18. NWSA VS NWSA CONSOLIDATED UNION, CIR AND ATANACIO PACIS FACTS: 1.

This is a cluster of cases involving NWSA and NWSA Consolidated Unions before the CIR (Court of Industrial Relations) over disputes dealing with collective bargaining agreement, backwages, and attorneys fees of the lawyers who assisted the NWSA employees and workers through their consolidated unions. In these cases, the consolidated unions won and everyone, included their lawyers: ATTY. CIPRIANO CID, ISRAEL BOCOBO, ATTY. ATANACIO PACIS. On July 16, 1966, the decision was handed down: P800K less the attorneys fees. (this decision wittingly or unwittingly left out the share of Atty. Pacis) History: a. As early as Nov. 27, 1964, the fee of Atty. Atanacio Paxis was established when the CIR Order became final in the absence of an appeal or a motion of reconsideration. It enumerated: Atty. Cid 6% Atty.Pacis 6% Atty. Bocobo 6% NWSA Consolidated Union 5% ---23% It was ordered that these amounts be segregated by NWSA from the awards granted and it be delivered to the persons-the lawyers. b. Atty. Pacis received the first partial payment in 1965. c. Subsequently,on July 18, 1968, the CIR directed NWSA to pay the sum of P18k to Atty. Pacis reporesenting his 6% attorneys fees in the 2nd partial payment of P300K but this was opposed by the Consolidated Unions and the latter appealed to the SC but was denied. d. Seeking the implementation of said SC decision, Atty Pacis filed before the CIR the urgent motion for execution saying that the other lawyers had already been paid while he has yet to receive his P48K from NWSA. 2. Thus was implemented through the CIR July 15, 1970 decision which ordered the Clerk of Court to issue the writ of execution against NWSA for the sum of P48K (for Atty. Pacis) and when NWSA filed a motion for reconsideration, the CIR, in its Aug 11,1970 decision denied. 3. NWSA filed a petition for certiorari for review on the order of the CIR. 4. The issue brought before the SC dealt with the propriety of payment of the attorneys fees of Atty. Pacis amounting to P48K representing 6% of the gross sum of P800K which was the amount awarded to NWSA. The thing is that NWSA contended it already paid the full 800k to the workers, in 2 staggered payments: P300K as first payment and the next P500K less the attorneys fees as decided SUPREME COURT HELD: 1. The July 15, 1970 order is patently defective for its insistence on making NWSA pat Atty. Pacis attorneys fees when it had already paid the aggregate sum of P800K in accordance with the July 16, 1966 order. To compel NWSA to pay Atty. Pacis the amount of P48K would exceed the actual sum award of P800K due to its workers and employees which included the shares of the attorneys fees. 2. There being no shoring of bad faith and gross negligence on its part, NWSA cannot be faulted for its failure to sefregate the 6% attorneys fees of Atty. Pacis and pay him directly. Atty. Pacis should have called NWSAs attention or moved for the stoppage of said payments. The proper remedy is for him to claim directly from his client, judicially or extra judicially. He failed to assert his rights. He cannot now insist on the payment of his fees without establishing a lawyer-client relationship between him and NWSA (it was not NWSA he was counsel but to the consolidated union).

20. BAUTISTA VS. BARRIOS FACTS: 1. Rufina Bautista engaged the services of Atty. Benjamin Barrios to draft an extra-judicial partition between her and her brothers and sisters on one side and Federico Rovero, their inlaw, on the other. The deed distributed the conjugal properties of Rovero and his deceased wife, their sister, Maria. Atty Barrios prepared the deed and it was signed. 2. A month later, Rovero refused to comply with the terms and so Rufina sued him to deliver the properties awarded to her in the said extra-judicial partition. She asked Barrios to represent her but he refused and so she hired Atty. Artemio Arrieta. 3. Thereafter, Atty. Barrios appeared for Rovero and opposed the demand of Rufina. 4. Referred to the Sol Gen. 5. Atty. Barrios defense: a. That it was not Rufina who had solicited his services to make the deed but that it was Rovero. b. That he was employed by both Rovero and the Bautista brothers to draft the partition 6. Sol-Gens findings and agreed by Supreme Court. 7. On 1st defense: He had admitted in his answer to the complaint that he prepared the deed upon the joint request of Rovero, Rufina and Francisco Bautista. Then he also admitted that Rufina went to see him to file the complaint against Rovero for not complying with the terms and that she would want him to be the lawyer but he refused. He did not tell her at that time that he had been engaged by Rovero as he merely told her that she had no case and he was reluctant to take up a lost cause. 8. On 2nd defense: How could he have been hired by both sides. It is doubtful whether he could appear for one as against the other. If he had to appear, it should be for the one who seeks to enforce the partition since he drafted it, not to the one who would avoid complying it. And in defense of Rovero, he mentioned that the terms of the agreement is subject to certain modifications which were known to Rufina at the time of the execution of the partition. 9. Suspended for a period of 2 years from the time this becomes final.

21. ORCINO VS. GASPAR FACTS: 1. Angelita Orcino engaged the services of Atty. Josue Gaspar to prosecute a criminal case she intended to file against several suspects in the slaying of her husband. As his fees, they agreed, in a contract executed, on the legal fees as P20K 10K to be paid upon the signing of the contract and the balance to be paid on or before the conclusion of the case. P500.00 per appearance fee before the court and fiscal. 2. Orcino was able to pay the legal fees in full in just 3 months. 3. Gaspar entered into his duties: a. Interviewed witnesses and gathered evidences b. Drew up the necessary sworn statements c. Attended the preliminary investigations. d. Then filed the criminal case with RTC in Nueva Ecija. e. As private prosecutor, he religiously attended the bail hearings although these hearings were postponed on motion of the accuseds counsel. f. He hailed to attend the August 1991 hearing and it was at this hearing that the court granted bail to all the accused. 4. After the August 1991 hearing, Orcino went to his residence and confronted him with his absence. He explained that he did not receive formal notice of the hearing but Orcino became belligerent and started accusing him of jeopardizing the case by his absence. She asked for the records of the case so she could refer them to another lawyer. He was shocked with her words and he gave her the records. 5. Orcino never returned the records nor dis she see him again. 1 month after, Atty. Gaspar filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, but it did not bear the consent of the complainant. The court issued an order directing him to secure the consent of the complainant otherwise, without such consent, his appearance as private prosecutor shall continue. Orcino refused to sign. 6. Meanwhile, the hearings continued but Atty. Gaspar did not appear at the hearings nor did he contacted Orcino. So she was thus compelled to engage the services of another lawyer. And she filed the complaint for abandoning his duties and failing to return the legal fees she fully paid for his services. 7. The complaint was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP for report and recommendation. SUPREME COURT HELD: 1. Unlike the right of the client who has the absolute right to terminate the atty-client relation at anytime with or without cause, the right of an atty to withdraw or terminate relation other than for sufficient cause is restricted. He has secure the clients written consent (Sec. 26 or Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court) or he can withdraw from a good cause (Canon 22, Rule 22.01). 2. In this case, Orcino didnt give her written consent. Tho he informed the court that she had become hostile to him and refused to sign it, he did not file an application with the court for it to determine whether or not he should be allowed to withdraw. Even granting that his application was for a withdrawal with the court, still this reason is insufficient to justify his withdrawal. His reason was made on the ground that there no longer exist confidence between them and there had been serious differences between them relating to the manner of private prosecution and this reason does not fall under any of the grounds mentioned in rule 22.01. As found by the Commission, this case arose from a simple misunderstanding as Orcino was upset by his absence during the bail hearing and it was a spontaneous reaction, her words uttered in a burst of passion. Even at that moment, she did not expressly terminate his services as she made it clear when she refused to sign his motion to withdraw. 3. Assuming that he was justified in terminating his services, he cannot just do so and leave her in the cold unprotected. The lawyer has no right to presume that his petition for withdrawal will be granted by the court. The rule is that until such withdrawal is approved, he remains counsel

of record who is expected by his client as well as by the court to do what the interests of his client require. He must still appear on the date of the hearings for the atty-client relation does not terminate until there is a withdrawal of record. 4. Under the contract, he was bound to bring the criminal action to its end. He was paid in full. He must return to the complainant half of the amount paid to him and because of this peculiar circumstance, the court has deemed it impossible for them to continue their relation under the contract. 5. Lawyer is admonished to exercise more prudence and judiciousness in dealing with his clients and to return the P10k with warning that the failure on his part to return this will result in the imposition of a stiffer disciplinary action.

22. CORTEZ VS CA FACTS: 1. CFI Judge E. Soriano found that, due to the drivers negligence, a truck owned by Kuy Guam Kay Ltd, hit and killed Severino Cortez in Sta. Cruz, Manila. The Court rendered a decision ordering Kuy Guam Kay Ltd and Macario Supan (the driver) to pay solidarily the sum of P4K as damages to the heirs of Cortez. 2. Kuy Guam Kay Ltd and Supan appealed to CA and during the pendency of that appeal, CFI Judge Luis Reyes (in another Manila court, handling the criminal case) acquitted Supan of homicide through reckless imprudence. Because of this acquittal, they filed a petition in CA to re-open the civil case (the one in item no. 1) so that the judgment of acquittal could be presented in evidence. Denied. 3. The CA rendered its decision re no. 1 with the modification that the amount of damages be increased to P12K. a copy of said decision was served on Atty. Yuseco, the counsel on record of the Kuy Guam. However, he returned that copy and informed the Court by letter that he had ceased to be the lawyer for them. The CA noted his letter and made an observation that Yuseco had not filed any formal motion for the withdrawal of his appearance in that case. The CA sent copies of the decision by registered mail but the copies were not delivered because they were unclaimed. 4. Thereafter, the CA decision became final and executor and remanded to lower court/. The lawyers were given notice to that effect. A writ of execution was ordered by the lower court, the sheriff levied upon 5 freight trucks and an adding machine. But he allowed the manager of Kuy Guam to have custody of the trucks so they can be used in the firm business. Eventually, 2 trucks and the adding machine were turned over the Cortez, the other 3 were sequestered away by the manager. 5. The firm, through a new lawyer, filed in the CA, a motion for recon and suspension of the execution alleging that there was no valid service to the decision and it was contrary to an earlier ruling in Corpuz vs. Paje (the acquittal of the accused of the crime of homicide through reckless imprudence is a bar to the civil liability) and that the increase of damages from 4k to 12k was not needed since the Cortezes did not appeal. 6. The CA set aside its judgment and ordered the lower court to elevate the record to CA. it then issued a reso setting aside its decision based on the ruling in Corpuz vs. Paje. The Cortezes filed the petition for certiorari. The SC issued a writ of preliminary injunction and the Cortezes retained the possession of the adding machine and 2 trucks. SUPREME COURT HELD: 1. The CA has no jurisdiction to set aside its decision which had become final and was in the process of being executed in the lower court. 2. It had become final as to Kuy Guam Kay because its lawyer of record, Atty. Yuseco, was duly served a copy of that decision. Although he returned the copy with the note that he was no longer the counsel, but that return did not nullify the effectiveness of the service upon him because he did not retire from the case with his clients consent or with the Courts authorization. Rule: when a party is represented by an attorney, service of orders and notices must be made upon lawyer and notice to a client is not a notice in law. In order that they may be substitution of attorneys, there must be: a. Written application for substitution b. Written consent of the client c. Written consent of the attorney to be substituted d. And in case the consent of the attorney to be substituted cannot be obtained, there must be proof that notice of the motion for substitution has been served upon him. Otherwise, the attorney who appears to be on record should be regarded as the attorney entitled to be served with all notices and the client is answerable for the shortcomings of this counsel of record. The CA and lower court continued to serve copies of the orders and resos upon him and he didnt object.

MY PERSONAL NOTES: CANON 19: A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of law. - The lawyer owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, to the end that nothing be taken or be withheld from him, save the rules of law, legally applied. In the judicial forum the client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law, and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. The duty of a lawyer, both to his client and to the legal system, is to represent his client zealously within the bounds of the law, which includes Disciplinary Rules and enforceable professional regulations. The professional responsibility of a lawyer derives from his membership in a profession which has the duty of assisting members of the public to secure and protect available legal rights and benefits. In our government of laws and not of men, each member of our society is entitled to have his conduct judged and regulated in accordance with the law;to seek any lawful objective6 through legally permissible means;7 and to present for adjudication any lawful claim, issue, or defense. As typical examples in civil cases, it is for the client to decide whether he will accept a settlement offer or whether he will waive his right to plead an affirmative defense. A defense lawyer in a criminal case has the duty to advise his client fully on whether a particular plea to a charge appears to be desirable and as to the prospects of success on appeal, but it is for the client to decide what plea should be entered and whether an appeal should be taken Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer to represent his client with zeal. However, the same Canon provides that a lawyers performance of his duties towards his client must be within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01 of the same Canon requires, among others, that a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client. It is almost the same as Canon 15, Rule 15.07 also obliges lawyers to impress upon their clients compliance with the laws and the principle of fairness. To permit lawyers to resort to unscrupulous practices for the protection of the supposed rights of their clients is to defeat one of the purposes of the state the administration of justice. While lawyers owe their entire devotion to the interest of their clients and zeal in the defense of their clients right, they should not forget that they are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon taking their professional oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law. Verily, when they appear before a tribunal, they act not merely as representatives of a party but, first and foremost, as officers of the court. Thus, their duty to protect their clients interests is secondary to their obligation to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. While they are obliged to present every available legal remedy or defense, their fidelity to their clients must always be made within the parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth, the law, and the fair administration of justice. Example case: 1. When a lawyer assists or leads his clients to take over the control and management of a bank through force and without a valid court order. Although he was in the side of the new controlling group, but since there was not yet any court ruling on that new management. 2. When a lawyer assists his client to file criminal complaint right away. Fair play demands that the lawyer should have filed the proper motion with the court to attain his goal (like having the residue of the estate delivered to his clients) and not subject the adverse party to a premature criminal prosecution.

19.01 TO BE FAIR AND HONEST. A lawyer must not participate in presenting criminal charges to obtain an advantage in any case proceeding. Why? Because he must use means which are consistent with truth, must not mislead the judge and not issue falsehood. - The professional judgment of a lawyer should be exercised, within the bounds of the law, solely for the benefit of his client and free of compromising influences and loyalties. Neither his personal interests, the interests of other clients, nor the desires of third persons should be permitted to dilute his loyalty to his client. - A lawyer should not permit his personal interests to influence his advice relative to a suggestion by his client that additional counsel be employed. In like manner, his personal interests should not deter him from suggesting that additional counsel be employed; on the contrary, he should be alert to the desirability of recommending additional counsel when, in his judgment, the proper representation of his client requires it. However, a lawyer should advise his client not to employ additional counsel suggested by the client if the lawyer believes that such employment would be a disservice to the client, and he should disclose the reasons for his belief. Surigao Mineral Resevation Board vs. Cloribel, 31 SCRA 1 (1970) A lawyer should use his best efforts to restrain and to prevent his client from those things which he himself ought not to do, particularly with reference to the conduct toward the court, judicial officer, witness and suitor; and IF the client persists in such wrongdoing, the lawyer should terminate their relation. Lacsamana vs. dela Pea, 58 SCRA 22 A lawyer shall employ such means only as are consistent with truth and honor. Thus, not offer evidence any document which he knows is false nor present any witness whomhe knows will perjure. He should make such defense only as he believes to honestly true. 19.02 TO RECTIFY A CLIENTS FRAUD This requires the lawyer to terminate his relations with the client in the event that the client fails or refuses to rectify the fraud. A lawyer should exert his best efforts to insure that decisions of his client are made only after the client has been informed of relevant considerations. A lawyer ought to initiate this decisionmaking process if the client does not do so. Advice of a lawyer to his client need not be confined to purely legal considerations. A lawyer should advise his client of the possible effect of each legal alternative. A lawyer should bring to bear upon this decision-making process the fullness of his experience as well as his objective viewpoint. In assisting his client to reach a proper decision, it is often desirable for a lawyer to point out those factors which may lead to a decision that is morally just as well as legally permissible. He may emphasize the possibility of harsh consequences that might result from assertion of legally permissible positions. In the final analysis, however, the lawyer should always remember that the decision whether to forego legally available objectives or methods because of non-legal factors is ultimately for the client and not for himself. In the event that the client insists upon a course of conduct that is contrary to the judgment and advice of the lawyer, the lawyer may withdraw from the employment. But he must not volunteer the information concerning his clients commission of fraud as it will violate his obligation to maintain his clients secrets undisclosed.

19.03 THE LAWYER MUST CONTROL THE PROCEEDINGS On substantial matters concerning the litigation (like whether to compromise the case or to appeal), the lawyer should get the instruction from his client.

On procedural matters, the client must yield to the lawyer because the lawyer is the one learned with the procedures. That is why if a lawyer makes a mistake by reason of procedural negligence, it binds the client. The client cannot be heard that the result might have been different had his lawyer proceeded differently. Exceptions:

CANON 20 A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES. 1. To have and recover from client no more than a reasonable compensation for his services. Clients obligation to pay arises from the inanimate contract of facis ut des (I do and you give) which is based on the principle that no one should unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another. Afterall, it is the lawyer who does all the thinking and leg works, and if he is serving his client well, he deserves the fees. The client cannot, in the absence of a lawyers fault, deprive the lawyer of his just fees already earned. 2. Some misconduct of a lawyer that may affect his right to recover from his client for services already performed: a. Negligence b. Carelessness c. Misrepresentation d. Unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence. Basis of these misconduct: it is against good morals and public policy. 3. The court shall not be bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses as to the proper compensation and must base its conclusion on its own professional knowledge. 4. A written contract for services shall control the amount to be paid unless found by the court to be unconscionable or unreasonable. it may not be necessary to establish a clients obligation to pay as long as the lawyer is in good faith in serving and representing the interest of his client. Generally speaking, the amount of attorneys fees due is that stipulated in the written retainer agreement which is conclusive as to the amount of the lawyers compensation. Once the lawyer has performed the task assigned to him in a valid agreement, his compensation shall be determined on the basis of what he and his client has agreed and not on quantum meruit, unless both the atty and the client expressly or impliedly set aside the contract and submits the question of reasonableness of the amount for the court to resolve on the basis of quantum merit. 5. The practice of law is not a money-making trade but he has the right to have and recover. 6. Lawyers must avoid controversies concerning compensation. Can resort to law suits against client only to prevent injustice, imposition or fraud. 7. Right to compensation requires the following: a. That the atty-client relationship exists. b. That he rendered services to the client. 8. Quantum Meruit when no price is stipulated for fees, courts will fix amount on this basis, such amount which his service merits. Requisite:There is an acceptance of the benefits by one sought to be charged for the services. 20.01 FEE GUIDE - The determination of the reasonableness of a fee requires consideration of all relevant

circumstances. The fees of a lawyer will vary according to many factors, including the time required, his experience, ability, and reputation, the nature of the employment, the responsibility involved, and the results obtained. It is a commendable and long-standing tradition of the bar that special consideration is given in the fixing of any fee for services rendered a brother lawyer or a member of his immediate family.

As soon as feasible after a lawyer has been employed, it is desirable that he reach a clear agreement with his client as to the basis of the fee charges to be made. Such a course will not only prevent later misunderstanding but will also work for good relations between the lawyer and the client. It is usually beneficial to reduce to writing the understanding of the parties regarding the fee, particularly when it is contingent. A lawyer should be mindful that many persons who desire to employ him may have had little or no experience with fee charges of lawyers, and for this reason he should explain fully to such persons the reasons for the particular fee arrangement he proposes. As soon as feasible after a lawyer has been employed, it is desirable that he reach a clear agreement with his client as to the basis of the fee charges to be made. Such a course will not only prevent later misunderstanding but will also work for good relations between the lawyer and the client. It is usually beneficial to reduce to writing the understanding of the parties regarding the fee, particularly when it is contingent. A lawyer should be mindful that many persons who desire to employ him may have had little or no experience with fee charges of lawyers, and for this reason he should explain fully to such persons the reasons for the particular fee arrangement he proposes. The determination of a proper fee requires consideration of the interests of both client and lawyer. A lawyer should not charge more than a reasonable fee,for excessive cost of legal service would deter laymen from utilizing the legal system in protection of their rights. Furthermore, an excessive charge abuses the professional relationship between lawyer and client. On the other hand, adequate compensation is necessary in order to enable the lawyer to serve his client effectively and to preserve the integrity and independence of the profession.

The statutory rule that an attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a reasonable compensation

Factors in determining his fees: 1. The time spent and the extent of the services he rendered.. - Refers to the nature, quantity and quality of such services. A hotly litigated action requires more work and calls for higher compensation than a a non-contested or simple money claim. - Work shall be valued as a whole. - The longer the period of the employment, the more work it entails and the lesser the opportunity the lawyer has for other profitable retainers. - The time devoted for study and research, like in preparation of a pleading, memoranda etc. - Even if he is helped by an assistant because he is also paying for his assistant. 2. The novelty and difficulty of the question involved. - In terms of preparation, study and research, a novel or difficult issue requires greater efforts on the lawyers part. That is why distinguished lawyers are employed by clients involving difficult issues. - Like a case for involving a probate of a will in an intestate proceedings. It went on for 20 years and the lawyer was able to secure the probate of a will and thus prevented problems to arise later. 3. The importance of the subject matter. 4. The skill demanded. - The skill, experience and standing or a lawyer bears a direct proportion to the amount of fees to which he may be entitled for his services. This is esp true if the lawyer has acquired a reputation for professional capacity and fidelity for his devotion to duty. - Although this must not be taken absolutely for there are many good lawyers who earn small income while some lawyers of inferior ability may prosper financially. - Like when Imelda Marcos hired Gerry Spence in line with her US case, Spence is a known lawyer and has never lost a case.

5. The probability of losing other employment as a result of the acceptance of the professed case. - He loses the opportunity for other employment by: a. by accepting a retainer job, he will precluded to appear in other cases which are likely to arise out of the transaction in view of the prohibition against representation of adverse interest. b. the works may require tedious details and considerable time that may deprive him of other cases. 6. The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP to which he belongs. 7. The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting t the client from the service. 8. The contingent or certainty of the compensation. 9. The character of the employment, whether occasional or established. 10. the professional standing of the lawyer 20.02 CLIENTS CONSENT OF FEES FOR REFERRAL - It is improper for a lawyer to receive compensation for mere recommending another lawyer to his client for if such practice is permitted, it would tend to germinate the evils of commercialism and to destroy the proper appreciation of professional responsibility. - Unless he, in addition to the referral, performs legal services or assumes responsibility in the case. 20.03 CLIENTS CONSENT OF ACCEPTANCE - This rule is designed to secure the lawyers wholehearted fidelity to the clients cause and to prevent that situation in which the receipt by him of a commission from another person in connection with the clients cause may interfere with the full discharge of his duty to the client. There should be no room for suspicion that he is receiving a fee, reward, commission or compensation from 3 rd parties with hostile interest. - Whatever he receives from the opposite party in the service of his client belongs to the client. And he must not receive damages awarded by the court in favour his client unless there is an agreement that the attorneys fees would form part of the lawyers compensation. 20.04 AVOID COMPENSATION CONTROVERSIES WITH CLIENT - A lawyer must avoid suits to collect fees. The only exception is there is the need to resort to that to enforce payment of his fees so he may take judicial action to protect his right. - Not to be magsasamantala. Like you have been paid and still want more. - Even between close friends, there is the obligation to pay based on the law of contracts concept of I do and you give. Circumstances when an attorneys fees might be awarded: 1. When there is an agreement. But the court may reduce what has been fixed in the contract if it appears to be unconscionable and unreasonable. Reason: to forbid any agreement regarding attorneys fees as a source of speculative profit at the expense of the defeated party. 2. When exemplary damages are awarded. Exemplary damages are awarded by way of example for the public good. 3. When defendants action or omission compelled plaintiff to litigate. To justify this award, the act or omission of the other party must be in gross bad faith. (Like the PANAM cases) 4. In criminal cases of malicious prosecution. But he must not only show that he was acquitted of the criminal action but that the person who charged him has made a false statement to induce the prosecutor to prosecute against him and that the criminal action was aimed at humiliating or dishonouring him. 5. When the action is clearly unfounded that it is evidently done in bad faith. 6. In action for support, the person obliged to give support must also give to pay the attorney.

7. In cases of recovery of wages of household helpers, labourers and skilled workers in cases filed by them. 8. In actions for indemnity under workmens compensation and employee liability laws. 9. When the court deems it just and equitable as there is factual, legal or equitable justification that appears on record. 10. When a special law so authorizes it. CANON 21 - A lawyer must not, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him and this extends to his staff or secretary.These infos are sacred and affords the essential security in the relation of the atty and client. - A confidential communication are informations transmitted by voluntary act of disclosure bet the lawyer and the client, all done in confidence and to which the client is aware that no one else knows. - Secrets are those informations gained that the client has requested to be held inviolable and if disclosed, would be embarrassing or would likely be detrimental to his client because these informations might not be exactly pertinent to the case. 21.01 REVELATIONS OF CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS ALLOWED in the following instances: 1. when authorized by the client after acquainting him

LAWYERS OATH I, _______________________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution a nd obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not willingly nor willfully promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit; or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well as tothe court as to my clients; and I impose or purpose of evasion. So help me God.