IN RE: TAGORDA

Facts
In 1928, Luis Tagorda was a provincial board member of Isabela. Before his election, he campaigned that
he is a lawyer and a notary public; that as a notary public he can do notarial acts such as execution of
deeds of sale, etc; that as a lawyer, he can help clients collect debts; that he offers free consultation; that
he is willing to serve the poor. When he won, he wrote a letter to the barrio lieutenant of Echague, Isabela
advising the latter that even though he was elected as a provincial board member, he can still practice
law; that he wants the lieutenant to tell the same to his people; the he is willing to receive works regarding
preparations of sale, contracts, and affidavits; that he is willing to receive land registration cases for a
charge of three pesos.
Applicable laws
Section 21, Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Act No. 2828 -- "The practice of soliciting cases at
law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice."1
Canon 27 ADVERTISING, DIRECT OR INDIRECT -- The most worthy and effective advertisement
possible, even for a young lawyer, and especially with his brother lawyers, is the establishment of a
well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust. xx solicitation of business by
circulars or advertisements, or by personal communications or interview not warranted by personal
relations, is unprofessional. It is equally unprofessional to procure business by indirection through touters
of any kind
Canon 28 STIRRING UP LITIGATION, DIRECTLY OR THROUGH AGENTS -- It is unprofessional for a
lawyer to volunteer advice to bring a lawsuit, except in rare cases where ties of blood, relationship or trust
make it his duty to do so. Stirring up strife and litigation is not only unprofessional, but it is indictable at
common law.2
Issue
WON Tagorda commited misconduct.
Held
Luis Tagorda is guilty of misconduct.

1 Canons of Professional Ethics

2 Code of Ethics

ULEP VS LEGAL CLINIC, INC.

Facts
In 1984, The Legal Clinic was formed by Atty. Rogelio Nogales. Its aim, according to Nogales, was to
move toward specialization and to cater to clients who cannot afford the services of big law firms.
Atty. Ulep files a complaint against The Legal Clinic because of its advertisements which states
undignified phrases like-- Secret Marriage? P560.00 for a valid marriage. Information on DIVORCE,
ANNULMENT, ABSENCE, VISA. The Legal Clinic, Inc. Please call: 5210767, 5217232, 5222041 8:30am
to 6:00pm 7th Floor Victoria Bldg. UN Avenue, Manila.
It is also alleged that The Legal Clinic published an article entitled Rx for Legal Problems in The Philippine
Star because it is composed of specialists that can take care of a clients situation no matter how
complicated it is, especially on marriage problems like the Sharon and Gabby situation.
Citing John Bates vs. The State Bar of Arizona, Atty. Nogales said that it should be allowed based on this
American Jurisprudence. According to him, there is nothing wrong with making known the legal services
his Legal Clinic has to offer.

Applicable Law
Canon 3 -- A lawyer, making known his legal services shall only use true, honest, fair, dignified and
objective information or statement of facts.
Rule 3.01 -- A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications for legal service. 3

Held
As a general rule, no lawyer is allowed to advertise his services through commercial publications,
television commercials, etc. The most worthy and effective advertisement possible is the establishment of
a well-merited reputation for professional capacity and fidelity to trust.
In the case at bar, the fact that The Legal Clinic, Inc. is composed of paralegals is immaterial. What is
important to establish is that the services offered in their advertisements constitute practice of law which
by its very definition states:
The rendition of services requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles
and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent. It is not limited to
appearing in court, or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the
preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings,
conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and the giving of all legal
advice to clients. It embraces all advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters
connected with the law. xx4

3 Code of Professional Responsibility

4 Blacks Law

Therefore it is brought in the ambit of the statutory prohibitions against advertisements.

ANTONIO VS CA
Applicable law
Rule 3.02 -- In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading, or assumed name shall be used. The
continued use of the name of a deceased partner is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all its
communication that said partner is deceased.
Held
Negligence of a member in the law firm is negligence of the firm. When the counsel of records is the Law
Firm, the negligence of the lawyer assigned to the case consisting in his leaving for abroad without
notifying his colleagues is negligence of the Law Firm.
The negligence attributed by the petitioners to their then counsel, Atty. Funelas, is not excusable. Clear
and as it can be seen from the pleadings filed that the petitioners counsel of record is the law office of
Funelas Perez and Associates and not Atty. Funelas alone. Atty. Funelas signed the documents in his
capacity as the representative of the said law firm. It is safe to presume that a law firm which registered
and represented itself as such, with at least two named partners, is composed of at least two lawyers.
And if it is true that this law office was earlier dissolved, the winding up process is presumed to have been
performed in a regular manner, with all the obligations properly accounted for.
Very concrete evidence must be presented in order that these presumptions may be rebutted. Recently,
this Court laid down a ruling that is applicable to this case. It reads: "When a party appears by attorney in
an act on or proceeding in court, all notices required to be given therein must be given to the attorney and
not to the client. Hence, a notice given to the client and not to his attorney is not a notice in law. "The rule
in this jurisdiction is that the client is bound by the negligence or failings of counsel. It is the duty of an
attorney to himself and to his clients to invariably adopt a system whereby he can be sure of receiving
promptly all judicial notices during his absence from his address of record. The attorney must so arrange
matters that communications sent by mail, addressed to his office or residence, may reach him promptly. .
. . ."

PEOPLE VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Facts
The annulment of a resolution of the Sandiganbayan is being sought, with the Sandiganbayan denying the
motion to utilize Atty. Sansaet as state witness. Honrada was a clerk of court in a municipality in Agusan
del Sur.

Paredes was the provincial attorney of Agusan del Sur who later became governor and

congressman. Sansaet was a lawyer who served as counsel for Parades in several instances pertinent to
the criminal charges involved in the present recourse.
Paredes applied for a free patent over a piece of land. His application was approved and a title was
issued to him. - 1985 Director of Lands cancelled the patent of Paredes, saying that the land had
already been designated and reserved as a school site. It was also discovered that Paredes got the lot
through fraudulent means. An information for perjury was filed against Paredes. Another allegation was
that he had used his position to get what he wanted. Sansaet was still Paredes counsel. Gelacio, a
taxpayer, wrote the Ombudsman and asked for the investigation of Sansaet, Honrada and Paredes.
According to him, he conspired with the other two.
Applicable law
Rule 130, Section 24 RPC -- 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 professional
employment; nor can an attorneys 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.5
Requisites of privileged communication
a. There is an attorney-client relationship or a kind of consultancy requirement with a prospective client;
b. The communication was made by the client to the lawyer in the course of the lawyers professional
employment;
c. The communication must be intended to be confidential.
Issues
WON projected testimony of Sansaet is barred by the atty-client relationship NO
WON Sansaet qualified as particeps criminis (accomplice to the crime) for discharge from the criminal
prosecution in order to testify for the State -- YES
Held 1

5 Revised Penal Code

If a client seeks his lawyers advice with respect to a crime he committed, it is given the virtual
confessional seal. This does not apply to a crime which a client intends to commit. Paredes was planning
to commit the crime of falsification. But for the application of the attorney-client privilege, however, the
period to be considered is the date when the privileged communication was made by the client to the
attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the past or with respect to a crime intended to be
committed in the future. Sansaet himself was a conspirator and it is settled that for the atty-client privilege
to apply in communication, it must be for a lawful purpose.

The existence of an unlawful purpose

prevents the attachment of the privilege.

Held 2
Despite his involvement in the crime, Sansaet fulfills all the requirements needed for his discharge as
state witness. Sansaet was a conspirator in the crime of falsification and in a conspiracy the act of one is
the act of all. One of the requirements for state witness is that he does not appear to be the most guilty.
There is absolute necessity for Sansaets testimony because the prosecution has no direct evidence
available. His testimony can be corroborated by other reputable witnesses.

CAYETANO VS MONSOD
Facts
Monsod was nominated by President Aquino as Chairman of the Comelec. The Commission on
Appointments confirmed the appointment despite Cayetano's objection, based on Monsod's alleged lack
of the required qualification of 10 year law practice. Cayetano filed this certiorari and prohibition. The 1987
constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C: There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a
Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of
their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, holders of a college degree, and must not have been
candidates for any elective position in the immediately preceding elections.However, a majority thereof,
including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of
law for at least ten years.
Issue
WON Monsod has been engaged in the practice of law for 10 years as reuiqred by the Consititution
Held
YES. Practice of Law means any activity, in or out of court which requires the application of law, legal
procedure, knowledge, training and experience. Monsod as lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyerentrepreneur, lawyer-negotiator, and lawyer-negotiator is proof he is engaged in practice of law for more
than 1- years
According to Blacks Law, it is the Rendition of service requiring the knowledge and application of legal
principles and technique to serve the interest of another with his consent not limited to appearing in court,
or advising and assisting in the conduct of litigation, but embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other
papers incident to actions and special proceedings, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of
all kinds, and giving all legal advice to clients. Therefore, Monsods past experiences constitute practice of
law
Dissents
Padilla -- Practice refers to actual performance of application of knowledge as distinguished from mere
possession of knowledge; it connotes active, habitual, repeated or customary action TF lawyer employed
as business executive or corporate manager, other than head of Legal Department cannot be said to be in
the practice of law. Practice of law requires habituality, compensation, application of law, legal principle,
practice or procedure, and attorney-client relationship 6

6 Commission on Appointments Memorandum

Gutierrez -- The practice envisioned is active and regular, not isolated, occasional, accidental, intermittent,
incidental, seasonal, or extemporaneous. To be "engaged" in an activity for ten years requires committed
participation in something which is the result of one's decisive choice. It means that one is occupied and
involved in the enterprise; one is obliged or pledged to carry it out with intent and attention during the tenyear period.

WICKER VS ARCANGEL
Important rulings, applicable laws, principles, etc
Direct contempt -- it involves a pleading allegedly containing derogatory, offensive or malicious
statements submitted to the court or judge in which the proceedings are pending, as distinguished from a
pleading filed in another case. The former has been held to be equivalent to misbehavior committed in
the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the proceedings before the same
Indirect contempt -- the contemnor may be punished only [a]fter charge in writing has been filed, and
an opportunity given to the accused to be heard by himself or counsel, whereas in case of direct
contempt, the respondent may be summarily adjudged in contempt. Moreover, the judgment in cases of
indirect contempt is appealable, whereas in cases of direct contempt only judgments of contempt by
MTCs, MCTCs and MeTCs are appealable.
Power to punish for contempt is to be exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive principle.
Only occasionally should it be invoked to preserve that respect without which the administration of justice
will fail.[8] The contempt power ought not to be utilized for the purpose of merely satisfying an inclination
to strike back at a party for showing less than full respect for the dignity of the court.[9]
Can Atty. Rayos escape liability since he was just lawyering for Wicker? NO!
Canon 11 - A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers
and should insist on similar conduct by others.
As a lawyer, he is not just an instrument of his client. His client came to him for professional assistance in
the representation of a cause, and while he owed him whole-souled devotion, there were bounds set by
his responsibility as a lawyer which he could not overstep.

TORRES VS JAVIER
Facts
This is an administrative case filed by Atty. Ireneo Torres against Atty. Jose Javier for malpractice, gross
misconduct in office as an attorney and/or violation of the lawyers oath. There were 3 causes of action
First, the allegations stem from statements/remarks made by Javier in the pleadings he filed in a

petition for audit of all funds of the University of the East Faculty Association (UEFA) (Torres is the
President).

Javier implied that Torres had a motive to burglarize the office of UEFA to get certain

documents.
Second, Torres alleges that Javier used language that was clearly abusive, offensive, and

improper, inconsistent with the character of an attorney as a quasi-judicial officer. This was with regard to
Javiers Reply to Respondents Answer/Comment in the attorneys fees case where Javier made a
comment on the intellectual capacity of Torres.
Third, Torres finds fault in Javiers statement that implies that it is normal for notaries public to let

their relatives sign the documents for them. Torres says that this statement is demeaning to the legal
profession and the notarial service.
IBP found Javier guilty and reprimanded him.

Applicable law
Rule 11.03 A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or menacing language or behavior
before the courts.
Issue
Whether or not Atty. Javier is administratively liable for the alleged offensive statements he made in his
pleadings
Held

SC says only as regards the second cause of action. The court made mention that it is well entrenched in
Philippine jurisprudence that for reasons of public policy, utterances made in the course of judicial
proceedings, including all kinds of pleadings, petitions and motions, are absolutely privileged so long as
they are pertinent and relevant to the subject inquiry, however false or malicious they may be.
For the first cause of action, the SC held that such statements made by Javier were necessary in order to
resolve the petition for audit filed. These statements give a possible scenario as to the reason for the
burglary in the UEFA office. As to the third cause of action, the SC gave Javier the benefit of the doubt that
he issued these statements only in the defense of his client.
As to the second (for which the SC found Javier guilty), the Court ruled that the statements made regarding
Torres intellectual aptitude were not relevant to the attorneys fees case. The issue in the said case was
whether the 10% attorneys fees checked off from the initial backwages/salaries of UEFA members is
legal (I dont really understand this pero yan lang yun nakalagay).
The SC pointed out that Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility instructs that respondents
arguments in his pleadings 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. Javier has disobeyed such mandate
and is thus suspended from the practice of law for 1 month.

SPOUSES GARCIA VS BALA

Facts
Spouses Eduardo and Teresita Garcia filed a complaint against Atty. Bala for his failure in rendering legal
service contracted. According to the findings of Investigating IBP Commissioner Herbosa, complainants
engaged the services of respondent (sometime in May 1998) to appeal to the CA the adverse Decision of
the Department of Agrarian Relations Adjudication Board (DARAB).
Instead, he erroneously filed a Notice of Appeal with the DARAB. Under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court,
appeals from the decisions of the DARAB should be filed with the CA through a verified petition for review.
Because of respondents error, the prescribed period for filing the petition lapsed, to the prejudice of his
clients. Furthermore, Atty. Bala refused to the return the money paid by Spouses Garcia. Thus, the IBP
recommended the respondent should be reprimanded and suspended from the practice of law for six
months; and that he should return, within thirty days from his receipt of the Decision, the amount of
P9,200, with legal interest from the filing of the present Complaint with this Court.
Applicable law
Rule 18.02 -- a lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03 -- a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the clients request for information.
Held
Once lawyers agree to take up the cause of a client, they owe fidelity to the cause and must always be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in them. A client is entitled to the benefit of any and every
remedy and defense authorized by law, and is expected to rely on the lawyer to assert every such remedy
or defense.[22]
Evidently, respondent failed to champion the cause of his clients with wholehearted fidelity, care and
devotion. Despite adequate time, he did not familiarize himself with the correct procedural remedy as
regards their case. Worse, he repeatedly assured them that the supposed petition had already been filed.
xx Accordingly, complainants had the right to be updated on the developments and status of the case for
which they had engaged the services of respondent.[26] But he apparently denied them that right.
Atty Rolando Bala, SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six months.

OBUSAN VS OBUSAN
Facts
Atty. Generoso Obusan Jr., then single, had a relationship with one Natividad Estabillo. In 1972, Estabillo
begot a son with Obusan. Obusan later found out that Estabillo was at the time still validly married with
one Tony Garcia. Four days after the birth of his son with Estabillo, Obusan married Preciosa Razon. The
couple lived more than a year together until one day when Obusan left the conjugal home and never
returned.
Preciosa searched for Obusan until she found out that the latter has been living with Natividad Estabillo.
Preciosa then filed a disbarment case against Obusan on the grounds of gross immorality and adultery.
Preciosa presented the testimonies of the neighbors of Estabillo who all testified that Estabillo and
Obusan presented themselves as husband and wife in their community.
Applicable law
Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Issue
Whether or not Obusan should be disbarred.
Yes. Obusan failed to counter the evidence presented by his wife. He even failed to file responsive
pleadings. Hence, on the strength of the evidence against him, he is guilty of grossly immoral conduct.
Abandoning ones wife and resuming carnal relations with a former paramour, a married woman, falls
within that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the
opinion of the good and respectable members of the community. He failed to maintain the highest degree
of morality expected and required of a member of the bar.

LEE VS ABASTILLAS
Facts
Judge Renato E. Abastillas was the presiding judge of the Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011, where
Johnson Lee and Bonny Moreno are defendants. Judge Abastillas solicited the amount of PhP50, 000.00
from Atty. Chua to secure a favorable decision on the said criminal cases, which he communicated to his
clients (Lee and Moreno). Johnson Lee then financed the PhP20, 000.00 as a down payment and was
delivered by Atty, Chua to Judge Abastillas. Lee had 3 meetings with Judge Abastillas to discuss the
merits of the case and the payment of $5, 000.00. Lee even recorded the telephone conversation he had
with the respondent judge.
On the other hand, Atty. Chua was charged administratively for allowing himself to be used as a conduit
for illegal and immoral act
Issues
WON Judge Abastillas has violated the Code of Judicial Conduct?
WON Atty. Chua has violated the Code of Professional Responsibility?
Applicable laws
RULE 1.01 - A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence
RULE 1.02 - A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.
RULE 2.01 - A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary.7
RULE 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. 8
Held 1
Judge Abastillas violated the COJC. It is peculiarly essential that the system for establishing and
dispensing justice be developed to a high degree of proficiency, to gain the absolute confidence of the
public in the integrity and impartiality of its administration, because appearance is as important as reality,
so much so that a judge, like Cesars wife, must not only be pure but beyond suspicion. The actuations of
Judge Abastillas transgressed against the high standard of moral ethics required of judges.
Held 2

7 Code of Judicial Conduct

8 Code of Professional Responsibility

Atty. Chua is guilty of violating Rule 1.01, canon 1, of the Code of Professional Responsibility in view of
his admission that he allegedly delivered PhP20, 000.00 as bribe money to Judge Abastillas, thereby
allowing himself to be used as a conduit for an illegal and immoral act. Rule 1.01 provides that "A lawyer
shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."