CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND CONFIDENCE

REPOSED IN HIM. CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.

Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter. Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request for information. relevant facts lang law bar exam questions,recent cases and jurisprudence current use today ,difference in other countries

Relevant Facts

Bar Exam Questions

Recent Cases and Jurisprudence

CANON 17: QUICK REFERENCE

Canon 17. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. [no implementing rules]

KNOW MORE: * The lawyer owes loyalty to his client even after the relation of attorney and client has terminated. It is not good practice to permit him afterwards to defend in another case other persons against his former client under the pretext that the case is distinct from and independent of the former case. But the lawyer owes a higher loyalty to the courts. Thus when a conflict between the client and the court arises, his first duty is to render loyalty and obedience to the courts. (Lorenzana Food Corp. vs. Daria, 197 SCRA 428 )

When a lawyer takes a clients cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure to exercise due diligence or the abandonment of a client's cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had reposed on him. A lawyer has a duty to protect with utmost dedication the interest of his client and of the fidelity, trust and confidence which he owes his client. More so where by reason of his gross negligence his client thereby suffered by losing all her cases. Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in dealing with their clients. The profession is not synonymous with an ordinary business proposition. It is a matter of public interest. (Cantiller v. Potenciano, 180 SCRA 246 (1968)) It is the duty of a lawyer at the time of retainer to disclose to the client all the circumstances of his relations to the parties, and any interest in or connection with the controversy, which might influence the client in the selection of counsel. It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. A lawyer should champion his cause with that wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion that he is obligated to give to every case that he accepts from a client. (Alisbo v. Jalandoon, 199 SCRA 321 (1991))

Rule 138, Sec. 20 (e): To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in connection with his client's business except from him or with his knowledge and approval. Rule 138, Sec. 20 (f): To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witnesses, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged. Furnishing the adverse parties with evidence against the client constitutes betrayal of trust and confidence of his former clients in violation of Rule 138, Sec. 20 (e). (Ngayan v. Tugade, 193 SCRA 779 (1991))

 A lawyer has a sworn duty to act with fidelity toward his clients. Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility states that *a+ lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and shall be mindful the trust and confidence reposed in him; and Rule 1.01 which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The requirement of good moral character is not only a condition precedent to admission to the Philippine Bar but is also a continuing requirement to maintain ones goods standing in the legal profession. (In Re: Suspension from the Practice of law (435 SCRA 417 (2004))

The present case focuses on a critical aspect of the lawyer-client relationship: the duty of loyalty. The fidelity lawyers owe their clients is traditionally characterized as undivided. This means that lawyers must represent their clients and serve their needs without interference or impairment from any conflicting interest. Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, deals with conflicts in the interests of an attorneys actual clients among themselves, of existing and prospective clients, and of the attorney and his clients. It states that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. The relation of attorney and client begins from the time an attorney is retained. An attorney has no power to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without being retained. To establish the professional relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney are sought and received in any manner pertinent to his profession. Inapplicable to the case, is Canon 15 of the same Code which encompasses the aforementioned rule. In general terms, Canon 15 requires lawyers to observe loyalty in all dealings and transactions with their clients. Unquestionably, an attorney giving legal advice to a party with an interest conflicting with that of his client resulting in detriment to the latter may be held guilty of disloyalty. However, far be it that every utterance of an attorney which may have afforded an individual some relief adverse to the formers client may be labeled as a culpable act of disloyalty. As in every case, the acts alleged to be culpable must be assessed in light of the surrounding circumstances. We are not unaware of the custom of practitioners in a law firm of assigning cases and even entire client accounts to associates or other partners with limited supervision, if at all. However, let it not be said that law firm practitioners are given a free hand to assign cases to seasoned attorneys and thereafter conveniently forget about the case. To do so would be a disservice to the profession, the integrity and advancement of which this Court must jealously protect. Law practitioners are acutely aware of the responsibilities that are naturally taken on by partners and supervisory lawyers over the lawyers and non-lawyers of the law office. Lawyers are administratively liable for the conduct of their employees in failing to timely file pleadings. We now hold further that partners and practitioners who hold

supervisory capacities are legally responsible to exert ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the comings and goings of the cases handled by the persons over which they are exercising supervisory authority and in exerting necessary efforts to foreclose the occurrence of violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by persons under their charge. Nonetheless, the liability of the supervising lawyer in this regard is by no means equivalent to that of the recalcitrant lawyer. The actual degree of control and supervision exercised by said supervising lawyer varies, inter alia, according to office practice, or the length of experience and competence of the lawyer supervised. Such factors can be taken into account in ascertaining the proper penalty. Certainly, a lawyer charged with the supervision of a fledgling attorney prone to rookie mistakes should bear greater responsibility for the culpable acts of the underling than one satisfied enough with the work and professional ethic of the associate so as to leave the latter mostly to his/her own devises. (Solatan v. Inocentes, 466 SCRA 1 (2005))

Canon 18. A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence.

Rule 18.01. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.

Rule 18.02. A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.

Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not

neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable period of time to the clients request for information.

CANON 18: QUICK REFERENCE Rule 18.01. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.

Rule 18.02. A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable period of time to the clients request for information.

MEMORY AID FOR RULES UNDER CANON 18: o Client Consent with Collaborating Counsel (Rule 18.01) o Adequate Preparation (Rule 18.02)

o Not to neglect Legal Matters (Rule 18.03) o Inform Client of Case Statue (Rule 18.04)

KNOW MORE:

Competence sufficiency of lawyers qualifications to deal with the matter in question and includes knowledge and skill and the ability to use them effectively in the interest of the client A lawyer must keep himself constantly abreast with the trend of authoritative ronouncements and developments in all branches of law. There must be ordinary diligence in prosecution or defense of his clients cause. clients claim but the full amount in cash. Diligence is the attention and care required of a person in a given situation and is the opposite of negligence. It is axiomatic in the practice of law that the price of success is eternal diligence to the cause of the client. (Edquibal v. Ferrer, 450 SCRA 406)

Lawyer impliedly represents that: he possesses requisite degree of learning, skill, ability which is necessary to the practice of his profession and which other similarly situated possess; he will exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the litigation entrusted to him; he will exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the use of his skill and in the application of his knowledge to his clients cause; he will take such steps as will adequately safeguards his clients interest. A client may reasonably expect that counsel will make good his representations. (Agpalo)

I. Rule 18.01. A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter. However well meaning he may be, a lawyer cannot ask another lawyer to collaborate with him in a particular case without the consent of the client. The fiduciary nature of attorney- client relationship prohibits this. (Aguirre)

 Some cases involve specialized fields of law and require special training. A lawyer should not accept an undertaking in specific area of law which he knows or should know he is not qualified to enter. (Agpalo)

II. Rule 18.02. A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.

Lawyer should safeguard his clients rights and interests by thorough study and preparation; mastering applicable law and facts involved in a case, regardless of the nature of the assignment; and keeping constantly abreast of the latest jurisprudence and developments in all branches of the law (Agpalo)

III. Rule 18.03. A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

The standard of diligence required of a lawyer is that of a good father of a family. He is not bound to exercise extraordinary diligence There is want of required diligence when a lawyer fails without sufficient justification to bring an action immediately, to answer a complaint within the reglementary period, to notify his client of the date of the date of hearing, to attend the scheduled pre-trial conference, to inform the client of an adverse judgment within the reglementary period to appeal, to take steps to have the adverse decision reconsidered or appealed, to ascertain the correct date of receipt of decision, to acquaint himself with what has happened to the litigation, to pay docket fee on appeal, to claim judicial notice sent to him by mail or to file the appellants brief

It should be remembered that the moment the lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exert all effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. A lawyer who fails to exercise due diligence or abandons his clients cause makes him unworthy of the trust reposed on him by the latter. (Legarda v. CA, 209 SCRA 722 (1992))24

IV. Rule 18.04. A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable period of time to the clients request for information.

 It was unnecessary to have complainants wait, and hope, for six long years on their pension claims. Upon their refusal to co-operate, respondent should have forthwith terminated their professional relationship instead of keeping them hanging indefinitely. (Blanza v. Arcangel (1967))

Difference in other countries