Lawyer Must Constantly Be Of Good Moral Character.

A lawyer should not engage or participate in any unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The moral character he displayed when he applied for admission to the Bar must be maintained incessantly. Other-wise, his privilege to practice the legal profession may be withdrawn from him. The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that she shall be a person of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to an admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also essential foe remaining in the practice of law. The commission of unlawful acts, especially crimes involving moral turpitude, acts of dishonestly in violation of the attorneys oath, grossly immoral conduct and deceit are grounds for suspension or disbarment of lawyers (Rule 138, Section 27, RRC). The purposes for the requirement of good moral character are: (i) to protect the public; (ii) the protect the public image of lawyers; and (iii) to protect prospective clients. The Supreme Court added a fourth: to protect errant lawyers from themselves. Honestly is essential for every lawyer to retain his standing as a member of the bar (People vs. Gilmore, 177 NE 710). Lawyers must always conduct themselves in their professional and non-professional life with good moral character and without deception. Dishonesty is condemned and is a ground for disciplinary action. Practice of law to engage in the practice is to do any of these acts which are characteristics of legal profession. It covers any activity in and out of the court, which requires the application of law, legal principles, practice or procedures and calls for legal knowledge training and experience. General coverage of practice of law 1. Legal advice and instruction to clients. 2. Preparation for clients of documents 3. Appearance for clients before public tribunals What constitute practice of law? 1. Customary 2. Habitual - Holding of oneself to the public as a lawyer and demanding compensation for his legal services - The practice of law ehuisioned as active and regular, not isolated, occasional, incidental, seasonal or extemporaneous. Characteristics of the practice of law -it is not a matter of right but merely a privileged -it cannot be assigned or inherited but must be earned by hard study and good conduct. -is a privileged burdened with conditions -is a profession, not a business as it is an essential part in the administration of justice a profession in pursuit of which pecuniary reward is considered as merely incidental, it is pursuit of learned art in the interest of public service -it is not a property right but a mere privileged Rules of attorney under the Revised Rule of Court (a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the Philippines; (b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers; (c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law;

(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer or false statement of fact or law; (e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his clients, and to accept no compensation in connection with his clients business except from him or with his knowledge and approval; (f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged; (g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any mans cause, from any corrupt motive or interest; (h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed; (i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law (Rule 138, Section 20, Rules of Court). Law Students Law Student Practice Rule o Qualifications of students who may appear in court: 1. Must have completed the 3rd year of a prescribed regular 4-year curriculum (Rule 138-A, Sec.1); 2. Must be enrolled in a recognized law schools legal education program approved by the Supreme Court, without compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal clinic of the law school (Rule 138-A, Sec.1); 3. Must be under the direct supervision and control of a member of the IBP duly accredited by the law school. Any and all pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed, must be signed by the supervising attorney for and in behalf of the legal clinic. (Rule 138-A, Sec.2) o Meaning of Direct Supervision and Control: requires no less than the physical presence of the supervising lawyer during the hearing.

 A law student appearing before the RTC under Rule 138-A should at all times be accompanied by a supervising lawyer. (In Re: Need That Law Student Practicing Under Rule 138-A Be Actually Supervised During Trial (1997)) Appearance in Inferior Courts -- A law student may appear in his personal capacity without the supervision of a lawyer in inferior courts. (refer to Rule 138, section 34) ATTORNEYS FEE Rule 2.04 A lawyer shall not charge rates lower than those customarily or prescribed, unless circumstances so warrant. A lawyer cannot delay the approval of a compromise agreement entered into between parties, just because his attorneys fees were not provided for in the agreement. Rule: A lawyer cannot compromise the case without clients consent (special authority). Exception: Lawyer has exclusive management of the procedural aspect of the litigation (e.g. Submission for decision on the evidence so far presented. But in case where lawyer is confronted with an emergency and prompt/urgent action is necessary to protect clients interest and theres no opportunity for consultation, the lawyer may compromise. Rule: Refrain from charging rates lower than the customary rates. Valid Justification: relatives, co-lawyers, too poor

Attorney's Fees a. Ordinary attorney's fee - the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has rendered to the latter. The basis for this compensation is the fact of his employment by and his agreement with the client. b. Extraordinary attorney's fee - an indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing party in litigation. The basis for this is any of the cases provided for by law where such award can be made, such as those authorized in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, and is payable NOT to the lawyer but to the client, unless they have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof.

How attorney's fees may be claimed by the lawyer: 1. It may be asserted either in the very action in which the services of a lawyer had been rendered or in a separate action. 2. A petition for attorney's fees may be filed before the judgment in favor of the client is satisfied or the proceeds thereof delivered to the client. 3. The determination as to the propriety of the fees or as to the amount thereof will have to be held in abeyance until the main case from which the lawyer's claim for attorney's fees may arise has become final. Otherwise, the determination of the courts will be premature. Kinds of Retainer Agreements on Attorneys fees:

a. General Retainer or Retaining Fee it is the fee paid to a lawyer to secure his future services as general counsel for any ordinary legal problem that may arise in the ordinary business of the client and referred to him for legal action; b. Special Retainer - that is a fee for a specific case or service rendered by the lawyer for a client Quantum Meruit - it means "as much as he deserves", and is used as the basis for determining the lawyer's professional fees in the absence of a contract, but recoverable by him from his client. Quantum Meruit is resorted to where: a. there is no express contract for payment of attorneys fees agreed upon between the lawyer and the client; b. when although there is a formal contract for attorneys fees, the stipulated fees are found unconscionable or unreasonable by the court. c. When the contract for attorneys fees is void due to purely formal matters or defects of execution d. When the counsel, for justifiable cause, was not able to finish the case to its conclusion e. When lawyer and client disregard the contract for attorneys fees. Skill: length of practice is not a safe criterion of professional ability. Rule 20.02 A lawyer shall, in cases of referral, with the consent of the client, be entitled to a division of fees in proportion to the work performed and responsibility assumed. Rule 20.03 A lawyer shall not, without the full knowledge and consent of the client, accept any fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or forwarding allowance or other compensation whatsoever related to his professional employment from anyone other than the client. Rule 20.04 A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients concerning his compensation and shall resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud. Unauthorized counsel: Not entitled to attorneys fees. Stipulation regarding payments of attorneys fees is not illegal/immoral and is enforceable as the law between the parties provided such stipulation does not contravene law, good morals, etc. When counsel cannot recover full amount despite written contract for attorneys fees: a. When he withdraws before the case is finished b. justified dismissal of attorney (payment: in quantum meruit only) The reason for the award of attorneys fees must be stated in the text of the decision; otherwise, if it is stated only in the dispositive portion of the decision, the same must be disallowed on appeal. Even though the interest or property involved is of considerable value, if the legal services rendered do not call for much efforts there is no justification for the award of high fees. Champertous Contracts (void) Lawyer stipulates with his client that in the prosecution of the case, he will bear all the expenses for the recovery of things or property being claimed by the client and the latter agrees to pay the former a portion of the thing/property recovered as compensation.

Compensation to an attorney for merely recommending another lawyer is improper (agents) Attorneys fees for legal services shared or divided to non-lawyer is prohibited. Division of fees is only for division of service or responsibility. A lawyer should try to settle amicably any differences on the subject. A lawyer has 2 options. Judicial action to recover attorneys fees: a. In same case: Enforce attorneys fees by filing an appropriate motion or petition as an incident to the main action where he rendered legal services. b. In a separate civil action.

MCLE FOR LAWYERS Canon 5: A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve highest standards in law schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in disseminating information regarding law and jurisprudence. MCLE FOR LAWYERS To keep the lawyers abreast, specially practising lawyers. Abreast with the law and jurisprudence, continuing legal education should be made mandatory by the Supreme Court. On August 22, 2000, the Supreme Court promulgated Bar Matter No. 850, which implemented the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) program for all members of the IBP. Lawyers are required to complete every three years at least 36 hours of continuing legal education on specified subjects. Some lawyers are exempted therefrom like justices of the SC, CA,, Sandiganbayn, Law deans, some law professors, members of congree etc. Grounds for Disbarment or Suspension of a Lawyer 1. Deceit A lawyer was subjected to disciplinary action for selling a non-disposable land of the public domain. He violated his oath not to do falsehood and misrepresentation to the buyercomplainant. For a lawyer to be dealt with by the Supreme Court, the transaction entered into need not be in the performance of professional services. It can be in his private capacity. 2. Malpractice A lawyer violated the trust and confidence of the client when he represented conflicting interest. He represented the creditors when his accounting firm prepared and computed the claims of the creditors while his law firm represented the estate. A lawyer has to disclose to his client all the circumstances of his relations to the parties in connection with the controversy which might influence the client in the selection of counsel. 3. Grossly immoral conduct i.g. A lawyer got married again after his failed marriage. He never absconded his obligations to his first wife and child. After the annulment of his second marriage, he remained celibate. He

was humble enough to offer no defense save for his lone and declaration of his commitment to his wife and child. 4. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude A lawyer was disbarred for having been convicted of estafa. A lawyer was convicted of the crime of bribery. He was disbarred. 5. Violation of the Lawyers Oath 6. Willful disobedience to any lawful order of a superior court 7. Willfully appearing as attorney for any party without authority Lawyers in the Government service in General 1. Judges and other officials as employees of the Superior Court (Rule 148, Sec. 35, RRC). 2.Officials and employees of the OSG (Ibid). 3.Government prosecutors (Peo v. Villanueva, 14 SCRA 109). - if permitted by their department head should only be in isolated casesinvolving relatives or close family friends 4.President, Vice-President, members of the cabinet, their deputies and assistants ,(Art.VIII Sec. 15, 1987 Constitution). 5.Chairmen and Members of the Constitutional Commissions ( A r t . I X - A , S e c . 2 , 1 9 8 7 Constitution). 6.Ombudsman and his deputies (Art. IX, Sec. 8 (2nd par.), 1987 Constitution). 7.All governors, city and municipal mayors (R.A. No. 7160, Sec. 90). 8.Those who, by special law, are prohibited from engaging in the p r a c t i c e o f t h e i r l e g a l profession Relationships of lawyers as colleagues in profession A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. The golden rule is much more needed in the legal profession than in any other profession for a better administration of justice. He should not take advantage of the excusable unpreparedness or absence of counsel during the trial of a case. Canon 9, CPE A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel.

Rule 8.01. A law yer shall not, in his professional deal ings, use l a n g u a g e which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. A.B.A. Op. 17 (Jan. 23, 1930) The fact that one of them conducts himself improperly does not relieve the other from the professional obligation in his relation with him. Report of IBP Committee, p. 41 Any kind of language which attacks without foundation and integrity of the opposing counsel or the dignity of the court may be stricken off the records or may subject a lawyer to disciplinary action. Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs. Cloribel, 31 SCRA 1 Disrespectful, abusive and abrasive language, offensive personality, unfounded accusations or intemperate words tending to obstruct, e m b a r r a s s o r i n f l u e n c e t h e c o u r t i n administering justice, or to bring it into disrepute have no place in a pleading. Their employment serves no useful purpose and on the contrary constitutes direct contempt or contempt in facie curiae. In re: Gomez, 43 Phil. 376 A lawyer who uses intemperate, abusive, abrasive or threatening language portrays disrespect to the court, disgraces the Bar and invites the exercise by the court of its disciplinary power. In re: Climaco, 55 SCRA 107 A lawyers language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as befittingan advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession. National Security Co. vs. Jarvis The lawyers arguments, whether written or oral, should be gracious to both the court and opposing counsel and be of such words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to another. Rheem of the Philippines vs. Ferrer, 20 SCRA 441 Lack of want of intention is no excuse for the disrespectful language employed. Counsel cannot escape responsibility by claiming that his words did not mean what any reader must have understood them as meaning. Rule 8.02. A law yer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however, it is the right of the lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief aga inst unfaithful or neglectful counsel. A lawyer should not steal the other lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain him by a p r o m i s e o f b e t t e r s e r v i c e , g o o d r e s u l t o r r e d u c e d f e e s f o r h i s s e r v i c e s . N e i t h e r s h o u l d h e disparage another, make comparisons or publicize his talent as a means to feather his law practice. Laput vs. Remotigue, 6 SCRA 45 (1962) It is, however, the right of a lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel. He may properly accept employment to handle a matter which has been previously handled by another lawyer,

provided that the other lawyer has been given notice by the client that his services have been terminated DUTIES OF LAWYER IN REGULAR COURTS CANON 10. A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT 1. A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be mislead by any artifice. 2. A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or an argument of opposing counsel, of the text of a decision or authority or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved. 3. A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. LAPENA, P. 71 1. What is the duty of the lawyer as an officer of the court? A lawyer is an officer of the court; he is, like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice. His duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts to which he owes fidelity, not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. Faith in the courts a lawyer should seek to preserve. For, to undermine the judicial edifice is disastrous to the continuity of govt and to the attainment of the liberties of the people. Thus, it has been said of a lawyer that as an officer of the court, it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the courts so essential to the proper administration of justice. (Lacson Jr. vs CA, 241 SCRA 126) LAPENA P. 72 CANON 11. A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD NOT INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS 1. A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired. 2. A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings. 3. A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing language or behavior before the Courts. 4. A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case. 5. A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the proper authorities only. 1. What is the first duty of the lawyer? What duty should prevail where duties on the courts conflict with his duties to his client? The lawyers fist duty is to the courts. He is an officer of the court. He occupies a quasi judicial office with a tripartite obligation to the courts, to the public and to his clients. The public duties of the attorney take precedence over his private duties. His first duty is to the courts. Where duties to the courts conflict with his duties to his clients, the latter must yield to the former. LAPENA, P. 71

2. Whose interest should prevail in case of conflict of interest of a lawyer and his client? In case of conflict of interest of lawyer and his client, the lawyer shall give preference to the clients interests. LAPENA, P 101 EDGAR O. PEREA vs. ATTY. RUBEN ALMADRO Facts: Edgar Perea filed a complaint for disbarment against his lawyer Atty. Ruben Almadro for gross neglect of his duties as a lawyer. The respondent was his counsel before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City where he is being charged with the crime of Frustrated Homicide. The RTC issued an order granting Atty. Almadros motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence within ten days from February 26, 1996. Perea thought that his counsel filed the said demurrer and the case against him was dismissed. However, he learned sometime in 1999 that his counsel failed to file any demurrer, thus there was a warrant issued for his arrest and he is not allowed to post bail. The respondent has not attended any of his hearings and such neglect of his responsibilities would result to the loss of freedom and livelihood of his client. Atty. Almadro submitted an Answer to the complaint through the law firm Sua and Alambra, which contended that: two days after the RTC granted the manifestation of defense to file motion for leave to file demurrer to evidence, he had finished the draft of the motion and the accompanying pleading which he stored in a magnetic computer diskette intended for editing prior to its submission in court; a few days before the deadline, he tried to retrieve the draft from the diskette but said drafts were nowhere to be found despite efforts to retrieve them; this ledhim to believe that the drafts must have been finalized and the edited versions accordingly filed. He became preoccupied with the congressional elections in Biliran where he ran and subsequently lost, then he was offered a position in the Philippine Stock Exchange as head of the Compliance and Surveillance Division which he accepted; his time and attention was spent in the performance of his demanding job which led to the neglect of his duties as counsel. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation. The IBP, through Commissioner Renato Cunanan submitted its report and recommendation. They are convinced that Atty. Almadros actuations reveal not only serious neglect or indifference to his duties as a lawyer but more gravely his open disrespect for the court and the authority it represents. The IBP strongly recommend that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for two years and that he be fined ten thousand pesos (PhP10,000.00). They also recommend that Atty. Sua and Alambra be ordered to explain why they should not be held in contempt for deliberately foisting a deliberate falsehood and misrepresentation. Issue: Whether or not the recommendation of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for the suspension of Atty. Alambra for gross neglect of his duties as a lawyer is meritorious? Held: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative, finding the respondent Atty. Alambra guilty of serious neglect of his duties as a lawyer and of open disrespect for the court and the authority it represents, as embodied in Canon 18,Rules 18.03 and 18.04 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is Suspended from the practice of law for one (1) year and Fined in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) pesos, with a Warning that any or similar acts of dishonesty would be dealt with more severe Plus Builders Inc. vs. Revilla, Jr. 578 SCRA 431 Facts: The Provincial Adjudicator of Cavite (PARAD) rendered a decision in favor of Plus Builders, Inc. and against the tenants/farmers Leopoldo de Guzman, et.al, who were the clients of respondent, Atty. Revilla, Jr. The PARAD found that respondents clients were mere tenants

and not rightful possessors/owners of the subject land. The case was elevated all the way up to the Supreme Court, with this Court sustaining Plus Builders Inc.s rights over the land. Respondent was found to have committed intentional falsehood; and misused court processes with the intention to delay the execution of the decision through the filing of several motions, petitions for temporary restraining orders, and the last, an action to quiet title despite the finality of the decision. Furthermore, he allowed non-lawyers to engage in the unauthorized practice of lawholding themselves out as his partners/associates in the law firm. Respondent maintains that he did not commit the acts complained of and that the courses of action he took were not meant to unduly delay the execution of the DARAB Decision. Issue: WON respondent is guilty of gross misconduct. Held: It is the rule that when a lawyer accepts a case, he is expected to give his full attention, diligence, skill and competence to the case, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. A lawyers devotion to his clients cause not only requires but also entitles him to deploy every honorable means to secure for the client what is justly due him or to present every defense provided by law to enable the latters cause to succeed. In this case, respondent may not be wanting in this regard. On the contrary, it is apparent that the respondents acts complained of were committed out of his over-zealousness and misguided desire to protect the interests of his clients who were poor and uneducated. Taking the cudgels from the former lawyer in this case is rather commendable, but respondent should not forget his first and foremost responsibility as an officer of the court. In support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the duty to present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law. This obligation, however, is not to be performed at the expense of truth and justice. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes. However, the Court also knows how to show compassion and will not hesitate to refrain from imposing the appropriate penalties in the presence of mitigating factors, such as the respondents length of service, acknowledgment of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations, and respondents advanced age, among other things, which have varying significance in the Courts determination of the imposable penalty. Therefore, a suspension of six (6) months from the practice of law is sufficient in this case. LACUROM VS. JACOBA THE SUPREME COURT suspended a married lawyer-couple for using very disrespectful, insulting, and humiliating language against a judge. Attys. Ellis and Olivia Jacoba were suspended for two years and two months, respectively, for using the words and phrases, abhorrent nullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous mistake, horrible error,boner, and an insult to the judiciary and an anachronism in the judicial process in their Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution issued by Judge Ubaldino Lacurom of the Cabanatuan City Municipal Trial Court, Branch 30.In a decision penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the Court said that even the most hardened judge would be scarred by the scurrilous attack made by the 30 July 2001 motion on Judge Lacuroms Resolution...Though a lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession, it added. The Jacoba spouses have been previously punished for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Ellis was suspended twice one for six months and another for one year for his failure to file the required pleadings, while Olivia was fined for

appearing in barangay conciliation proceedings on behalf of a party despite the prohibition in the Local Government Code.

AGUSTIN VS. EMPLEO Julius Agustin was sued for Forcible Entry with Damages. He hired the services of Atty. Enrique Empleo. In 1998, the trial court ordered the parties to submit their compromise agreement within 15 days. No compromise agreement was submitted and nothing happened within the next four years hence the court dismissed the case. Agustin then filed a disbarment case against Empleo because he said he was prejudiced when the case was dismissed together with his counterclaim therein. Empleo, in his defense, asserted that Agustin actually benefited from the dismissal because he was the defendant therein. Empleo explained that the non-submission of the compromise agreement was due to complainants own fault in not contacting him for the purpose of providing the details of said agreement, pointing out that counsels merely assist their clients and do not decide for them in a compromise agreement. ISSUE: Whether or not Empleos assertions are correct. HELD: No. It is true that a lawyer cannot enter into a compromise agreement without his clients consent. However, a lawyer is also an officer of the court with the correlative duty to see to it that cases are disposed in the soonest possible time. Here, Empleo was fully aware that there is a pending court order for the submission of a compromise agreement, he should have taken pains to remind Agustin about it and ascertain the true intent of the latter regarding the same, so that he, as Agustins counsel, can make the necessary legal action in order for the case not to be unduly delayed and appear not to be indefinitely pending in the docket of the court concerned. The delay of four years is likewise inexcusable. The period of almost four 4 years of waiting constitutes inaction that caused unnecessary delay in the disposition of said cases. The fact that no damage or prejudice was sustained by Agustin, he being the defendant in that case, is of no moment. CANON 14, CPR- A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE NEEDY Rationale: The poor and indigent should not be further disadvantaged by lack of access to the Philippine legal system. Q: Does a lawyer have a right to decline employment? A:GR: A lawyer is not obliged to act as legal counsel for any person who may wish to become his client. He has the right to decline employment. Exceptions: 1.A lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy (Canon 14); 2. He shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latters race, sex, creed or status of life or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person (Rule 14.01); 3. He shall not decline, except for serious and efficient cause like a. If he is not in a position to carryout effectively or competently; b.If he labors under a conflict of interest between him and the prospective client (Rule 14.03). Q: What is the rationale for the establishment and operation of legal aid offices in all chapters of the IBP? A: Legal aid is not a matter of charity. It is a means for the correction of social imbalances that may and often do lead to injustice, for which reason it is a public responsibility of the Bar. The spirit of public service should, therefore, underlie all legal aid offices. The same should be so administered as to give maximum possible assistance to indigent and deserving members of the

community in all cases, matters and situations in which legal aid may be necessary to forestall an injustice.(Public Service, Sec. 1, Art. 1, IBP Guidelines on Legal Aid) Q: Are there instances where a lawyer has the duty to decline employment? A: A lawyer should decline no matter how attractive the fee offered may be if its acceptance will involve: 1.A violation of any of the Rules of the legal profession; 2. Advocacy in any manner in which he had intervened while in the government service; 3. Nullification of a Contract which he prepared; 4. Employment with a Collection agency which solicits business to collect claims; 5. Employment, the nature of which might easily be used as a means of Advertising his professional services of his skill; or 6. Any matter in which he knows or has reason to believe that he or his partner will be an essential witness for the prospective client. Rule 14.01, Canon 14, CPR - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on account of the latters race, sex, creed or status of life, or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said person Rule 14.02, Canon 14, CPR A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de oficio or as amicus curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapters for rendition of free legal aid. Q. What is the protection given by law to poor litigants who cannot afford the services of a lawyer? A: A court may assign an attorney to render professional aid free of charge to any party incase, if upon investigation it appears that the party is destitute and unable to employ an attorney, and that the services of counsel are necessary to secure the ends of justice and to protect the rights of the party. It shall be the duty of the attorney so assigned to render the required service, unless he is excused there from by the court for sufficient cause shown. (Sec. 31, Rule138, RRC) Q: Who may be appointed as counsel de oficio? A:1.Members of the bar in good standing; 2. Any person, resident of the province and of good repute for probity and ability, in localities without lawyers. Rule 14.03, Canon 14, CPR A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an indigent client unless: a. He is in no position to carry out the work effectively or competently; b. He labors under a conflict of interest between him and the prospective client or between a present client and a prospective client. Q: When may refusal of a counsel to act as counsel de oficio be justified on grounds aside from the reasons of health, extensive travel abroad, or similar reasons of urgency? A: Other justified grounds for refusal to act as a counsel de oficio are: 1. Too many de oficio cases assigned to the lawyer;(People v. Daeng, G.R. No. L-34091, Jan. 30, 1973) 2. Conflict of interest;(Rule 14.03, CPR) 3. Lawyer is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently; 4. Lawyer is prohibited from practicing law by reason of his public office which prohibits appearances in court; and 5. Lawyer is preoccupied with too many cases which will spell prejudice to the new clients. Rule 14.04, Canon 14, CPR A lawyer who accepts the cause of a person unable to pay his professional fees shall observe the same standard of conduct governing his relations with paying clients. Contempt of Court Q: What is the nature of the power of contempt?

A: It is exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle and on corrective rather than the retaliatory idea of punishment, for purposes that are impersonal. It is criminal in nature. The power to punish for contempt is inherent in all courts. It is essential in the observance of order in judicial proceedings and to enforcement of judgment orders and writs. Kinds of Contempt: Direct Consists of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt or obstruct the proceedings before the court or the administration of justice; punished summarily. Indirect One committed away from the court involving disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment or command of the court, or tending to belittle, degrade, obstruct, interrupt or embarrass the court; not summary in nature. Enumerate the acts of a lawyer that constitutes contempt? 1.Misbehavior as officer of court 2.Disobedience or resistance to court order 3.Abuse or interference with judicial proceedings 4.Obstruction in administration of justice 5.Misleading the courts 6.Making false allegations, criticisms, insults, veiled threats against the court. 7. Aiding in unauthorized practice of law(suspended or disbarred) 8. Unlawful retention of clients funds; 9.Advise client to commit contemptuous acts. 1. Privilege communication between lawyer and client Attorneyclient privilege is a legal concept that protects certain communications between a client and his or her attorney and keeps those communications confidential. Rule 15.02 - A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client. General rule: a lawyer may invoke privilege communication in order to refuse revealing his clients confidences and secrets confided to him by such client in the course of professional employment Rule 130, Sec. 24 (b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to, professional employment, nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk be examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity; Exceptions: When authorized by the client When required by law When necessary to defend the lawyer When required by judicial action The announced intention of a client to commit a crime is not included within the confidences which a lawyer is bound to respect 2. Is lawyers fidelity to the cause of his client absolute A lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client. He owes his client full devotion to his genuine interests, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights,

and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability (Canon 17, Code of Professional Responsibility.

3. If the lawyer is entrusted legal matter or money - what is his duty? -Fiduciary duty. A fiduciary duty is a legal or ethical relationship of confidence or trust between two or more parties. Typically, a fiduciary prudently takes care of money for another person. One party, for example a corporate trust company or the trust department of a bank, acts in a fiduciary capacity to the other one, who for example has funds entrusted to it for investment. In a fiduciary relationship, one person, in a position of vulnerability, justifiably vests confidence, good faith, reliance and trust in another whose aid, advice or protection is sought in some matter. In such a relation good conscience requires the fiduciary to act at all times for the sole benefit and interest of the one who trusts. WHAT IF THE LAWYER DISCOVERS THAT HIS CLIENT INVOLVED IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES, CAN HE WITHDRAWW HIS SERVICE? Canon 22. A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances. WITHDRAWAL BY LAWYER GENERALLY, a lawyer lacks the unqualified right to withdraw once he has taken a case. B Y h i s a c c e p t a n c e , h e h a s i m p l i e d l y s t i p u l a t e d t h a t h e w i l l p r o s e c u t e t h e c a s e t o conclusion. This is especially true when such withdrawal will work injustice to a client or frustrate the ends of justice. An EXCEPTION, however, is his right to retire from the case before its final adjudication, which arises only from: 1. The clients written consent or 2 . F o r a g o o d c a u s e Written Consent of the Client The withdrawal in writing of a lawyer as counsel for a party, with the clients written conformity, Does not require the approval of the court to be effective, especially if the withdrawals accompanied by a formal appearance of a new counsel. Rule 22.01.A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the following cases: a. When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connection with the matter he is handling; b. when the client insists that the lawyer pursue c o n d u c t violative of this canons and rules; C.when his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the best interest of the client; D . w h e n t h e m e n t a l o r p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n o f t h e l a w y e r renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively; E.when the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement; f.when the lawyer is elected or appointed to a public office; g.other similar cases Withdrawal without Clients Consent

Procedure for Withdrawal: 1. A lawyer must file a petition for withdrawal in court, 2. serve a copy of this petition upon his client and the adverse party at least 3 days before the date set for hearing Note: a. He should present his petition well in advance of the trial of the action to enable the client to secure the services of another lawyer. b. If the application is filed under circumstances that do not afford a s u b s t i t u t e counsel sufficient time to prepare for trial or that work prejudice to the clients cause, the court may deny his application and require him to conduct the trial. A lawyer should not presume that the court will grant his petition for withdrawal. Until his withdrawal shall have been proved, the lawyer remains counsel of record who is expected by his client as will as by the court to do what the interests of his client require. Rule 22.02.A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers and property tow h i c h t h e c l i e n t i s e n t i t l e d , a n d s h a l l c o o p e r a t e w i t h h i s successor for the proper handling of the matter. R E T A I N I N G L I E N v s . C H A R G I N G L I E N 1 . N a t u r e P a s s i v e L i e n . I t c a n n o t b e a c t i v e l y enforced. It is a general lien. Active Lien. It can be enforced by execution. It is a special Lien 2 . B a s i s L a w f u l p o s s e s s i o n o f p a p e r s , documents, properly belonging to client. Securing of a favorable money judgment for the client. 3 . C o v e r a g e C o v e r s o n l y p a p e r s , d o c u m e n t s a n d property in the lawful possession of the attorney by reason of his professionalemployment.C o v e r s a l l j u d g m e n t s f o r t h e p a y m e n t o f money and executions issued in pursuance of such judgments. 4 . E f f e c t i v i t y A s s o o n a s t h e a t t o r n e y g e t s possession of the papers documents or property As soon as the claim for attorneys fees had been entered into the records of the case. 5 . N o t i c e C l i e n t n e e d n o t b e n o t i f i e d t o m a k e i t effective Client and adverse party must be notified to make it effective. 6 . A p p l i c a b i l i t y M a y b e e x e r c i s e d b e f o r e j u d g m e n t o r execution or regardless thereof. Generally, it is exercisable only when the attorney had already secured a favorable judgment for his client. Requisites of a Retaining Lien 1. There exists a client-lawyer relationship; 2. That the claims for attorneys fees are not satisfied; and 3. That counsel is in possession of t h e s u b j e c t p a p e r s , d o c u m e n t s a n d f u n d s . I t i s s t i l l required that 4. His possession be lawful. Otherwise, the lawyer cannot exercise his right as a retaining lien.

Requisites of a Charging Lien 1. Existence of a client-lawyer relationship; 2. Favorable judgment secured by the counsel for his client which judgment is a money judgment 3. Noting into the records of the case through th e filing of an appropriate m o t i o n o f t h e statement of the lawyers claim for attorneys fees with copies furnished to the client and the adverse party

A.C. No. 6155 March 14, 2006 MA. GINA L. FRANCISCO, JOSEPHINE S. TAN and CARLOS M. JOAQUIN vs. ATTY. JAIME JUANITO P. PORTUGAL TINGA, J.: FACTS: SPO1 Ernesto C. Francisco, SPO1 Donato F. Tan and PO3 Rolando M. Joaquin were involved in a shooting incident which resulted in the death of two individuals and the serious injury of another. As a result, Information were filed against them before the Sandiganbayan for murder and frustrated murder eventually they were convicted. Complainants engaged the services of herein respondent for the accused. Respondent then filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the Sandiganbayan but it was denied still the respondent filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration, with the attached Second Motion for Reconsideration and filed with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari. Thereafter, complainants never heard from respondent again despite the frequent telephone calls they made to his office. When respondent did not return their phone inquiries, complainants went to respondent's last known address only to find out that he had moved out without any forwarding address. More than a year after the petition was filed, complainants were constrained to personally verify the status of the petition and they were shocked that their petition was denied due to late filing and non-payment of docket fees and said resolution had attained finality and warrants of arrest had already been issued against them. Complainants filed before the SC an affidavit-complaint against Atty. Jaime Juanito P. Portugal (respondent) for violation of the Lawyers Oath, gross misconduct, and gross negligence for alleged mishandling of the petition which eventually led to its denial with finality. Respondent contends that he was not the original counsel of the accused. He only met the accused during the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision convicting the accused of two counts of homicide and one count of attempted homicide. He was merely requested by the original counsel to be on hand, assist the accused, and be present at the promulgation of the Sandiganbayan decision and the petition was filed within thereglementary period. Respondent sent a letter the PO3 Joaquin for his formal withdrawal as counsel but the latter did not reply. Upon the investigation of the IBP, it ruled respondent guilty of violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and recommended the imposition of penalty ranging from reprimand to suspension of six (6) months. ISSUE: Whether respondent committed gross negligence or misconduct in handling G.R. No. 152621-23, which eventually led to the ad cautelam petitions dismissal with finality. RULING: YES, SC ordered for the suspension of the respondent from the practice of law for three (3)months. The SC agreed to the IBP that the dismissal of the ad cautelam petition was primarily due to the gross negligence of respondent Once he agrees to take up the cause of the client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latters cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. In a criminal case like that handled by respondent in behalf of the accused, respondent has a higher duty to be circumspect in defending the accused for it is not only the property of the accused which stands to be lost but more importantly, their right to their life and liberty. Thus, in the creation of lawyer-client relationship, there are rules, ethical conduct and duties that breathe life into it, among

those, the fiduciary duty to his client which is of very delicate, exacting and confidential character, requiring a very high degree of fidelity and good faith that is required by reason of necessity and public interest. In this case, respondent ought to know that he was the one who should have filed the Notice to Withdraw and not the accused. His tale that he sent a registered letter to the accused and gave them instructions on how to go about respondents withdrawal from the case defies credulity. It should have been respondent who undertook the appropriate measures for the proper withdrawal of his representation. He should not have relied on his client to do it for him if such was truly the case. The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the absolute right to terminate the attorney-client relation at anytime with or without cause. The right of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation other than for sufficient cause is, however, considerably restricted. Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to its conclusion. He is not at liberty to abandon it without reasonable cause. A lawyers right to withdraw from a case before its final adjudication arises only from the clients written consent or from a good cause Furthermore, after agreeing to take up the cause of a client; a lawyer owes fidelity to both cause and client, even if the client never paid any fee for the attorney-client relationship. Lawyering is not a business; it is a profession in which duty of public service, not money, is the primary consideration. JAYNE Y. YU, complainant, vs. RENATO LAZARO BONDAL, respondent. FACTS: Atty. Renato Lazaro Bondal (respondent) stands charged in a complaint[1] filed by Jayne Y. Yu (complainant) for gross negligence and violation of Canon 16[2] and Rule 16.03[3] of the Code of Professional Responsibility arising from his alleged failure to attend to the five cases she referred to him and to return, despite demand, the amount of P51,716.54 she has paid him. On March 30, 2000, she engaged the services of respondent as counsel in the following cases: (1) Jayne Yu. v. Swire Realty and Development Corp, for Rescission with Damages filed before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, (2) I.S. No. 00-22089-90, Jayne Yu v. Lourdes Fresnoza Boon, for Estafa, (3) I.S. No. 2000-G-22087-88, Jayne Yu v. Julie Teh, for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, (4) I.S. No. 2000-D-11826, Jayne Yu v. Mona Lisa San Juan for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and (5) I.S. No. 2000-D-11827, Jayne Yu v. Elizabeth Chan Ong, also for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.[4] In the Retainer Agreement[5] dated March 30, 2000, complainant agreed to pay respondent the amount of P200,000.00 as Acceptance Fee for the five cases, with an Appearance Fee of P1,500.00 pesos per hearing; and in the event that damages are recovered, she would pay respondent 10% thereof as success fee. But the respondents did not appear on court, but the respondent advised the complainant through letter that he is withdrawing his services. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT GUILTY IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES CODE OF PROFFESIONAL RESPONSIBILITY? HELD: In sum, this Court finds well taken the finding of the Office of the Bar Confidant that complainant failed to establish the guilt of respondent by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. The charges against him must thus be dismissed.[38] However, since respondent had been advised by complainant through counsel Chavez Laureta and Associates, by letter of July 18, 2001, that she intended to terminate his services, as of said date, he was obliged, under Rule 22.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, viz: Rule 22.02 A lawyer who withdraws or is discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien, immediately turn over all papers and property to which the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his successor in the orderly transfer of the matter, including all information necessary for the proper handling of the matter,

WHEREFORE, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED. Respondent is, however, hereby directed to RETURN all the records in his possession relative to the cases he handled for complainant.

HONORARY PRACTICE OF LAW PRINCIPLES OF RES IPSA LOQUITOR Res ipsa loquitur is a legal Latin phrase which translates to the thing speaks for itself. The doctrine indicates that there is no need to provide any further detail the facts of the case are sufficient to find liability. Generally, because the facts are so obvious, a party does not need to provide further explanation. The phrase is most often applied to civil tort claims in which liability is clearly established merely based on a review of the facts. In some jurisdictions, res ipsa loquitur is merely a rule of evidence which creates a presumption that a defendant acted negligently simply because a particular accident occurred. The presumption arises only if (1) that which caused the accident was under the defendants control, (2) the accident could only occur as a result of a careless act and (3) plaintiff did not contribute to the accident CHARACTERICTICS OF A LAWYER A. PRIVILEGE NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT -bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law who are also known to posses good moral character TAN V. SABANDAL (170 SCRA 211 2/10/89 FACTS: Respondent Nicolas El. Sabandal passed the 1978 Bar Examinations but because of pending administrative complaints filed against him regarding instances when he called himself attorney knowing full well that he was not yet admitted to the Bar, he was not allowed to take the lawyers oath. Oppositors evidence sufficiently show that respondent had held himself out as an attorney in the agrarian, civil and criminal cases and he was paid for his legal services He then filed a petition to be admitted to the Philippine Bar and to be allowed to sign the Roll of Attorneys. In a resolution promulgated on November 29, 1983 respondent petition was denied. Respondent asks for forgiveness, understanding and benevolence and promises that, if given a chance to be a member of the Phil. Bar, he would always be faithful to the lawyers oath and conduct himself in an upright manner. HELD: In our Resolution of 10 February 1989, Sabandal was allowed to take the oath, ten (10) years having elapsed from the time he took and passed the 1976 Bar examinations, after careful consideration of his show of contrition and willingness to reform. It turns out that Civil Case No. 3747 entitled "Republic of the Philippines v. Nicolas Sabandal" was instituted by the Government in 1985 and was brought about because of respondent's procurement of a certificate of free patent over a parcel of land belonging to the public domain and its use as security for a mortgage in order to obtain a loan. It should be recalled that Sabandal worked as Land Investigator at the Bureau of Lands. Said employment facilitated his procurement of the free patent title over property which he could not but have known was public land. This was manipulative on his part and does not speak well of his moral character. It is a manifestation of gross dishonesty while in the public service. His failure to reveal to this Court the pendency of the civil case for Reversion filed against him during the period that he was submitting several Motions for Reconsideration before us also reveal his lack of candor and truthfulness.There are testimonials attesting to his good moral character, yes. But those testimonials cannot, therefore,

outweigh nor smother his acts of dishonesty and lack of good moral character. The practice of law is not a matter of right. It is a privilege bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in the law but who are also known to possess good moral character. The Supreme Court and the Philippine Bar have always tried to maintain a high standard for the legal profession, both in academic preparation and legal training as well as in honesty and fair dealing. The Court and the licensed lawyers themselves are vitally interested in keeping this high standard; and one of the ways of achieving this end is to admit to the practice of this noble profession only those persons who are known to be honest and to possess good moral character. Although the term "good moral character" admits of broad dimensions, it has been defined as "including at least common honesty" (Royong v. Oblena, Adm. Case No. 376, April 30, 1963, 7 SCRA 859; In re Del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399 [1928]). It has also been held that no moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness or candor ARTIAGA JR. V. VILLANUEVA Facts: This case is about the disbarment case filed by Artiaga against Villanueva for alleged unethical practices. The case started with the controversy over 2 parcels of lands with revocable permit applications; originally the permits belong to a certain Malabayabas and Suyo, which was later on sold to the client of Artiaga. However on a later date, when the client of Villanueva filed for revocable permit application it was found out that the area being claimed has already been titled to the client of Artiaga. Hence the dispute was brought to the Bureau of Lands for decision. Initially the Director of Lands rendered a decision in favor of the client of Artiaga, however it was appealed by Villanueva and the decision was change, after another appeal the final decision was in favor of the client of Artiaga. The decision being final and executory an order of execution was issued however the client of Villanueva remained in possession of the said parcel of lands. Thereafter a series of motions and case where filed by Villanueva as a dilatory tactics to seek a favorable ruling. B. A PROFESSION NOT A BUSINESS -law advocacy is not capital that yields profits. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile pursuits which enjoy a greater deal of freedom from government interference, is impressed with public interests, for which it is subject to state regulation. MARY MALECDAN vs. PEKAS and KOLLINA.C. No. 5830. January 26, 2004 Facts: Atty Pekas and Kollin substituted Atty. Bustamante as a counsel for the Fanged Spouses. Petitioner Malecdan bought a parcel of land located in Baguio City from the Fanged spouses. The money was received by Eliza Fanged and deposited in the account of Atty. Artemio Bustamante, then counsel for the latter. The complainant later found out, however, that the said lot was the subject of a controversy between the former owners and the Fanged Spouses. Then Kollin replaced Bustamante. He filed for a petition for rescission over the contract of sale, without returning the amount of money to Malecdan. While Malecdan was in the US, the Fanged spouses, Atty Bustamante and the PCIB (bank) signed a compromised contract, and Malecdan was not made a signatory to such contract. They caused the transfer of P30K from the account of Bustamante to a separate account for Kollin and Pekas as attorneys fees. Now, Malecdan files a case for disbarment against Kollin and Pekas, because not only was she prejudiced from such withdrawal of money, but they also committed acts against the IBP in contravention/violation to the lawyers oath that they shall uphold the laws of the land. Issue: WON Kollin and Pekas should be suspended? YES Held: It is a settled principle that the compensation of a lawyer should be but a mere incident of the practice of law, the primary purpose of which is to render public service. The practice of law is profession and not a moneymaking trade. The process of imbibing ethical standards can begin with the simple act of openness and candor in dealing with clients, which would progress thereafter towards the ideal that a lawyers vocation is not

synonymous with an ordinary business proposition but a serious matter of public interest. DECISION: Pekas suspended for 6 months, Kollin for 3 years. PATERNO R. CANLAS, petitioner,vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, and FRANCISCO HERRERA,respondents. G.R. No. L-77691 August 8, 1988 SARMIENTO,J .: Facts: The private respondent own several parcels of land located in Quezon City for which he is the registered owner. He secured loans from L and R corporations and executed deeds of mortgage over the parcels of land for the security of the same. Upon the maturity of said loans, the firm initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure of the properties in question after private respondent failed to pay until maturity. The private respondent filed a complaint for injunction over the said foreclosure and for redemption of the parcels of land. Two years after the filing of the petition, private respondent and L and R corporation entered into a compromise agreement that renders the former to be insured another year for the said properties. Included in the stipulations were the attorneys fees amounting to Php 100,000.00. The private respondent however, remained to be in turmoil when it came to finances and was apparently unable to pay and secure the attorneys fees, more so the redemption liability. Relief was discussed by petitioner and private respondent executed a document to redeem the parcels of land and to register the same to his name. Allegations were made by the private respondent claiming the parcels of land to his name but without prior notice, the properties were already registered under the petitioners name. The private respondent calls for a review and for the court to act on the said adverse claim by petitioner on said certificates for the properties consolidated by the redemption price he paid for said properties. The private respondent filed a suit for the annulment of judgment in the Court of appeals which ruled over the same. Issue: whether the petitioner is on solid ground on the reacquisition over the said properties. Ruling: By Atty. Canlas' own account, "due to lack of paying capacity of respondent Herrera, no financing entity was willing to extend him any loan with which to pay the redemption price of his mortgaged properties and petitioner's P100,000.00 attorney's fees awarded in the Compromise Judgment," a development that should have tempered his demand for his fees. For obvious reasons, he placed his interests over and above those of his client, in opposition to his oath to "conduct himself as a lawyer ... with all good fidelity ... to [his] clients." The Court finds the occasion fit to stress that lawyering is not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not merchants, a fundamental standard that has, as a matter of judicial notice, eluded not a few law advocates. The petitioner's efforts partaking of a shakedown" of his own client are not becoming of a lawyer and certainly, do not speak well of his fealty to his oath to "delay no man for money." We are not, however, condoning the private respondent's own shortcomings. In condemning Atty. Canlas monetarily, we cannot overlook the fact that the private respondent has not settled his liability for payment of the properties. To hold Atty. Canlas alone liable for damages is to enrich said respondent at the expense of his lawyer. The parties must then set off their obligations against the other.

C. MAY NOT BE RESTRICTED -contemplates a succession of acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding ones self to the public PHILIPPINE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION VS. CELEDONIO AGRAVA, in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office FACTS: A petition was filed by the petitioner for prohibition and injunction against CeledonioAgrava, in his capacity as Director of the Philippines Patent Office. On May 27, 1957, respondent Director issued a circular announcing that he had scheduled for June 27, 1957 an examination for t h e p u r p o s e o f d e t e r m i n i n g w h o a r e q u a l i f i e d t o p r a c t i c e a s p a t e n t a t t o r n e y s b e f o r e t h e Philippines Patent Office. The petitioner contends that one who has passed the bar examinations and is licensed by the Supreme Court to practice law in the Philippines and who is in good standing, is duly qualified to practice before the Philippines Patent Office and that the respondent Directors holding an examination for the purpose is in excess of his jurisdiction and is in violation of the law. The respondent, in reply, maintains the prosecution of patent cases does not involve entirely or purely the practice of law but includes the application of scientific and technical knowledge and training as a matter of actual practice so as to include engineers and other individuals who passed the examination can practice before the Patent office. Furthermore, he stressed that for the long time he is holding tests, this is the first time that his right has been questioned formally. ISSUE: Whether or not the appearance before the patent Office and the preparation and the prosecution of patent application, etc., constitutes or is included in the practice of law. HELD: The Supreme Court held that the practice of law includes such appearance before theP a t e n t O f f i c e , t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a p p l i c a n t s , o p p o s i t o r s , a n d o t h e r p e r s o n s , a n d t h e prosecution of their applications for patent, their opposition thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. Moreover, the practice before the patent Office involves the interpretation a n d a p p l i c a t i o n o f o t h e r l a w s a n d l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s , a s w e l l a s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f f a c t s t o b e established in accordance with the law of evidence and procedure. The practice of la w is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court but also embraces all other matters connected with the law and any work involving the determination by the legal mind of the legal effects of facts and conditions. Furthermore, the law provides that any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from any final order or decision of the director. Thus, if the transactions of business in the Patent Office involved exclusively or mostly technical and scientific knowledge and training, then logically, the appeal should be taken not to a court or judicial body, but rather to a board of scientists, engineers or technical men, which is not the case. D. RESERVED FOR LAWYERS -reserved only to those who are academically trained in law and possess a good moral character not only at the time of his admission to the bar but even more so. Ulep vs Legal Clinic June 17, 1993 Facts: Petitioner prays that respondent cease and desist from issuing ads similar to annexes A and B and to prohibit them from making ads pertaining to theexercise of the law professions other than those allowed by lawAnnex A

SECRET MARRIAGE? P560 for a valid marriage Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE. ANNULMENT. VISA. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC.Pls call: 5210767, 5217232, 52220418:30am-6pm7F Victoria Bldg, UN Ave, MlaAnnex B GUAM DIVORCEDON PARKINSON An Atty in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce thru the Leg Clinic beg Mon-Fri during office hours Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration Probs, Visaext. Quota/Non-quota Res and Special Retirees Visa. Declaration of Absence. Remarriage to Filipina Fiances. Adoption. Investment in the Phil. US/Foreign Visa for FilipinaSp/Shil. Call Marivic THE LEGAL CLINIC, etc Petitioners Claim:Ads are unethical and demeaning of the law profession and destructive of the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of the bar.-As a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and offended by the ads Respondents Comment:-They are not engaged in the practice of law but in the rendering of leg support services thru paralegals with the use of modern computers and electronic machines- Even if they are leg services, the act of advertising them should be allowed under Bates v. State bar of Arizona Issues: 1. WON the services offered by The Legal Clinic constitutes practice of law? 2. WON their services can be advertised? Held: 1. Yes. The Practice of law involves any activity, in or out of the court, which requires the application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and expertise- To engage in the practice is to perform those acts which are characteristic of the profession; to give advice or render any kind of service that involves legal knowledge/skill- Not limited to the conduct of cases in court; includes legal advice and counsel and preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured regardless of WON theyre pending in court3 types of legal profession activity:1. Legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations2. Preparation for clients of documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary layman3. Appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power and authority to determine rights of life, liberty and property according to law, in order to assist in proper inter and enforcement of law Respondents description of its services shows it falls within the practice of law: Giving info by paralegals to laymen and lawyers thru the use of comps and modern info tech- computerized legal research, document search, evidence gathering, locating parties/witnesses to a case, fact finding investigations, assistance to laymen in need of services from agencies like birth, marriage, prop, bus registrations, etc.*even if some of the services offered merely involve mechanical and technical knowhow like installing computer system for law offices, this doesnt make it an exception to the general rule- gives out leg info to laymen and lawyers not nonadvisory and non-diagnostic ex. foreign laws on marriage, divorce and adoption have to explain to client the intricacies of the law and advise him on the proper course of action- what its ads represent and what it will be paid for- It doesnt matter that they dont represent clients in court since practice of law isnt limited to ct appearances but also leg research, leg advice and drafting contracts Phil Star Art Rx for Leg Probs, int by proprietor Atty Nogales:- Takes care of probs as complicated as the Cuneta-Concepcion domestic sit- lawyers, who like drs, are specialists in various fields and can take care of it (taxation, crim law, medico-leg probs, labor, litigation, fam law)- backed up by paralegals, counselors and attys- caters to clients who cant afford big firms- can prepare a simple deed of sale or affidavit of loss and also those w/ more extensive treatment-The fact that they employ paralegals to carry out its services doesnt matter; whats important is that its engaged in the practice of law cause of the nature of the services it renders, which brings it within the statutory prohibitions against ads only a person duly admitted as a member of the bar and whos in good and regular standing is entitled to the

practice of law- public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and character to protect the public, court, client and bar from incompetence/dishonesty of those unlicensed to the practice and not subject to the discipline of court 2. No. The Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer, in making known his legal services, shall use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective info/statement of facts- not supposed to use any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, selflaudatory or unfair statement re his qualifications/legal services- not supposed to pay representatives of the mass media in return for publicity to attract legal business Canons of professional Ethics (before CPR) provides that lawyers shouldnt resort to indirect ads for professional employment like furnishing newspaper comments, publishing his pictures with causes the lawyers been engaged in, importance of his position and other self-laudation Stands of legal profession condemn lawyers advertisement of his talents like a merchant does of his goods because of the fact that law is a profession. The canons of profession tell us that the best advertising possible for a lawyer is a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust which must be earned as the outcome of character and conduct Good and efficient service to a client and the community has a way of publicizing itself and catching public attention; this shouldnt be done thru propaganda EXCEPTIONS: 1. expressly allowed publication in reputable law lists of informative data thats not misleading and may include only: name, professional assoc, adds, nos, branches of law practiced, date and place of birth and admission to the bar, schools attended w/ dates of grad, degrees , public offices, posts of honor, legal authorships, legal teaching positions, membership and offices in bar association, legal and scientific societies and legal fraternities, listings in other reputable law lists, names and adds of references with written consent and clients regularly represented- cant be mere supplemental feature of paper, magazine, trade journal or periodical thats published for other purposes- never in a law list that are calculated or likely to deceive/injure the public/the bar or lower the dignity/standing of the profession- ordinary simple professional card allowed name, law firm, add, no and special branch of law practicedpublication of simple announcement of the opening of a law firm or change in partnership, assoc, firm name or office add, for the convenience of the profession- have name listed in phone directory but not under designation of special branch of law2. Necessarily implied from the restrictions Bates v. State Bar of Arizona: allowed lawyer to publish a statement of leg fees for an initial consultation or give, upon request, a written schedule of fees or estimate for spec services as an exception to the prohibition against advertisements by lawyers

People of the Philippines vs. Atty. Fe T. Tuanda(A.M. No. 3360 January 30, 1990) Facts: On 17 December 1983, respondent received from one Herminia A. Marquez several pieces of jewelry, with a total stated value of P36,000.00, for sale on a commission basis, with the condition that the respondent would turn over the sales proceeds and return the unsold items to Ms. Marquez on or before 14February 1984. Sometime in February 1984, respondent, instead of returning the unsold pieces of jewelry which then amounted to approximately P26, 250.00, issued three checks: (a) a check dated 16 February 1984 for the amount of P5, 400.00; (b) a check dated 23 February 1984 also for the amount of P5, 400.00; and (c) a check dated 25 February 1984 for the amount of P15, 450.00. Upon presentment for payment within ninety (90) days after their issuance, all three (3) checks were dishonored by the drawee bank, Traders Royal Bank, for insufficiency of funds. Notwithstanding receipt of the notice of dishonor,

respondent made no arrangements with the bank concerning the honoring of checks which had bounced and made no effort to settle her obligations to Ms. Marquez. The RTC convicted her in violation of B.P. 22, in which the Court considered it as a crime involving moral turpitude as this mischief creates not only a wrong to the payee or holder, but also an injury to the public Respondent was suspended by the Court of Appeals. She went to the Supreme Court asking for the lifting of the Order of suspension arguing that the issuance of bouncing checks does not relate to the exercise of her legal profession. Issue: WON the suspension of Atty. Fe Tuanda be lifted. Held: The Court Resolved to DENY the Motion to Lift Order of Suspension. Respondent shall remain suspended from the practice of law. We should add that the crime of which respondent was convicted also import deceit and violation of her attorneys oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility under both of which she was bound to obey the laws of the land. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude might not (as in the instant case, violation of B.P. Blg. 22does not) relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer; however it certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such offense. In Melendrez v. Decena, this Court stressed that: the nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that she shall be a person of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to an admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law. SUSPENSION AFFIRMED MELENDRES v DECENA Facts:(1stcause of action) Aug. 5, 1975: Complainants (spouses Erlinda Dalman & Narciso Melendrez) obtained from Atty. Reynerio Decena (Decena) a loan of P4K. This loan was secured by a real estate mortgage. It was made to appear in the REM that the amount borrowed was P5K. Decena assured the spouses that the REMwas a mere formality, and due to this assurance the spouses signed the REM. Despite the assurance, Decena collected from the spouses P500/month as usurious interest. The spouses paidsuch usurious interest for 3 months. Because of their failure to pay the amounts, Decena drafted a new REM New contract of mortgage in the amount of P10K with interest at 19%/annum A special power of attorney authorizing Decena to sell the mortgaged property in public auction Spouses never knew the implications of the new REM. They failed to pay their obligation and so Decena acquired their property in public auction and later sold it to Trinidad Ylanan for P12K Spouses then went to Decena with P10K in the hopes of getting their property back. Decena then informs them that their debt has soared to P20.4K. With shattered hopes and grief in their hearts (andrama!), the spouses filed this case for disbarment. (2ndcause of action)

Spouses filed a case for estafa against Reynaldo Pineda for recovery of P2K Decena entered into a compromise agreement with Pineda. Pineda then paid P500 to Decena. This settlement was never brought to the attention of the spouses nor were they ever consulted about such. Issue: W/N Decenas acts show gross misconduct and should therefore be disbarred Held: Yes, Decena shall be disbarred T h e a c t s o f D e c e n a a s t o t h e 1 s t cause of action constitute deception, dishonesty and conduct unbecoming a member of the bar. A s t o t h e 2 nd cause of action, Decena clearly failed to get the consent of the spouses before entering into a compromise. Decena also failed to inform the spouses or turn over to them the P500 given to him by Pineda as down payment for the settlement of the case. Decenas failure to turn over to the spouses the money underscores his lack of honesty and candor in dealing with his clients