and to public duty, as an
honest man and as a patriotic and loyal citizen.
The fiduciary duty of a lawyer and advocate is
what places the law profession in a unique
position of trust and confidence, and
distinguishes it from any other calling. Once this
trust and confidence is betrayed, the faith of the
people not only on the individual lawyer but also
r
in the legal profession as a whole is eroded. To
this end, all members of the bar are strictly
Ba
hest
required to, at all times, maintain the highest
degree of public confidence in the fidelity,
on
honesty, and integrity of their profession.” 16
9
es
bl
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
bl
C
r
R
Ba
an
es
bl
17
0
o
r
R
Ba
an
es
h
bl
C
o
R
an
h
C
29

TIJAM - LEGAL ETHICS 2011 - New PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

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

TIJAM - LEGAL ETHICS 2011 - New PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

The Code of Professional Responsibility does not

relatives has clearly demonstrated his unfitnesss

client relationship evolved

Among the burdens of the relationshipnship is that

Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional ondent in this case,

acquired or revealed during ng legal co

interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with tle mome

in the public office he used to occupy and cast ct whatsoev

The ill- conceived use of his knowledge of the

respondent was actuated by the urge to retaliate

attorney voluntarily permits or aquiesces with the

Likewise, a lawyer-client relationship exists Disposition: Respondent was

notwithstanding the close personal relationship

non-payment of the former’s fees. circumspect in her handling

Citing Dean Wigmore, the Supreme Court listed the

` Competence, Diligence and ` He must serve the client with competence

Rule 18.03 – A lawyer

duties not only to the client but also to the

Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep his client

lawyer who performs his duty with

` Canoy vs. Ortiz

ill afford legal services deserve

public service will not deliver the lawyer, no

deserve quality representation as well.” ether they

client, a lawyer owes fidelity to such cause nd to constantly

` Cheng vs. Agravante

o. 5302; February 18, 2005

injuries as a result thereof cannot serve

awyer has the duty to exert his best

the Appellant’s Brie

B.R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. nc. vs. Court

G.R. No. 41862; February ary 7, 199

Responsibility: A lawyer shall not, after

obtaining extensions of time to file

or offering an explanation for his failure to

` Edquibal vs. Ferrer

- The practice of law does not require

prudence and circumspection use for or circumstances. x x”

bonus pater familias.

` Bergonia vs. Merrera (A.C. No. 5024; ` Perea vs. Almadro

Lawyers should fully familiarize themselves Respondent lawyer’s negligence

advising the latter on the soundness of

litigating. If they find that the intended suit

and dissuade their clients accordingly.

brief carries with it the presumption that the ous story”

Respondent lawyer claimed he had not met

2003 3 The High Court said that as an officer of the

court, a lawyer must assist in the

his part that tends to obstruct,

was found guilty of nnegligence

Complainants in this administrative case were Republic vs. Kenrick Developmentment Co

purportedly signed and sworn to buy the onstitute an assurance that he

to or in conflict with that of the former client. The

rest except by written

confidences acquired in the previous relation.

the trust and confidence reposed

hazards and costs even to himself.

them. It even survives

` In the case at bar, respondent admitted d having

in the first civil case. Evidently, the attorney-client

established despite the fact that it wa was only Raleigh

that it is immaterial whether ther such employment was