standards for licenses and admissions into it.

Third, and most

importantly, the members of the learned profession are dedicated to
a spirit of public service.
With respect to the responsibilities of a member of a learned
profession to his clients there is a relationship of trust and
confidence. Also the professional should not have interests of his
own.
A professional seeks to improve his profession. He has the duty to
engage in research, to write articles and treatises. He must continue
through self-education and has the duty to comply with the code of
ethics.
LEGAL
PROFESSION
REVIEWER

Handog nina Tina, Dorothy, Salve, Ian, Dodie, Ari, Joel, Alain, Naj, at ni
Chek para sa mga magagandang babae at sa mga matipunong lalaki ng
B2005. Naway maka-uno tayo lahat sa darating na eksamen
LAWYERS IN SOCIETY
WADE, "NATURE AND MEANING OF THE LEGAL
PROFESSION"
This article basically states the attributes of the Learned Profession. First,
that training is necessary for admission to a learned profession. Second,
that the learned profession is characterized by an organization that sets

To the society, a professional has the duty to influence the opinions

and actions of others. He must supply intelligent and unselfish
leadership to the forming of public opinions and determination of
important issues.
LUNDBERG, "THE LEGAL PROFESSION - A SOCIAL
PHENOMENON"
The small body of law practitioners probably plays a much more
weighty social role than do editors, physicians and publishers. This
is because the social philosophy that is actually expressed in public
policy is that of the man of law. The fact that lawyers make public
policy is not a consequence of their being our weightiest intellects,
but because of the nature of the state, which was established by
lawyers along legalistic lines.
The very existence of a legal profession presupposes a society torn
by conflicts. Social conflicts are heightened by the chicaneries
lawyers describe as part of their duties. If there were any real
desire for reform in the profession, it would probably be
accomplished in short order.
1

A large part of social injustice exists because the legal profession has not
shouldered the responsibilities that go with the privileges it enjoys. The
task facing society is to make it possible for the constructive work that is
done by lawyers on behalf of the middle class to be extended for the
benefit of the lower class.
PEREZ/SAN JUAN, THE REVOLUTIONARY IMPERATIVE OF
LAWYERS IN THE PHILIPPINES
Historically, lawyers have been known as mere mercenaries of the monied
class. Their main concern is to enrich the landholdings and further the
interest of these people. This has been the public perception for quite
some time.
Theres a need for a legal service program for social and economic
transformation. Many forms of this type of legal service are being used
today (Alternative Law, Developmental Legal Aid Human Rights
Lawyering, etc.) The goal of the lawyer in these legal programs is to work
for his own obsolescence, that is, to empower and train the layman such
that time will come when his services will no longer be needed. This
empowerment of the lower class of society is the revolutionary imperative
of lawyers in the Philippines.
Agabin: its difficult to go to far-flung and depressed areas and serve the
underprivileged when your own family is in dire need of financial help.
Of course, your first impulse is to do what you can to help them first, and
then you focus on other social concerns
STATE REGULATION
CONST, ART VIII, SEC 5(5)
The Supreme Court has the following powers:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and
legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases,

shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase or modify, substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain
effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
CONST, ART XII SEC 14 (2)
The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited
to Filipino citizens, save incases prescribed by law.
CONST XVIII SEC 10
All courts existing at the time of the ratification of this
Constitution shall continue to exercise their jurisdiction until
otherwise provided by law. The provisions of the existing Rules of
Court, judiciary acts, and procedural laws no inconsistent with this
Constitution shall remain operative unless amended or repealed by
the Supreme Court or the Congress.
In re Cunanan
The Supreme Court is the only constitutional body that can
prescribe the admission requirements to the Philippines Bar.
In the matter if the Integration of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines
The Supreme Court, due to the powers given to it by the
Constitution, has the over-all administrative power over the
members of the Philippine Bar. The integration of the bar can serve
the interests of justice better as it organizes the attorneys all around
the Philippines.
LEGAL EDUCATION
PRE-LAW: RULES OF COURT, RULE 138, SEC 6:
No applicant for the admission to the bar examination shall be
admitted unless he presents a certificate that he has satisfied the
Secretary of Education that, before he began the study of law, he
had pursued and satisfactorily completed in an authorized and
2

recognized university or college, requiring for admission thereto the

completion of a four-year high school course, the course of study
prescribed therein for a bachelors degree in arts or sciences with any of
the following subjects as major or field of concentration: political science,
logic, English, Spanish, history and economics.
LAW PROPER: RULES OF COURT, RULE 138, SEC 5.
No applicant shall be admitted to the bar examinations unless he has
satisfactorily completed the following course in a law school or
university duly recognized by the government: civil law, commercial
law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private international law,
political law, labor and social legislation, medical jurisprudence,
taxation and legal ethics.
REYES, "OBJECTIVES OF LEGAL EDUCATION IN PRESENTDAY PHILIPPINE SOCIETY
The problems concerning the legal profession, being the same, then the
basic objectives of legal training do not appear to need drastic revision. Its
end is still to provide those in need of legal service with skilled and moral
practitioners. If change is required, it is one of emphasis. Lawyers must
revise their attitudes towards social problems:
Concern should not be with remedial or curative practice. The bar,
therefore, has to familiarize itself with negotiation, compromise,
and arbitration techniques.
Favor "preventive" practice- the drafting of plain and unambiguous
documents that will avoid doubts and controversies.
Extend services to neglected areas.
Ultimately, education should not be mere spoon-feeding of pre-digested
information. Studies must be organized and integrated so that student may
see how each legal rule and principle connect with each other.
AGABIN, "TEACHING LAW AS A SOCIAL SCIENCE"
Why approach law as a social science? Reason, according to the realists,
was not a reliable guide to law or moral understanding. And the case

method isolates cases from their historical and social context and
failed to take into account the factors that caused the evolution of
legal principle. If the laws of any country are merely imported
wholesale, it will not be an effective instrument for social control.
By using the tools of social science in law, this will broaden the
study of law into a multidisciplinary phenomenon. Law will cease
to exist in a vacuum; it will be studied with insights from the social
science.
Legal education must train students also as responsible citizens
cognizant of the social, economic, and political malaise gripping
society. Viewing law as part of the larger social firmament enables
the young lawyer to meet the pressing needs of his society.
BERNAS, PREPARATORY BACHELOR OF ARTS AND
PROFESSIONAL TRAINING
First Class Lawyers should possess:
analytic skills (how to examine problems from all angles)
substantive legal knowledge (be able to zoom in on a law
pertinent to clients problem)
basic working skills (write, research, draft, express)
familiarity with institutional environment (maabilidad)
awareness of total non-legal environment (kelangan
marunong makipag link-up sa ibang tao from other
fields)
good judgment
in the end, its not really the actual preparatory curriculum that
matters, but how it was used by the student .
Agabin: it doesnt really matter what your prep. Course is, basta
may basic understanding ng social sciences, ok na. During deans
time, 2 yr. lng undergrad nila

THE BAR EXAMINATIONS

RULES OF COURT, RULE 138
SEC 7: applicant must file with the clerk of the Supreme Court 15 days
before the examination all the requirements in sections 2 and 3.

examinations. The candidate that violates this provision shall be

barred form the exam and it shall count as a failure for him.
Permanent disqualification may also be given as a sanction by the
court.

SEC 8: the notice for applications will be published at least 10 days

before the examination

SEC 14: in order to pass, the candidate must have a general

average of 75% with no grade lower than 50% in any of the
subjects. The weights shall be distributed as follows: Civil Law:
15%, Labor and Social Legislation: 10%, Mercantile Law: 15%,
Criminal Law: 10%, Political Law and International Law: 15%,
Taxation: 10%, Remedial Law: 20%, Legal Ethics and Practical
Exercises: 5%

SEC 9: applicants shall be subjected to the following examinations: Civil

Law, Labor and Social Legislation, Mercantile Law, Criminal Law,
Political Law (Constitutional Law, Public Corporations, and Public
Officers), International Law (private and public), Taxation, Remedial Law
(Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence), Legal Ethics and
Practical Exercises (Pleading and Conveyancing)
SEC 10: Nothing can be brought in side the room. The same questions in
English and Spanish shall be given to everyone. And theoretically, one can
petition the Supreme Court the chance to use a noiseless typewriter.
Nothing that could identify the examinee shall be placed on the
examination papers.
SEC 11: the bar examinations shall take place in Manila in the span of
four days that would be designated by the chairman of the committee of
bar examiners. The distribution of the exams shall be as follows: 1 st day:
political law and International law (Am) and labor and social legislation
in the afternoon (pm). 2nd day: civil law (am) and taxation (pm). 3rd day:
mercantile law (am) and Criminal law (pm). 4th day: remedial law (am)
and legal ethics and practical exercises (pm)
SEC 12: bar committee shall be composed of one member of the Supreme
Court (chairman) and 8 members of the Philippines Bar. They shall hold
office for the period of one year.
SEC 13: no candidate should influence any member of the committee and
that they should not communicate with each other during the

SEC 15: Feb. 15 or as close to it as possible will be the deadline of

the committee to report on the examinations. The exam
paraphernalia shall be deposited with the clerk of court.
LABRADOR, THE BAR EXAMS AS NAN INTRUMENT OF
LEGAL EDUCATION
The bar exam has considerable influence on legal education. In
that professors compile past bar questions and have used these as a
GUIDE their students preparation. While the bar exams is not a
positive and exact test of future competence and capacity, it is the
best the court has devised to test prospective lawyers on both
knowledge of the law as well as its application to sets of facts.
Agabin: some schools focus too much and have become baroriented. We do not need legal encyclopedias but lawyers who
are responsive to clients needs in particular and society in general.
LEGAL ETHICS
Legal Ethics is the embodiment of all principles of morality and
refinements that should govern the conduct of every member of the
Bar. It has been broadly defined as living spirit of the profession,
4

which limits yet uplifts it as a livelihood. It specifically refers to the

branch of modern science, which treats of the duties which an attorney
owes to the court, to his client, to his colleagues in the profession and the
public.
In June 21, 1988, the Supreme Court promulgated the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The Code establishes the norms of conduct
and the ethical standards for all lawyers, including those in government
service.
The code consists of 22 Canons and 77 Rules, which is divided into four
chapters, namely: the Lawyer and the Society, the Lawyer and the Legal
Profession, the Lawyer and the Courts, and the Lawyer and the Client.

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

CANON 1: A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law and legal process.
The trust society has put in the legal profession requires lawyers to be in
the forefront in observing and maintaining the rule of law and the
preservation of its democratic institutions and liberties.
The first and foremost duty of a lawyer is to maintain allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines, uphold the Constitution, and obey the laws of
the land. The CPR underscores the primacy of this duty by making it the
first canon.

Bautista v. Gonzales
The very first Canon of the new Code states, "a lawyer shall
uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and legal process.
Moreover, Rule 138, Sec. 3 of the Revised Rules of Court requires
every lawyer to take an oath to 44 obey the laws of the Republic of
the Philippines as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted
authorities therein." And for any violation of this oath, a lawyer
may be suspended or disbarred by the Supreme Court.
All of these underscore the role of the lawyer as the vanguard of
our legal system. The transgression of any provision of law by a
lawyer is a repulsive and reprehensible act, which the Court will
not countenance. In the instant case, respondent, having violated
Art. 1491 of the Civil Code must be held accountable both to his
client and to society.
Zaldivar v. Gonzales
Apart from the constitutional mandate to regulate admission to the
practice of law, which includes as well authority to regulate the
practice itself of law, the disciplinary authority of the Supreme
Court over members of the Bar is an inherent power incidental to
the proper administration of justice and essential to an orderly
discharge of judicial functions.
The Supreme Court has inherent power to punish for contempt.
The power is necessary for its own protection against an improper
interference with the due administration of justice, it is not
dependent upon the complaint of any of the parties litigant.
Contempt of court may be committed both by lawyers and nonlawyers, both in and out of court. The disciplinary authority of the
Court over members of the Bar is but corollary to the Court's
exclusive power of admission to the Bar. A lawyer is not merely a
professional but also an officer of the court and as such, he is
called upon to share in the task and responsibility of dispensing
justice and resolving disputes in society. Any act on his part which
visibly tends to obstruct, pervert, or impede and degrade the
5

administration of justice constitutes both professional misconduct calling

for the exercise of disciplinary action against him, and contumacious
conduct warranting application of the contempt power.
It is sometimes asserted that in the exercise of the power to punish for
contempt or of the disciplinary authority of the Court over members of the
Bar, the Court is acting as offended party, prosecutor and arbiter at one
and the same time. Thus, in the present case, respondent Gonzalez first
sought to get some members of the Court to inhibit themselves in the
resolution of this case for alleged bias and prejudice against him. A little
later, he in effect asked the whole Court to inhibit itself from passing upon
the issues involved in this proceeding and to pass on responsibility for this
matter to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, upon the ground that the
Court has become incapable of judging him impartially and fairly.
Respondent Gonzalez misconceives the nature of the proceeding at bar as
well as the function of the members of the Court. Undeniably, the
members of the Court are, to a certain degree, aggrieved parties. But in the
exercise of its disciplinary powers, the Court acts as an entity separate and
distinct from the individual personalities of its members.
The power to exclude persons from the practice of law is but a necessary
incident of the power to admit persons to said practice. By constitutional
precept, this power is vested exclusively in this Court.

A lawyer who engages in any of these acts may be held

administratively liable. Duh.

RULE 1.01: A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,

immoral, or deceitful conduct.

Ui v. Bonifacio
In the case at bar, it is the claim of respondent Atty. Bonifacio that
when she met Carlos Ui, she knew and believed him to be single.
Respondent fell in love with him and they got married and as a
result of such marriage, she gave birth to two children. Upon her
knowledge of the true civil status of Carlos Ui, she left him.
A lawyer may be disbarred for "grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude". A
member of the bar should have moral integrity in addition to
professional probity.
It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible
standard as to what is "grossly immoral conduct" or to specify the
moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy

The lawyer assumes responsibilities well beyond the basic requirements of

good citizenship. He should be the exemplar for others to emulate.
Unlawful conduct: act or omission against the law. Dishonest act:
lying/cheating. Immoral/deceitful conduct: involves moral turpitude.
Anything done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals, or to any
vileness, baseness, or depravity in the private and social duties that one
owes to his fellows and society, contrary to accepted rule f right and duty
between man and man.

Figueroa v. Barranco
Barranco was prevented from taking the lawyer's oath in 1971
because of the charge of gross immorality made by complainant.
He bore an illegitimate child with his sweetheart, Patricia
Figueroa, who also claims that he did not fulfill his promise to
marry her after he passes the bar examinations.
These facts do not constitute gross immorality warranting the
permanent exclusion of respondent from the legal profession. His
engaging in premarital sexual relations with complainant and
promises to marry suggests a doubtful moral character on his part
but the same does not constitute grossly immoral conduct. The
Court has held that to justify suspension or disbarment the act
complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral.
A grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be
reprehensible to a high degree. It is a willful, flagrant, or shameless
act which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of respectable
members of the community.

of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to
be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral
conduct that warrants disbarment. Immoral conduct has been defined as
"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."
For such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be "grossly
immoral," that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal
act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.
We have held that "a member of the Bar and officer of the court is not only
required to refrain from adulterous relationships but must also so behave
himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that he is
flouting those moral standards. Respondents act of immediately
distancing herself from Carlos Ui upon discovering his true civil status
belies just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no
intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standard of the legal
profession.
Vda. De Mijares v. Villaluz
In this only Christian country of the Far East, society cherishes and
protects the sanctity of marriage and the family as a social institution.
Consequently, no one can make a mockery thereof and perform a sham
marriage with impunity. The defense of respondent that what was entered
into by him and complainant on January 7, 1994 was nothing but a "sham"
marriage is unavailing to shield or absolve him from liability for his gross
misconduct, nay sacrilege.
The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall be a
person of good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition
precedent for admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is
also essential for remaining in the practice of law. Under Rule 1.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The commission of
grossly immoral conduct and deceit are grounds for suspension or
disbarment of lawyers.

Melendrez v. Decena
Generally, a lawyer should not be suspended or disbarred for
misconduct committed in his personal or non-professional
capacity. Where however, misconduct outside his professional
dealings becomes so patent and so gross as to demonstrate moral
unfitness to remain in the legal profession, the Court must suspend
or strike out the lawyer's name from the Roll of Attorneys.
The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall
be a person of good moral character. This qualification is not only
a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law; its
continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice
of law, in the exercise of privileges of members of the Bar. Gross
misconduct on the part of a lawyer, although not related to the
discharge of professional duties as a member of the Bar, which
puts his moral character in serious doubt, renders him unfit to
continue in the practice of law.
In the instant case, the exploitative deception exercised by
respondent attorney upon the complainants in his private
transactions with them, and the exacting of unconscionable rates of
interest, considered together with the acts of professional
misconduct, led the Court to the conviction that he has lost that
good moral character which is indispensable for continued
membership in the Bar.
Delos Reyes v. Aznar
Complainant submitted to respondent's solicitation for sexual
intercourse because of respondent's moral ascendancy over her and
if she would not accede, she would flunk in her subjects. The fact
that he is a rich man and does not practice his profession as a
lawyer, does not render respondent a person of good moral
character. Evidence of good moral character precedes admission to
bar and such requirement is not dispensed with upon admission
thereto. Good moral character is a continuing qualification
necessary to entitle one to continue in the practice of law.
7

Immoral conduct has been defined as that which is willful, flagrant, or

shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the
good and respectable members of the community. In the present case, it
was highly immoral of respondent, a married man with children, to have
taken advantage of his position as chairman of the college of medicine in
asking complainant, a student in said college, to go with him to Manila
where he had carnal knowledge of her under the threat that she would
flunk in all her subjects in case she refused.
Cordova v. Cordova
The most recent reconciliation between complainant and respondent (the
Cordova spouses), assuming the same to be real, does not excuse and wipe
away the misconduct and immoral behavior of the respondent carried out
in public, and necessarily adversely reflecting upon him as a member of
the Bar and upon the Philippine Bar itself. An applicant for admission to
membership in the bar is required to show that he is possessed of good
moral character. That requirement is not exhausted and dispensed with
upon admission to membership of the bar. It persists as a continuing
condition for membership in good standing.
It is important to note that the lack of moral character referred to as
essential is not limited to good moral character relating to the discharge of
the duties and responsibilities of an attorney at law. The moral
delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as
such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral
standards of the community; conduct for instance, which makes "a
mockery of the inviolable social institution or marriage."
People v. Tuanda
The crimes of which respondent was convicted import deceit and violation
of her attorney's 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 BP 22 does 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.

RULE 1.02: A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed

at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
profession.
He should not subvert the law by counseling or assisting activities
in defiance of the law; he should not promote an organization
known to be violating the law nor assist it in a dishonest scheme;
he should not allow his services to be engaged by an organization
whose members are violating the law and defend them when they
get caught.
In re Terrell
The promoting of organizations, with knowledge of their objects,
for the purpose of violating or evading the laws against crime
constitutes such misconduct on the part of an attorney, an officer of
the court, as amounts to malpractice or gross misconduct in his
office, and for which he may be removed or suspended. The
assisting of a client in a scheme, which the attorney knows to be
dishonest, or the conniving at a violation of law, are acts which
justify disbarment. (Though Terrell wasnt disbarred here because
he was acquitted of estafa, still his acts were unprofessional. He
got suspended.)
RULE 1.03: A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or
interest, encourage any suit or delay any mans cause.
A lawyer owes to society and to the court the duty not to stir up
litigation this is known at common law as the crime of
maintenance.
Unprofessional acts within the prohibition:
Volunteering advice to bring lawsuit except where ties of
blood, relationship, and trust make it a duty to do so
8

Hunting up defects in titles or other causes of action and informing

thereof to be employed to bring suit or collect judgment, or to
breed litigation by seeking out claims for personal injuries or any
other grounds to secure them as clients
Employing agents or runners for like purposes
Paying direct or indirect reward to those who bring or influence the
bringing of such cases to his office
Remunerating policemen, court or prison officials, physicians etc.
who may succeed, under the guise of disinterested friendly advice,
in influencing criminals, the sick, the ignorant, etc. to seek
professional services
Searching for unknown heirs and soliciting their employment
Initiating a meeting of a club and inducing them to organize and
contest legislation under his guidance
Purchasing notes to collect them by litigation at a profit
Furnishing credit reports in expectation of possible employment
Agreeing with a purchaser of future interests to invest therein in
consideration of his services

Purpose of prohibition: to prevent ambulance chasing (i.e. the

solicitation of almost ay kind of legal business by laymen employed by an
attorney for his own purposes).
The evils of ambulance chasing:
Fomenting litigation thus burdening the courts and the public
Subornation of perjury
Mulcting innocent persons by judgments upon manufactured
causes of action
Defrauding injured persons having proper causes of action but are
ignorant of their legal rights.
RULE 1.04: A lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end, or settle
a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

He should be a mediator rather than instigator

Parties to an amicable settlement enjoy benefits better than those,
which can be legally secured a litigation involves time, expense,
and ill feelings which may well be avoided by he settlement of the
action!
Compromise can save clients expenses and avoid clogging of the
docket
Castaeda v. Ago
The Court condemns the attitude of the respondents and their
counsel who, far from viewing courts as sanctuaries for those who
seek justice, have tried to use them to subvert the very ends of
justice.
It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman
to the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of
merit of his case. If he finds that his client's cause is defenseless,
then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and
submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must
resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his clients
propensity to litigate. A lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice
is superior to his duty to his client; its primacy is indisputable.
CANON 2: A lawyer shall make his legal services available in
an efficient and convenient manner compatible with
independence, integrity, and effectiveness of the profession.
This arose because of the necessity of representation and the right
to counsel in judicial or administrative proceedings.
It is the responsibility of the bar to provide legal services. A wide
gap exists between the need and its satisfaction because of:
Poverty and inability to pay
9

Ignorance of legal services or where to find a competent,

dependable lawyer, and fear of delays and technicalities

RULE 2.01: A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid reasons, the
cause of the defenseless/oppressed.
This stems from the lawyers obligation to represent the poor and
oppressed in the prosecution of their claims and defense of their rights.
The court is empowered to require a lawyer to render professional services
de oficio to any party in a case, if the party is without means to employ a
counsel de parte.
Ledesma v. Climaco:
A lawyer reluctant to fulfill his obligation would prejudice the welfare of
the accused and his right to counsel. In criminal cases there can be no fair
hearing without the accused being given the opportunity to be heard by
counsel. It is essential for the court not only to apprise the right to attorney
but to assign one de oficio for him if defendant is poor or give him
reasonable time to find one. The present Constitution provides for the right
of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, and to be informed of
such right.
RULE 2.02: Even if the lawyer does not accept a case, he shall not
refuse to render legal advice to the person concerned if only to the
extent necessary to safeguard the latters rights.

RULE 2.03: A lawyer shall not do or permit to be done any act

designed to primarily solicit legal business.
A lawyer should not recommend employment of himself, his
partner, associate, or staff member to a non-lawyer who has not
sought his advice; or give anything of value to secure his
employment or to serve as a reward for having made a
recommendation resulting to his employment
A lawyer who agrees with a non-lawyer to divide attorney's fees
paid by clients supplied by the non-lawyer is guilty of malpractice
RULE 2.04: A lawyer shall not charge lower rates to attract
business.
The rule prohibits competition in charging professional fees for the
purpose of attracting clients to lower rates. This does not prohibit
reducing fees or not charging any at all to an indigent or someone
who would have difficulty paying the usual fee.
CANON 3: A lawyer in making known his legal services shall
use only true, honest, fair, dignified and objective information
or statement of facts.

A lawyer may refuse to accept a case for valid reasons (e.g. not in a
position to effectively/competently carry out the case), but he shall not
refuse to advise the person concerned if only to the extent necessary to
protect that persons interests.

"Tradtional dignity": Restriction originated from practices in the

Inns of the Court of England way, way back they young men
studying as barristers well are from well-to-do families who did
not have to worry about earning a living and traditionally looked
down upon all forms of trade and competition. This became a
recognized custom and tradition carried over to the US and here.

He should refrain from even giving advice however if he labors under a

conflict of interests between him and a prospective client or a prospective
client and a present client.

The profession is primarily for public service. To allow a lawyer to

advertise his skill is to commercialize the practice of law and lower
the public confidence.
10

Not all types of advertising are prohibited only those methods which
are incompatible with the traditional dignity of a lawyer and maintenance
of correct professional standards.
Allowable advertising:
Publication in reputable law list with brief biographical and
informative data
Ordinary simple professional card with name, firm, address,
number and branch of law practiced
Announcement or representation in a local legal journal, but with
no reference to special qualificzations and must not be given to
non-lawyers
Seeking of appointment to public office that may be filled up only
by a lawyer
Proffer of free legal services to the indigent
Writing of legal articles write and sell articles of general nature
on legal subjects for publication; no improper advertising, giving
of legal advice to one with whom no attorney-client relationship
exists, or aiding of kaymen in unauthorized law practice
Giving of advice on legal matters over the radio or through
newspapers is improper because it is indirect advertising and a
violation of the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship
Engaging in business OK as long as it is entirely apart from his
functions in the practice of law, and not inconsistent with the
lawyer's duties as a member of the Bar
In re Tagorda
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. This
cannot be forced, but must be the outcome of character and conduct.
The publication or circulation of ordinary simple business cards, being a
matter of personal taste or local custom, and sometimes of convenience, is

not per se improper. But solicitation of business by circulars or

advertisements, or by personal communications or interview not
warranted by personal relations, is unprofessional
It becomes the Court's duty to condemn solicitation of cases by
lawyers. It lowers the standards of that profession. It works against
the confidence of the community in the integrity of the members of
the bar. It results in needless litigation and in incensing to strife
otherwise peacefully inclined citizens. The solicitation of
employment by an attorney is a ground for disbarment or
suspension.
Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot
The advertisement posted by Bayot in the newspaper was a
flagrant violation by the respondent of the ethics of his profession,
it being a brazen solicitation of business from the public. Section
25 of Rule 127 expressly provides among other things that "the
practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or thru paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice."
It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents or skill
as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession and not a
trade.
RULE 3.01: A lawyer shall not use or permit the use if any
false, fraudulent, misleading, self-laudatory, or unfair
statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal
services.
Commonsense and a spirit of fairness, if legal guidelines are
absent, must be relied upon for guidance as to what is or is not
proper in advertising and solicitation.
RULE 3.02: In the choice of a firm name, no false, misleading,
or assumed name of a deceased partner is permissible provided
that the firm indicates in all its communications that said
partner is deceased.
11

The reason for allowing the use of a deceased partner's name is that all of
the partners by their joint efforts contributed to the goodwill attached to
the firm name. The name of a law firm may not necessarily identify the
individual members, so the continued use of the name after some members
have passed away is not a deception.
Filipino lawyers cannot practice under a foreign law firm as the foreign
firm cannot practice in the Philippines.
In re Firm Name Sycip, Salazar (before the new rule)
Petitioners cited Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics of the
American Bar Association" in support of their petitions. It is true that
Canon 33 does not consider as unethical the continued use of the name of
a deceased or former partner in the firm name of a law partnership when
such a practice is permissible by local custom but the Canon warns that
care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced through
this use.
The possibility of deception upon the public, real or consequential, where
the name of a deceased partner continues to be used cannot be ruled out.
The familiar ring of a distinguished name appearing in a firm title might
guide a person in search of legal counsel.
Petitioners argue that U.S. Courts have consistently allowed the continued
use of a deceased partner's name in the firm name of law partnerships. But
that is so because it is sanctioned by custom. Not so in this jurisdiction
where there is no local custom that sanctions the practice. Custom has
been defined as a rule of conduct formed by repetition of acts, uniformly
observed (practiced) as a social rule, legally binding and obligatory.
Courts take no judicial notice of custom. A custom must be proved as a
fact, according to the rules of evidence. Juridical custom must be
differentiated from social custom. The former can supplement statutory
law or be applied in the absence of such statute. Not so with the latter.
Moreover, judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws form part of
the legal system. When the Supreme Court issued Resolutions directing
lawyers to desist from including the names of deceased partners in their

firm designation, it laid down a legal rule against which no custom

or practice to the contrary, even if proven, can prevail.
Our civil law clearly ordains that a partnership is dissolved by the
death of any partner. Customs which are contrary to law, public
order or public policy shall not be countenanced.
Dacanay v. Baker and McKenzie
Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot practice law in
the Philippines (Sec. 1, Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by
the respondents in their memorandum, Baker & McKenzie is a
professional partnership organized in 1949 in Chicago, Illinois
with members and associates in 30 cities around the world.
Respondents, aside from being members of the Philippine bar,
practising under the firm name of Guerrero & Torres, are members
or associates of Baker & Mckenzie.
As pointed out by the Solicitor General, respondents' use of the
firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that
being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of
the highest quality to multinational business enterprises and others
engaged in foreign trade and investment". This is unethical because
Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practise law here.
RULE 3.03: Where a partner accepts public office, he shall
withdraw from the firm and his name shall be dropped from
the firm name unless the law allows him to practice law
concurrently.
Reason for disqualification: a public office is a public trust.
Conflicts of interest must be avoided to preserve the public trust in
the public office.
Absolutely prohibited from engaging in private practice or giving
professional advice to clients as members of the bar: judges; other
officers and employees of the courts, Solicitor General, and other
government prosecution offices; the President; the Vice-President;
12

members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants; constitutional

commission members; civil service officers/employees required to devote
their entire time to the government; governors, city and municipal mayors

Not a strict duty, but a duty nevertheless. A lawyer must not be

confined by technical legal questions but instead grow in
knowledge and competence to make the law socially responsive.

Prohibited only from appearing (arguing a case, filing of motions, please

and answers) as counsel before any court and other bodies: members of
the Legislature, members of sanggunian

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.

Civil officers/employees who are not required to have their time

completely at the disposal of the government may be allowed to practice
law with written permit from their department head
But government officials who are prohibited by express mandate of law
may not practice law even with the department head's consent, but may be
allowed in isolated cases where he is to act as counsel for a relative or
close family friend
A person who haws been duly admitted to the bar and is in good and
regular standing is entitled to practice law. Disbarred or suspended
attorneys are prohibited from practice until readmission
Legal rememdies to suppress unauthorized law practice: Petitions for
injunction, declaratory relief, contempt of court, disqualification,
complaints for disbarment
Criminal complaints for estafa against those who assume to be attorneys.
A government employee forbidden to practice law may be held criminally
liable. A civil service officer/employee who did not have permission from
the department head may be held administratively liable
CANON 4: A lawyer shall participate in development of the legal
system by initiating or supporting efforts in law reform and in the
improvement of the administration of justice.

Counsel and judges must keep abreast of the latest decisions and
precedents, to effectively discharge their duties and avoid
mistakes.
The three-fold obligation of lawyers entering practice:
Continue improving legal knowledge
Maintain high standards of legal obligation
Make law part of the social consciousness of the lay public
In re IBP
The purposes of an integrated Bar, in general, are:
(5)Provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law
reform, pleading, practice and procedure, and the relations of the
Bar to the Bench and to the public, and publish information
relating thereto;
(6)Encourage and foster legal education;
(7)Promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive
and adjective law, and make reports and recommendations thereon;
and
(8)Enable the Bar to discharge its public responsibility effectively.
Bar integration is not unfair to lawyers already practicing because
although the requirement to pay annual dues is a new regulation, it
will give the members of the Bar a new system which they hitherto
have not had and through which, by proper work, they will receive
benefits they have not heretofore enjoyed, and discharge their
13

public responsibilities in a more effective manner than they have been able
to do in the past.
In many other jurisdictions, notably in England, Canada and the United
States, Bar integration has yielded the following benefits: (1) improved
discipline among the members of the Bar; (2) greater influence and
ascendancy of the Bar; (3) better and more meaningful participation of the
individual lawyer in the activities of the Integrated Bar; (4) greater Bar
facilities and services; (5) elimination of unauthorized practice; (6)
avoidance of costly membership campaigns; (7) establishment of an
official status for the Bar; (8) more cohesive profession; and (9) better and
more effective discharge by the Bar of its obligations and responsibilities
to its members, to the courts, and to the public.
Evils prophesied by opponents of Bar integration have failed to
materialize in over fifty years of Bar integration experience in all the
jurisdictions where the Integrated Bar has been tried; on the other hand, it
has restored public confidence in the Bar, enlarged professional
consciousness, energized the Bar's responsibilities to the public, and vastly
improved the administration of justice.
CANON 6: These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service
in the discharge of their official duties.
Reason for the rule: a lawyer does not shed his professional obligations
upon assuming public office, because his conduct will be magnified in the
public eye
Macoco v. Diaz
Whatever might have been the agreement and with whomsoever
respondent might have entered it into, the undeniable fact remains that he
misappropriated the money in breach of trust. This makes him unfit for the
office of an attorney-at-law. And his being a deputy fiscal and not law
practitioner at the time of the misappropriation, far from mitigating his
guilt, aggravates it. Want of moral integrity is to be more severely
condemned in a lawyer who holds a responsible public office.

Cayetano v. Monsod
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experience. "To engage in the practice of law is to
perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession.
Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of
service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of
legal knowledge or skill."
To avoid any misunderstanding which would result in excluding
members of the Bar who are now employed in the COA or
Commission on Audit, the provision on qualifications regarding
members of the Bar does not necessarily refer or involve actual
practice of law outside the COA. This means that as long as the
lawyers who are employed in the COA are using their legal
knowledge or talent in their respective work within COA, then
they are qualified to be considered for appointment as members or
commissioners, even chairman, of the Commission on Audit.
Collantes v. Renomeron
The issue in this disbarment proceeding is whether the respondent
register of deeds, as a lawyer, may also be disciplined by this Court
for his malfeasances as a public official. The answer is yes, for his
misconduct as a public official also constituted a violation of his
oath as a lawyer. The lawyer's oath imposes upon every lawyer the
duty to delay no man for money or malice. The lawyer's oath is a
source of his obligations and its violation is a ground for his
suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary action
The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their official tasks (Canon
6). The acts of dishonesty and oppression which Attorney
Renomeron committed as a public official have demonstrated his
unfitness to practice the high and noble calling of the law.

14

RULE 6.01: The primary duty of a lawyer in public prosecution is not

to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts and
concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the
accused is highly reprehensible and cause for disciplinary action.
A public prosecutor is a quasi-judicial office. He is a representative of not
an ordinary party but sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially
is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest in a
criminal prosecution is that justice shall be done.
Prosecutors should not give the impression that their office is being used
for political ends.
While he may strike hard blows, he cannot strike foul ones. It is his duty
to refrain from improper methods calculated to make a wrong conviction,
as it is to use every legitimate means to produce a just one. He should not
hesitate to recommend the acquittal of the accused if he finds no legal
basis for conviction.
Like defense counsel he is presumed to be a man learned in the law, of
high moral character, with the view that justice be meted out.

compulsion to file a criminal information where he is not

convinced that he has evidence to prop up the averments thereof,
or that the evidence at hand points to a different conclusion. This is
not to discount the possibility of the commission of abuses on the
part of the prosecutor. A prosecuting attorney should not be unduly
compelled to work against his conviction. In case of doubt, he
should have the benefit of the doubt.
Suarez v. Platon
We cannot overemphasize the necessity of close scrutiny and
investigation of prosecuting officers of all cases handled by them,
but whilst this Court is averse to any form of vacillation by such
officers in the prosecution of public offenses, it is unquestionable
that they may, in appropriate cases, in order to do justice and avoid
injustice, reinvestigate cases in which they have already filed the
corresponding in formations.
RULE 6.02: A lawyer in government service shall not use his
public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor
allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.

Private prosecutors role: he is allowed to intervene in the prosecution of a

criminal action when from the nature of the offense the offended party is
entitled to indemnity and has not waived, expressly reserved or instituted
the civil action for damages arising therefrom.

Restriction applies particularly to lawyers in government service

who are allowed by law to engage in private law practice and to
those who are prohibited from practice but know people in the
active practice of law.

A public prosecutor should not allow the trial in a private prosecutors

hands to degenerate into a private prosecution. The administration of
criminal law must not become a vehicle of oppression for any gratification
of malice or private advantage.

A public official should see to it that his private activity does not
interfere with the discharge of his official functions.

People v. Pineda
The Supreme Court believes in this case that the Fiscal has not abused his
discretion. A prosecuting attorney, by the nature of his office, is under no

The foregoing principles complement the code of conduct for

public officers and employees that they are not allowed to be
employed in any private enterprise regulated by their office unless
otherwise provided by law, to engage in private practice unless
allowed by the Constitution and law provided that there will be no
15

conflict of duties, to recommend any person to a position in a private

enterprise which has a transaction with their office, and to use/divulge
information known by them by reason of their office to further their
private interests and to prejudice the public interest.

Respondent, in his future actuations as a member of the bar. should

refrain from laying himself open to such doubts and misgivings as
to his fitness not only for the position occupied by him but also for
membership in the bar.

Penticostes v. Ibaez
In his defense, respondent claimed that his act of accommodating
Encarnacion Pascual's request to make payments to the SSS did not
amount to professional misconduct but was rather an act of Christian
charity. Furthermore, he claimed that the action was moot and academic,
the amount of P1,804.00 having already been paid by him to the SSS.
Lastly, he disclaimed liability on the ground that the acts complained of
were not done by him in his capacity as a practicing lawyer but on account
of his office as a prosecutor.
The Court finds respondent guilty of professional misconduct. While there
is no doubt that payment of the contested amount had been effected to the
SSS, it is clear that the same was made only after a complaint had been
filed against respondent. Furthermore, the duties of a provincial prosecutor
do not include receiving money from persons with official transactions
with his office.
The failure of respondent to immediately remit the amount to the SSS
gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own
use. This is a gross violation of general morality as well as professional
ethics; it impairs public confidence in the legal profession and deserves
punishment.

RULE 6.03: A lawyer shall not, after leaving government

service, accept engagement or employment in connection with
any matter in which he had interned.

Misamin v. San Juan

While the charges against respondent have to be dismissed, still it would
be appropriate for him as member of the bar to avoid all appearances of
impropriety. The fact that suspicion could be entertained that far from
living true to the concept of a public office being a public trust, he did
make use, not so much of whatever legal knowledge he possessed, but the
influence that laymen could assume was inherent in the office, to frustrate
the statutory scheme that labor be justly compensated but also to be at the
beck and call of alien interest, is a matter that should not pass unnoticed.

The restriction on the public official not to use his profession to

advance private interests extends beyond his tenure on certain
matters in which he intervened as a public official.
He cannot accept work from anyone that will involve or relate to
the matter in which he intervened as a public official, except on
behalf of the public authority, which he served during his term.
Sec. 7(b) RA 6713: no former public official/employee may
practice his profession in connection with any matter before his
former office within one year after retirement or separation from
office.
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act: public officials cannot
accept or have any family member accept employment in a private
enterprise which has pending business with him during the said
pendency or within a year after its termination.
CANON 7. A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the
integrated bar.
To enable the bar to be an effective instrument in the proper
administration of justice, every lawyer should strive at all times to

16

uphold the honor and maintain the dignity of the legal profession and to
improve not only the law but the administration of justice as well.
A lawyer can do honor to the legal profession by faithfully performing his
duties to the court, to the public to his brethren in the profession, and to
his client. He advances the honor of the profession and the best interests
of his client when he renders services or gives legal advice tending to
impress upon his client and his undertaking exact compliance with the
strictest principles of moral law.
A lawyer should also involve in, and actively support the activities of, the
IBP. He should not limit himself to merely paying his dues and other
assessments of the IBP, but should also help realize its objectives and
purposes:
To assist in the administration of justice
To safeguard the professional interests of its members
To cultivate among its members a spirit of cordiality and brotherhood
To provide a forum for the discussion of law, jurisprudence, law
reform, pleading, practice and procedure and the relations of the bar
thereto
To encourage and foster legal education
To promote a continuing program of legal research in substantive and
adjective law, and make reports and recommendations thereon.
In re: 1989 Elections of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, 178
SCRA 398 (1989):
A basic postulate of the IBP, heavily stressed at the time of its
organization and commencement of existence, is that the IBP shall be nonpolitical in character and that there shall be no lobbying nor campaigning
in the choice of members of the Board of Governors and of the House of
Delegates, and of the IBP officers, national, or regional, or chapter
It is evident that the manner in which the principal candidates for the
national positions in the IBP conducted their campaign preparatory to the
elections on 9 June 1989, violated Section 14 of the IBP By-Laws and

made a travesty of the idea of a strictly non-political Integrated

Bar enshrined in Section 4 of the By-Laws
The candidates and many of the participants in that election not
only violated the By-Laws of the IBP but also the ethics of the
legal profession which imposes on all lawyers, as a corollary of
their obligation to obey and uphold the constitution and the laws,
the duty to promote respect for law and legal processes and to
abstain from activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system (Rule 1.02, Canon 1, CPR).
Respect for law is gravely eroded when lawyers themselves, who
are supposed to be minions of the law, engage in unlawful
practices and cavalierly brush aside the very rules that the IBP
formulated for their observance. The unseemingly ardor with
which the candidates pursued the presidency of the association
detracted from the dignity of the legal profession. The spectacle of
lawyers bribing or being bribed to vote in one way or another
certainly did not uphold the honor of the profession nor elevate it
in the public esteem.
Rule 7.01 A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a
false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection
with his application for admission to the bar.
A student aspiring to be a lawyer must, at that early period, study
and observe the duties and responsibilities of a lawyer. He cannot
claim that not being a member of the bar, the CPR does not apply
to him. One who aspires to profess the law must show his fitness
for admission by adherence to, or observance of, the standards of
conduct required of all members of the bar. For failure to live up
to them may prevent him from being admitted to practice and, if
admitted without the SC acquiring knowledge of his transgressions
thereof, he may be disbarred for such misconduct.
Every applicant for admission to the practice of law must :
17

Be an RP citizen and resident (because an alien cannot maintain

allegiance to RP, which the lawyers oath requires)
Be at least 21 years old
Be a person of good moral character
Show that no charges against him involving moral turpitude are filed
or pending in court

SC decides WON an offense involves moral turpitude. Applicant must

disclose under oath in application form any crime of which he is charged.
Concealment or withholding from court of fact that crime charged is
ground for disqualification of applicant to take the bar exam, or for
revocation of license to practice. If what the applicant concealed is a
crime that doesnt involve moral turpitude, it is the fact of concealment
and not the commission of the crime itself that makes him morally unfit to
become a lawyer.

Possess the required educational qualifications

(four-year high school course + bachelors degree in arts or sciences with

PolSci/ Logic/ English/ Spanish/ History/ Economics as a major field of
concentration + 4 year bachelors degree in law with completed courses in
civil law, commercial law, remedial law, criminal law, public and private
international law, political law, labor and social legislation, medical
jurisprudence, taxation, legal ethics). Courses of study must be completed
in an authorized and recognized university, college, or school, and must
be taken progressively in the usual manner (e.g. applicant who only
completed pre-law after he began studying law not qualified to take the
bar)

Pass the bar exams.

The SC may likewise prescribe such other qualifications or requirements

as it may deed necessary to elevate the standards of the legal profession.

The additional qualifications may be apart from whatever

qualifications the legislature may provide.
By seeking admission to practice of law, applicant assumes the
burden of proof to establish all those qualifications to the court.
He must, accordingly, produce sufficient evidence to clear any
doubt as to any of his qualifications. But after having presented
prima facie evidence of his qualifications, it is incumbent upon
anyone objecting to his admission to offer contrary evidence to
overcome the applicants prima facie showing.
The fact that the bar exam committee has passed upon, and is
satisfied with, the applicants qualifications will not preclude a
subsequent judicial inquiry on the same question in a disbarment
proceeding where that question is raised as an issue. The lawyers
name may not, however, be stricken from the roll of attorneys by
reason of alienage, non-completion of prescribed course, or bad
moral character in the presence of clearly preponderant evidence
that he did not, in fact possess the necessary qualifications at the
time of his admission. The burden of proof, in such a case, shifts
to the complainant.
Santos v. Llamas, 322 SCRA 529
By indicating IBP-Rizal 259060 in his pleadings and thereby
misrepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his
IBP dues to the Rizal Chapter, respondent is guilty of violating the
CPR
Rule 7.02 A lawyer shall not support the application for
admission to the bar of any person known by him to be
unqualified in respect to character, education, or other relevant
attribute.
He should not execute affidavit of good moral character in favor of
applicant whom he knows has not lived up to such standard. He
18

should help in guarding the bar against admission of candidates who are
unfit or unqualified. He should volunteer information or cooperate in any
investigation concerning alleged anomaly in the bar exam, so those
candidates who failed therein can be ferreted out and those lawyers
responsible therefore can be disbarred. He should expose before the SC
corrupt or dishonest conduct in the profession and should accept without
hesitation professional employment against a lawyer who has wronged his
client.
Rule 7.03 A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects
on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he, whether in public or private
life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
Among the acts which adversely reflect on the lawyers fitness to practice
law which justify suspension from practice or disbarment include gross
immorality, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, and
fraudulent transactions.
Canon 8. A lawyer shall conduct himself with courtesy, fairness, and
candor toward his professional colleagues, and shall avoid harassing
tactics against opposing counsel.
Camacho v. Pangulayan, 328 SCRA 631
Although aware that the students were represented by counsel,
respondent attorney proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with them and
their parents with out at the very least communicating the matter to their
lawyer, herein complainant, who was counsel of record in Civil Case No.
Q-97-30549. The failure of respondent whether by design or because of
oversight is an inexcusable violation of the canons of professional ethics
and in utter disregard of a duty owing to a colleague. Respondent fell
short of the demands required of him as a lawyer and a member of the
Bar.

Mutual bickering and unjustifiable recriminations between

brother attorneys detract from the dignity of the legal profession
and will not receive any sympathy from this court.
Macias v. Malig, 157 SCRA 762 (1988)
The Court is not prepared to condone by passing over sub silentio
the misconduct of which complainant and respondent are guilty
one vis--vis the other. Each party here has shown himself to be
too ready to believe the other guilty of serious misconduct in the
practice of the profession to which they both belong while
vehemently asserting his own good faith. Each party here was too
anxious and willing to make serious accusations against the other
which the exertion of reasonable diligence along with simple
courtesy would have shown to be unwarranted by the facts and the
records. Each attorney here was too prone to use intemperate and
offensive language in describing the behavior of the other
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that the charges
and countercharges between Atty. Macias and Atty. Malig be
dismissed for insufficiency of evidence and lack of merit, both
parties should be severely disciplined by the imposition of heavy
fine in addition to being subjected to stern censure by the SC. We
hold that complainant Macias and respondent Malig are both guilty
of conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the court.
Lawyers must at all times treat each other, and as well as their
clients, former clients, and the rest of the community, with that
personal dignity, courtesy and civility rightly demanded of
members of the ancient and learned profession of the law.
Rule 8.01 A lawyer shall not, in professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Rule 8.02 A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, encroach
upon the professional employment of another lawyer; however,
it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give

Javier v. Cornejo, 63 Phil 293 (1936)

19

proper advice and assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful

or neglectful counsel.

original counsel objects, but if the lawyer first retained is relieved,

he may come into the case.

Improper conduct: competing with other lawyers over clients, stealing

another lawyers client or inducing the latter to retain him by promise of
better service/result/reduced fees, disparage another lawyer, make
comparisons, publicize his talent as a means to law practice

When lawyers jointly associated in a case disagree on any matter

vital to the clients interest, the conflict of opinion should be
frankly stated to the client for the clients final determination.

Lawyer may accept employment to handle a matter, which another lawyer

previously handled, provided the other lawyer has been given notice by
client that his service has been terminated. Without such notice of
termination by client, a lawyer retained to take over a case from a peer
should do so only after he shall have obtained the conformity of the
counsel whom he substituted. If such conformity cant be obtained, he
should at least give sufficient notice to such lawyer of the contemplated
substitution.
The substituting lawyer may have the duty to contest the first lawyers
claim to a right to compensation. But it is equally the substituting
lawyers duty to give the first lawyer every opportunity to have his claim
protected.
A lawyer should not 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 only deal with his counsel.
Neither should he, in the absence of the adverse partys counsel, interview
the adverse party even if adverse party consents. Neither should he
sanction his clients attempt to settle a litigated matter with the adverse
party without the knowledge of the latters counsel.
The client should be left to determine WON to employ additional counsel.
The lawyer subsequently retained as additional counsel, however, should
communicate first with the original counsel before he enters his
appearance in the case. He should decline association, as a colleague if the

Laput v. Remotique, 6 SCRA 45 (1962)

A lawyer was dismissed by his client because the latter no longer
trusted him. In his stead the client contracted the services of
another lawyer, who, to safeguard the interest of his client,
prepared the papers for the revocation of the power of attorney
previously executed in favor of the first lawyer. After the second
lawyer had filed his appearance in court, the first lawyer
voluntarily withdrew as counsel and, simultaneously, filed a
motion for the payment of his attorneys fees. Held: The
appearance of the second lawyer is not unprofessional or improper;
the first lawyers voluntary withdrawal as counsel and his filing of
a motion for the payment of his fees amounted to an acquiescence
to the appearance of the second lawyer.
In re Soriano, 33 SCRA 801 (1970)
Relying on the assurance of the party respondent in said cases and
of a mutual acquaintance on the status of each of the two cases,
respondent Atty. Clemente Soriano agreed to render professional
services in consideration of a contingent fee and entered his
appearance in cases L-24114 entitled PHHC and UP v. Mencias,
Tiburcio , et.al. and L-30546, entitled Varsity Hills vs. Hon.
Herminio C. Mariano, etc. et.al., both terminated before this Court.
His entry of appearance in the said cases as chief counsel of
record for the respondents in effect sought to pre-empt the former
counsel, Atty. Memesio Diaz, of the premier control of over the
case. Yet, he had not bothered at all to communicate with the
latter. Held: Atty. Clemente M. Soriano is guilty of gross
negligence in the performance of his duties as a lawyer and as an
20

officer of this court. This inexcusable negligence would merit no less than
his suspension from the practice of the law profession, were it not for his
candor, at the hearing of this incident, in owning his mistake and the
apology he made to the Court. It is in this sense that he is severely
censured.

Term practice of law: do any of those acts which are characteristic of the
legal profession; embraces any activity, in or out of court, which requires
the application of law, legal principle, practice or procedure and calls for
legal knowledge, training and experience; presupposes attorney-client
relationship, implies customarily or habitually holding oneself out to the
public, as a lawyer for compensation as a source of livelihood or in
consideration of his service.

Limitations that should be observed in cases where layman may

represent another:
He should confine his work to non-adversary contentions (e.g.
no examination or cross-examination of witnesses or
presentation of evidence)
Services should not be habitually rendered.
Layman should not charge or collect attorneys fees.

However, an isolated appearance may amount to practice in relation to

rule prohibiting some persons from engaging in the exercise of the legal
profession.
Practice of law is a privilege. But a lawyer cannot be prevented from
practicing law except for valid reasons, the practice of law not being a
matter of states grace or favor.
Allowed limited representation on behalf of others by laymen:
Municipal trial court/metropolitan trail court a party may conduct
litigation with aid of agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose
Criminal proceeding before municipal trial court in a locality where
duly licensed lawyer not available the MTC may, in its discretion,
admit or assign a person, resident in the province and of good repute
for probity and ability, to aid the defendant in his defense although the
person so assigned may not be a lawyer
Laymen is permitted by the SC to appear for another only in the
Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Court; he cannot represent another in
any other court nor be appointed by any court other than the MunTC
or MetTC to aid a defendant in his defense, in absence of an authority
from the high tribunal.

Some laws: authorize union representative to appear for his

organization or its members before the NLRC, labor arbiter or
arbitrator (Labor Code & Rules of the NLRC) , and an
individual to act on behalf of a claimant before a cadastral
court. (Act No. 2259, Sec. 9)

Individual litigant in civil case has the right to conduct his

litigation personally. But he will be bound by the same rules of
procedure and evidence as those applicable to parties appearing
through counsel. Moreover, he may not be heard to complain later
that he has been deprived of the right to the assistance of counsel.
An attorney otherwise disqualified to practice law or who has been
suspended or disbarred from practice can validly prosecute or
defend his own litigation.
In criminal cases involving grave and less grave offenses, an
accused who is a layman must always appear by counsel.
A juridical person must always appear in court by a duly licensed
member of the bar, except in the MunTC where it may be
represented by its agent or officer who need not be a lawyer.
Corporations cannot engage in the practice of law. They may hire
attorneys to attend to and conduct its own legal businesses or
affairs. But it cannot practice law directly or indirectly by
21

employing a lawyer to practice for it or to appear for others for its benefit.
Reason: nature of the privilege and on the confidential and trust relation
between attorney and client.
A lawyer should not allow an intermediary to intervene in the performance
of his professional obligations. He may accept employment from any
organization to render legal services in any matter in which the
organization is interested, that employment should not include rendering
legal services to members of that organization for their individual affairs.
Exception: charitable society rendering aid to the indigent is not an
intermediary within the meaning of the rule.
Canon 9. A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly, assist in the
unauthorized practice of law.
PAFLU v. Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Co., 42 SCRA 802 (1971)
Applicable to the issue at hand is the principlethat an agreement
provided for the division of attorneys fees, whereby a non-lawyer union
president is allowed to share in said fees with lawyers, is condemned by
Canon 34 of Legal Ethics and is immoral and cannot be justified. An
award by a court of attorneys fees is no less immoral in the absence of a
contract, as in the present case
The provision in Section 5(b) of Republic Act 875 that In the proceeding
before the Court or Hearing Examiner thereof, the parties shall not be
required to be represented by legal counsel is no justification for a
ruling that the person representing the party-litigant in the Court of
Industrial Relations, even if he is not a lawyer, is entitled to attorneys
fees: for the same section adds that it shall be the duty and obligation of
the Court or Hearing Officer to examine and cross examine witnesses on
behalf of the parties and to assist in the orderly presentation of evidence,
thus making it clear that the representation should be exclusively entrusted
to duly qualified members of the Bar
The permission for a non-member of the bar to represent or appear or
defend in the said court on behalf of the party-litigant does not by itself
entitle the representative to compensation for such representation. For

Sec. 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, providing Sec. 24.
Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees An attorney
shall be entitled to have and recover from his client no more than a
reasonable compensation for his services imports the existence
of an attorney-client relationship as a condition to the recovery of
attorneys fees. Such relationship cannot exist unless the clients
representative in court be a lawyer
The reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession should not be
violated; that acting as an attorney without authority constitutes
contempt of court, which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or
both, and the law will not assist a person reap the fruits or benefit
of an unlawful act or an act done in violation of the law; and that if
fees were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the public
in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in cases of necessity
and also leave the bar in a chaotic condition, aside from the fact
that non-lawyers are not amenable to disciplinary measures. And
the general rule above stated (referring to non-recovery of
attorneys fees by non-lawyers) cannot be circumvented when the
services were purely legal, by seeking to recover as an agent and
not as an attorney.
U.S. v. Ney, 8 Phil. 146 (1907)
Under section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, pleadings must
be subscribed by the party or his attorney. The subscription of the
names of other persons is impliedly prohibited and is illegal; nor
can a subscription by an agent, other than an admitted attorney, be
recognized.
A person not admitted to the bar may not hold himself out to the
public as engaged in the practice of law, either alone or as
associated with a practicing attorney under a firm name
An attempt to practice law by a person who has by order of this
court been refused admission to the bar is a disobedience of such
order and is contempt of court, not qualified by the fact that an
appeal has been taken from that order
22

The repeated irregular signature of pleadings by an attorney in the name of

a firm improperly constituted, with one partner who, by an order of this
court, had been denied the right to practice, and the participation by him in
an act of contempt committed by such partner, is misbehavior which
renders him guilty of contempt under section 232 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
In re: del Rosario, 52 Phil. 399 (1922)
The practice of law is not an absolute right to be granted everyone who
demands it, but is a privilege to be extended or withheld in the exercise of
a sound discretion
Acquittal upon a criminal charge is not a bar to proceedings intended to
determine if a candidate is worthy to be admitted to the bar
The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which
merely enables one to escape the penalties of criminal law.
Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the
performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a
member of the Bar in good standing.
Cannot be delegated to layman: work involving the application of law, like
the computation and determination of period within which to appeal an
adverse judgment, examination of witnesses, presentation of evidence.
Allowed: employing lay secretaries, investigators, detectives, researchers,
accountants, non-lawyer draftsmen, to undertake task not involving
practice of law.
Also allowed: availing help of law students in many fields of the lawyers
work, like examination of a case law, finding and interviewing witnesses,
examining court records, delivering papers, etc.
Rule 9.02 A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal
services with persons not licensed to practice law, except:
a. Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate
that, upon the latters death, money shall be paid over a reasonable

period of time to his estate or to persons specified in the

agreement; or
b. Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished or legal
business of a deceased lawyer; or
These first two exceptions, strictly speaking, represent
compensation for legal services the deceased lawyer rendered
during his lifetime, which is paid to his heirs or estate. Improper:
when effect of this arrangement is to make estate or heir a member
of partnership along with surviving partners, or where estate or
heir is to receive a percentage of the fees that may be paid from
future business of the deceased lawyers clients.
c. Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees
in a retirement plan, even if the plan is based in whole or in
part on profit-sharing arrangement.
This exception does not involve, strictly speaking, a division of
legal fees with non-lawyer employees. The retirement benefits in
the form of pension represent additional deferred wages or
compensation for past services of the employees.
Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the
court.
Some requirements of candor:
Not suppress material and vital facts which bear on the merit
or lack of merit of complaint or petition
Volunteer to court any development of the case which has
rendered the issue raised moot and academic
Disclose to court any decision adverse to his position of which
opposing counsel is apparently ignorant and which court
should consider in deciding case. After doing so, he may
challenge the soundness of the decision or present reasons,
23

which he believes, would warrant court in not following it in the

pending case.
Not represent himself as lawyer for a client, appear for client in court
and present pleadings, only to claim later that he was not authorized to
do so.

However, lawyer is not an umpire but an advocate. He is not obliged to

refrain from making every proper argument in support of any legal point
because he isnt convinced of its inherent soundness. Neither is he obliged
to suggest arguments against his position.
Cobb-Perez v. Lantin, 24 SCRA 291 (1968)
A counsels assertiveness in espousing with candor and honesty his
clients case must be encouraged and is to be commended; what we do not
and cannot countenance is a lawyers insistence despite the patent futility
of his clients position, as in the case at bar. It is the duty of a counsel to
advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the
law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his clients
cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to
acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer
must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his clients
propensity to litigate. A lawyers oath to uphold the cause of justice is
superior to his duty to his client. Its primacy is indisputable.

To knowingly misquote or misrepresent in any of these matters not

only unprofessional but also contemptuous.
Examples of violations: making it appear that quotations in motion
for recon were SC findings when theyre actually just part of the
memorandum of the Court administrator, misspelling name of
complainant, making the wrong citation of authority.
Reason for this rule: Only from this Tribunals [SC] decisions
and rulings do all other courts, as well as lawyers and litigants,
take their bearings. This is because the decisions referred to in Art.
8 of the Civil Code which reads, Judicial decisions applying or
interpreting laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal
system of the Philippines are only those enunciated by this Court
of last resortThus, ever present is the danger that if not faithfully
and exactly quoted, the decisions and rulings of this court may lose
their proper and correct meaning, to the detriment of other courts,
lawyers, and the public who may be thereby misled. (Insular Life
Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association v. Insular Life
Assurance Co., Ltd., 37 SCRA 244, 279-280 [1971])
Lawyer shouldnt assert as meritorious his clients case when he
has in his possession adverse information or knowledge in regard
thereto.

Rule 10.01 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
misled by an artifice.

Rule 10.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and

shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.

Rule 10.02 A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the

contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel,
or 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.

Lawyer should not use his knowledge of law as instrument to

harass a party.
Misuse of judicial process: filing a petition as a scheme to frustrate
and further delay the execution of a final and executory judgment.
A deliberate misreading or misinterpretation of the law by a lawyer
also falls under the injunction and puts him in public distrust.
24

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.
Lawyer owes the court the duty to observe and maintain a respectful
attitude not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office
but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. Respect of courts
helps build the high esteem and regard toward them which is essential to
the proper administration of justice.
Duty to observe and maintain the respect due the courts devolves not only
upon lawyers but upon those who will choose to enter the profession.
Failure to discharge such duty may be prevented from being inducted into
the office of attorney.
Lawyers must obey lawful orders of the court. Willful disregard thereof
may subject the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to
disciplinary sanction as an officer of the court as well. A lawyer who
gives a clearly unsatisfactory explanation on why he failed to comply with
a lawful order, or who simply ignores it commits an act within the
meaning of the term willful disobedience. One such misconduct: failure
to comply with courts order to file appellants brief or comment within
the required period.
Lawyer has duty to defend judge from unfounded criticism or groundless
personal attack. Special civil actions or proceedings: a judge whose
decision or order is under attack in a higher court is merely a nominal
party. A decent regard for the judicial hierarchy bars the judge from
seeking a reversal of his action and requires the lawyer to refrain from
making the judge appear as a party suing against the adverse ruling, so he
may not be distracted from his main function of trying and adjudicating
cases in court. The burden of defending his challenged action falls on
private respondent and the latters counsel may be subjected to
disciplinary action should he fail to discharge the task.

In re Sotto, 92 Phil 595 (1949)

Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or wrongness,
soundness or unsoundness of the decision of the court in a pending
case made in good faith may be tolerated; because if well founded
it may enlighten the court and contribute to the correction of an
error if committed; but if it is not well taken and obviously
erroneous, it should, in no way, influence the court in reversing or
modifying its decision
To hurl the false charge that this Court has been for the last years
committing deliberately so many blunders and injustices, that is
to say, that it has been deciding in favor of one party knowing that
the law and justice is on the part of the adverse party and not on
the one in whose favor the decision was rendered, would tend
necessarily to undermine the confidence of the people in the
honesty and integrity of the members of this court, and
consequently to lower or degrade the administration of justice
[I]f the people lose their confidence in the honesty and integrity of
the members of this court and believe that they cannot expect
justice therefrom, they might be driven to take the law into their
own hands, and disorder and perhaps chaos would be the result
As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts, Atty. Vicente
Sottois in duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this
Court, to which he owes fidelity according to the oath he has taken
as such attorney, and not to promote distrust in the administration
of justice. Respect to the courts guarantees the stability of other
institutions, which without such guaranty would be resting on a
very shaky foundation.
Komatsu Industries v. CA, 289 SCRA 505
[T]he petitioners second motion for reconsideration could have
been correctly rejected outright. But, as further noted, petitioner
has distressingly adopted the lamentable technique contrived by
losing litigants of resorting to ascriptions of supposed irregularities
in the courts of justice as the cause of their defeat
25

Petitioner could have rendered a signal service to the judiciary if it had

only verified and proved the facts it purveyed but which are now belied
even just by the internal rules of this Court, of which petitioner appears to
be ignorant hence the valor of his denunciation. The members of the 2 nd
Division of this Court vehemently deny and denounce the animadversion
on their allegedly having been approached by Justice Padilla regarding this
case. The Padilla Law Office, counsel for respondent private corporation,
has submitted its response to the imputation against it, thus calling for
petitioner to prove its charges. The same burden is also imposed upon
petitioner for the aspersions it has cast upon the respondent Court of
Appeals. We, therefore, leave it to the aforesaid law firm, Justice Teodoro
Padilla and the Court of Appeals, on the one hand, and to herein petitioner,
on the other, to decide for themselves whether to further pursue this
incident in the proper proceedings. On such contingency, this Court will
content itself with a stern admonition that the petitioner refrain from
conducts tending to create mistrust in our judicial system through
innuendoes on which no evidence is offered or indicated to be proffered.
Responsible litigants need not be told that only pleadings formulated with
intellectual honesty on facts duly ascertained can subserve the ends of
justice and dignify the cause of the pleader.
In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562 (1970)
Membership in the Bar imposes upon a person obligations and duties
which are not mere flux and ferment. His investiture into the legal
profession places upon his shoulders no burden more basic, more exacting
and more imperative than that of respectful behavior toward the courts.
He vows solemnly to conduct himself with all good fidelityto the
courts. A lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney
at one time and a mere citizen at another. Thus statements made by an
attorney in private conversations or communications or in the course of a
political campaign, if couched in insulting language as to bring into scorn
and disrepute the administration of justice, may subject the attorney to
disciplinary action
Post-litigation utterances or publications, made by lawyers, critical of the
courts and their judicial actuations, whether amounting to a crime or not,

which transcend the permissible bounds of fair comment and

legitimate criticism and thereby tend to bring them into disrepute
or to subvert public confidence in their integrity and in the orderly
administration of justice, constitute grave professional
misconduct
To view the doctrinal rule that the protective mantle of contempt
may ordinarily be invoked only against scurrilous remarks or
malicious innuendoes while a court mulls over a pending case and
not after the conclusion thereof, is erroneous. The rule that bars
contempt after a judicial proceeding has terminated has lost much
of its vitality. As expressed by Chief Justice Moran, there may still
be contempt by publication even after a case has been terminated.
Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, 31 SCRA 1
(1970)
A lawyers language should be dignified in keeping with the
dignity of the legal profession. It is the duty of a member of the
bar to abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact
prejudicial to the honor or reputation of the party or witness, unless
required by justice
The deletion of paragraph 6, which contained disrespectful
language, did not erase the fact that it has been made. The
explanation that the deleted portion was included in the motion
filed in Court only because of mere advertence, does not make a
distinguishing differenceNot only because it was belatedly made
but also because his signature appeared on the motion to inhibit
which included paragraph 6
A person who admitted having prepared the motion for
reconsideration, which contained contemptuous language, is guilty
of contempt. The fact that he is not a lawyer is not an excuse
Counsels insistence that he had nothing to do with the
contemptuous motion for reconsideration and had not even read it
does not excuse him. AS counsel of record, he has control of the
proceedings.
26

Guerrero v. Villamor, 179 SCRA 355 (1989)

Contempt of court may be either direct or constructive. It is direct when
committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct or
interrupt proceedings before the same and constructive or indirect
contempt is one committed out or not in the presence of the court. It is an
act done in a distance which tends to belittle, degrade, obstruct, interrupt
or embarrass the court and justice
[S]tatements complained of are not contemptuous. We agree with
petitioners that the same are merely descriptive of therein plaintiffs cause
of action based on his reaction to what he perceived as a willful infliction
of injury on him by therein defendant judge. Strong words were use to lay
stress on the gravity and degree of moral anguish suffered by petitioner as
a result of the dismissal of the subject criminal cases to justify the award
of the damages being sought.
Rule 11.01 A lawyer shall appear in court properly attired.
Barong Tagalog, or a coat and a tie, either of which is the recognized
formal attire in the country (Note: Agpalo does not say anything about the
proper attire for lady-lawyers, but the general guideline is respect to the
court.)
If he dresses improperly, he may be cited for contempt.
Rule 11.02 A lawyer shall punctually appear at court hearings.
Inexcusable absence from, or repeated tardiness in, attending a pre-trial or
hearing may not only subject the lawyer to disciplinary action, but may
also prejudice his client who, as a consequence thereof, may be nonsuited, declared in default, or adjudged liable ex parte.
Rule 11.03 A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive, or
menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
A lawyer may sometimes use strong language to drive home a point, but
he must remember that he pleads and does not dictate. The lawyers

discharge of his duty to his client does not justify or require the use
of inflammatory or threatening words.
The mistake of a judge in some of his rulings does not justify the
use offensive language.
Neither does the lawyers superior ability permit him to lampoon
the judge.
Lawyer who uses intemperate, abusive, abrasive, or threatening
language betrays disrespect to the court, disgraces the bar, and
invites the exercise by the court of its disciplinary power.
Judges also have the duty to respect the lawyers.
Enriquez v. Bidin, 47 SCRA 183 (1972)
Atty. De Leon had filed his ex-parte manifestation dated 18
November 1968, complaining that the clerks office had sent
notices only to petitioner and there seemed to exist an unsavory tie
which links the herein petitioner with some people in the SC in a
manner deliberately if not maliciously designed to prejudice the
lawful interests of your respondents
Pursuant to the clerks prayer, the Court issued its resolution
requiring respondents counsels to show why they should not be
subject to disciplinary action for their said statementsAtty. De
Leon submitted his explanationassuming sole and absolute
responsibility for the statements in his manifestation to the
exclusion of his co-counseland submitted a narration of facts
which tempered his mood and prompted him to make that
statement obviously and certainly without malice to this Court and
declaring his honest and avowed intention of preserving the
utmost dignity and integrity that is due this Honorable Court.
Acting on the premises, the Court feels that a great part of Atty. De
Leons misconception was due to Zamboanga Citys distance form
Manila and the deficiencies of the mail service as well as to his
failure to file a similar request, as the city fiscal on behalf of
27

petitioner mayor, to be advised by wire collect of the Courts action on

petitioners motion
Under the circumstances, the Court deems that an admonition with a
warning to Atty. De Leon for having precipitately made such rash
statements without basis that unduly reflected upon the personnel in the
office of the clerk of court would suffice to uphold the ends of justice.
Sangalang v. IAC, 177 SCRA 87 (1989)
Atty. Sangco is entitled to his own opinion, but not to a license to insult
the court with derogatory statements and recourses to argumenta ad
hominem. In that event, it is the Courts duty to act to preserve the honor
and dignityand to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal
profession
While a lawyer must advocate his clients cause in utmost earnest and with
the maximum he can marshal, he is not at liberty to resort to arrogance,
intimidation, and innuendo.
Rule 11.04 A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not
supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.
Lawyer should not make hasty accusations against the judge without any
cogent and valid ground extant in the record.
Lawyer may criticize judicial conduct as long as the record supports it or it
is material to the case.
It is also lawyers duty to expose the shortcomings and indiscretions of
courts and judges. Examples of proper forums: prosecution of appeals
where he points out the errors of lower courts, articles written for law
journals where he dissects with detachment the doctrinal pronouncement
of courts and exposes the flaws and inconsistencies of the doctrines.
Rule 11.05 A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge to the
proper authorities only.

Grievances against judges shall be filed with the Supreme Court

which has the administrative supervision over all courts and the
power to discipline judges of lower courts.
Lawyer should refer charges against a judge only after proper
circumspection and without using disrespectful language and
offensive personalities.
A lawyer may not file administrative complaint against a judge,
which arises from judges judicial acts, until the lawyer shall have
exhausted judicial remedies, which results in finding that the judge
has gravely erred. If lawyer does so without exhausting such
judicial remedies or awaiting their results, he may be
administratively held to account therefore.
Canon 12 A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his
duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of
justice.
One consequence: lawyer must inform the court, within 30 days
after the death of his client in a pending case, where the claim is
not extinguished by such death, and of the name of the deceaseds
representative, so that substitution can be effected. Breach of this
duty: disciplinary action against the lawyer
Lawyer should also inform the court of any change of his address.
Failure to do so: although wont prevent any notice sent to his
address of record to be effective, may will delay disposition of case
Rule 12.01 A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has
adequately prepared himself on the law and on the facts of his
case, the evidence he will adduce and the order of its
profference. He should also be ready with the original
documents for comparison with the copies.
28

See Rule 18.02

Rule 12.02 A lawyer shall not file multiple actions arising from the
same cause.
Litigation must end sometime and somewhere, and the effective and
efficient administration of justice demands that once a judgment has
become final, the winning party be not, through subterfuge and misuse of
legal process, deprived of that verdict. Thus, lawyer shouldnt file several
actions or petitions arising from the same cause or seeking substantially
identical reliefs as those that had already been disposed of.
Lawyer should not file petition with the CA or the RTC where a similar
petition has been filed or is pending with the SC, and vice versa. In short,
lawyer should not forum-shop.
Forum shopping: the act of a party against whom an adverse judgment has
been rendered in one forum, of seeking another (exception: appeal or
special civil action of certiorari) or of instituting 2 or more actions or
proceedings grounded on the same cause on the supposition that one or the
other would make a favorable disposition
Test of forum shopping: WON elements of litis pendentia are present or
whether a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in
another. In other words, if the party pursues the same cause of action,
involving the same issues, parties and subject matter, in 2 different forums.
Not forum shopping:
Filing several cases based on same incident if the cases involve
different facts, circumstances, and causes of action
Filing criminal complaint arising from the same set of facts on which
a civil action is based
SC Revised Circular no. 28-91 to prevent forum shopping:

In every petition filed with the SC, the petition must certify under
oath:
He has not theretofore commenced any other
action/proceeding involving the same issues in the SC, the CA,
or any other tribunal or agency to the best of his knowledge,
no such action/proceeding pending in SC/CA/any divisions
thereof/any other tribunal or agencies
If there is such other action/proceeding pending: he must state
status of the same
If he thereafter learns that a similar action or proceeding has
been filed/is pending before the SC/CA/division thereof/other
tribunal or agency, he undertakes to promptly inform the
aforesaid courts and such other tribunal or agency of the fact
w/in 5 days therefrom.
Sanctions for violation:
Cause for summary dismissal of multiple petitions or
complaints
Deliberate forum shopping through filing multiple
petitions/complaints to ensure favorable action: direct
contempt of court
Submitting false certification: indirect contempt of court,
without prejudice to filing criminal action against guilty party
and institution of disciplinary proceedings against counsel
In filing petitions and other initiatory pleadings in all other
courts and agencies, the plaintiff must certify under oath in
original pleading, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto
and simultaneously filed therewith (note: sanctions for
violations same as those for rules governing SC and CA
certifications) :
He hasnt theretofore commenced any other action or proceeding
involving the same issues in the SC/CA/other tribunal or agency to
the best of his knowledge, no such action or proceeding pending
29

before SC/CA/other tribunal or agency. If there is any such action pending

or terminated, he must state status thereof. If after learning that similar
action/proceeding filed or pending before the SC/CA/other tribunal or
agency, he undertakes to report the fact within 5 days to court/agency
where original pleading and sworn certification filed.
Forum-shopping certification to be executed by petitioner or party litigant
and not counsel, since petitioner is best person to know WON he or it
actually filed or caused filing of another petition or action. Counsels
certification against forum shopping is defective and is equivalent to noncompliance. Rare occasions where petitioner cannot execute certification
and lawyer must immediately file petition to protect clients interest:
lawyer should execute the certification but state that he knows facts
relative to the case and explain why petitioner cant execute the
certification.
Rule against forum shopping applies to any proceeding, such as
applications for search warrant.
Previously, the circular required that the caption of petition/complaint
include docket number of lower court case or quasi-judicial agency case
sought to be reviewed. This requirement subsequently removed.

Prefatorily, on matters of compliance with procedural

requirements, it must be mentioned that the conduct of the
respective counsel for FESC and PPA leaves much to be desired, to
the displeasure and disappointment of this Court[description
follows of how both parties violated SC rules on certification
against forum-shopping]
Counsel for FESCis reprimanded and warned that a repetition
of the same or similar acts of heedless disregard of its undertakings
under the Rules shall be dealt with more severely.
The original members of the legal team of the OSG assigned to this
caseare admonished and warned that a repetition of the same or
similar acts of unduly delaying proceedings due to delayed filing
of the required pleadings shall also be dealt with more stringently.
The SolGen is directed to look into the circumstances of this case
and to adopt provident measures to avoid a repetition of this
incident and which would ensure prompt compliance with orders
of this Court regarding the timely filing of requisite pleadings, in
the interest of just, speedy and orderly administration of justice.
Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of
time to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse
without submitting the same or offering an explanation for his
failure to do so.

Lawyer should temper clients propensity to litigate

Civil suit: lawyer should decline to conduct a civil cause or to make a
defense in a civil suit when convinced that it is intended to injure or harass
the opposite party or to work oppression or wrong
If after his appearance the lawyer discovers that his client has no case: he
should advice client to discontinue action or confess judgment; if client
insists, lawyer should ask to be relieved of professional responsibility.
Far Eastern Shipping v. CA, 297 SCRA 30 (1998)

Lawyers failure to explain late filing or failure to file: discourtesy

to court
When lawyers motion for extension of time to file pleading/
memorandum/ brief remained unacted on by curt, he should file it
w/in period asked for. If he fails to file it within period, he should
nonetheless file it with a motion for leave to admit the same,
explaining therein the reasons for the delay. He should not wait
until adverse decision is rendered or until he is required to show
cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for
such negligence.
30

Rule 12.04 A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.
Lawyers signature in pleading: his certification that pleading is not
interposed for delay; willful violation of this rule may subject him to
appropriate disciplinary action.
Lawyer should use procedural rules to assist the court in administering
impartial justice and not for its frustration.
If lawyer honestly convinced that appeal in civil suit futile, he should tell
the client.
Dilemma of lawyer: He is subject to disciplinary action for both
interposing appeal deliberately to delay and failing to appeal adverse
decision
Nonetheless, lawyer should not solely on own judgment let decision
become final by letting period to appeal lapse without informing client of
adverse decision and of his candid advice in taking appellate review
thereof, so that client may decide.

Aguinaldo v. Aguinaldo, 36 SCRA 173 (1970)

Defendants had to display ingenuity to conjure a technicality. The
aim of a lawsuit is to render justice to the parties according to the
law. Procedural rules are precisely designed to accomplish such a
worthy objective. Necessarily, therefore, any attempt to pervert the
ends for which they are intended deserves condemnation.
Magat v. Soriano, 97 SCRA 1 (1980)
[Atty. Magat had been previously suspended for delaying the
termination of an unlawful detainer case]
The suspension of a lawyer is not intended primarily as a
punishment, but as a measure of protection of the pubic and the
professional. We are satisfied that Atty. Magat appreciates the
significance of his dereliction and he has assured Us that he now
possesses the requisite probity and integrity necessary to guarantee
that he is worthy to be restored to the practice of law.
Rule 12.05 A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness
during a break or recess in the trial, while the witness is still
under examination.

If lawyer does not hear from client, he should perfect appeal or else he
may be administratively liable for negligence in performing his duties,
which resulted in the finality of decision against client. Lawyers plea that
he didnt appeal due to honest belief in its futility and the absence of
merit: mitigates but does not exonerate him from administratively liability.

Purpose of rule: to avoid suspicion that he is coaching the witness

on what to say during the resumption of the examination.

Manila Pest Control, Inc. v. WCC, 25 SCRA 700 (1968)

It is one thing to exert to the utmost ones ability to protect the interest of
ones client. It is quite another thing, and this is to put it at its mildest, to
take advantage of any unforeseen turn of events, if not to create one, to
create if not to defeat the recovery of what is justly due and demandable,
especially so, when as in this case, the obligee is a necessitous and
poverty-stricken man suffering from a dreaded disease

Lawyer may interview witness in advance of trial or attend to their

needs if they are poor, but should avoid any such action as may be
misinterpreted as an attempt to influence witness on what to say in
court.

Rule 12.06 A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to

misrepresent himself or impersonate another.

Court may not rely on testimony of witness who admits having

been instructed.
31

Lawyer who presents witness whom he knows will give a false testimony
may be subjected to disciplinary action.
Rule 12.07 A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor
needlessly inconvenience him.
Lawyer should not advance fact prejudicial to witness honor/reputation
unless required by justice or the cause with which he is charged.
Not excuse for maltreating witnesses: its what the client would say if
speaking in his own behalf. Lawyer shouldnt minister to
malevolence/prejudice of his client in the trial or conduct of a case.
Rule 12.08 A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf of his client,
except:
On formal matters, such as the mailing, authentication or custody of
an instrument, and the like; or on substantial matters, in cases where
his testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which event he must,
during his testimony, entrust the trial of the case to another counsel.
Question is one of propriety rather than competence to testify. Reason for
impropriety: difference between function of witness and that of an
advocate.
Improper for lawyer:
To accept employment in a case in which he knows he or his partner
will be a material witness for the party seeking to employ him.
(Having accepted employment in ignorance of such fact, he should,
upon finding out, withdraw from the case where he may do so without
imperiling his clients interests.)
To accept employment in a case where he would be obliged to attack
essential testimony to be given by his partner on behalf of the opposite
side.

Although the law does not forbid an attorney to be a witness and

at the same time an attorney in a case, the courts prefer that
counsel should not testify as a witness unless it is necessary, and
that they should withdraw from the active management of the
case.
CANON 13- A Lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause
and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or
gives the appearance of influencing the court.
A lawyer should rely solely on the merits of his client's case and
not on extraneous considerations.
He should refrain from giving the appearance that he can influence
the court to decide in his favor, regardless of the merits of the case.
This is to avoid the lessening of the confidence of the public in the
impartial administration of justice by the Courts.
Nestle Phil. vs. Sanchez
During the period July 8-10, 1897, respondent in case pending in
the SC, Union of Filipro Employees, and petitioner in another case,
Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism and
Nationalism-Olalia held a picket rally in front of the Padre Faura
gate of the SC, making a lot of noise, litter and preventing the free
entry/exit through the said gate
Prior thereto, certain SC justices already talked to Atty. Espinas,
counsel for Union of Filipro employees, that the pickets be
informed that their acts constitute direct contempt of court and they
must stop immediately.
On July 10, the SC resolved to make the Union leaders and Atty.
Espinas to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.
Espinas should further show why he should not be administratively
dealt with. Espinas explained to the court that he tried to dissuade

PNB v. Uy Teng Piao, 57 Phil. 337 (1987)

32

the picketers and that he explained to them that what their actions
constitute contempt of court.
Issue: WON picketing outside of SC is punishable with contempt.
Yes. The court will not hesitate in the future to apply the full force of the
law and punish for contempt those who attempt to pressure the court into
acting one way or the other in any case pending before it. Grievances
should be aired along proper channels.
Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary attention or
hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with
Judges.
A lawyer should avoid marked attention and unusual hospitality to a judge,
uncalled for by the personal relations of the parties, because they subject
him and the judge to misconceptions of motives or suspicion.
A judge should refrain from all relations which would normally tend to
arouse the suspicion that such relations warp or bias his judgment or
prevent his impartial attitude of mind in the administration of justice, and
avoid such action as may reasonably tend to waken the suspicion that his
social or business relations or friendships constitute an element in
determining his judicial course.
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or
against the party.
Statements regarding a pending or anticipated litigation may interfere with
a fair trial, prejudice the administration of justice, or subject a respondent
or accused to a trial by publicity and create a public inference of guilt
against him.
The reputation of the respondent or accused, particularly if he is a
professional, may be damaged even if he is exonerated.

Issuance of statements concerning pending cases are allowed, as

long as the circumstances justify them, the statements are not
anonymous, and they are so written to arouse public opinion for or
against a party.
Cruz vs. Salva
The trial court for the killing of Monroy convicted a number of
persons. Defendants in this particular case appealed, and the case
is now pending before the SC. During the pendency of this case,
Pres. Magsaysay ordered a reinvestigation. Several new suspects
appeared, among the petitioner Timoteo Cruz.
Fiscal Salva, who was tasked to investigate the case, subpoenaed
Cruz.
Cruz willingly presented himself for investigation.
However, said investigation was not done in the usual manner. It
was held in the session hall of the municipal hall, instead of Salva's
office, in order to accommodate the press. It seemed that the
investigation was widely publicized and Salva even went as far as
allowing the press to question the witness.
Issue: WON Salva violated Rule 13.02 of the CPR
Yes. It is bad enough to have such undue publicity when a
criminal case is being investigated by the authorities, even when it
is being tried in court; but when said publicity and sensationalism
is allowed, even encouraged, when the case is on appeal and is
pending consideration by this tribunal, the whole thing becomes
inexcusable.
Martelino vs. Alejandro
Muslim recruits of the army were shot and killed while undergoing
training. As a result, some members of the army including
petitioners herein, were tried by court martial.
Petitioner Martelino sought the disqualification of the President of
the General Court Martial on the ground that latter has read several
newspaper articles about the killings, and may now be prejudiced
against him. It is further contended that the case had received a lot
33

of publicity because it was an issue discussed in connection with the 1969

Presidential elections.
WON the publicity caused by the newspapers would imperil petitioner's
right to a fair trial.
No. If ever there was trial by publicity, it was against the Government, not
against the petitioners. Moreover, the suspension of the trial may have
accomplished the purpose of this petition, by postponing the trial until
calmer times have returned.
RE: Request Radio-TV
Petitioners KBP, Justice Secretary Perez, etc. want Estrada's plunder trial
telecast live. They contended that the public had a right to receive vital
information regarding events affecting the nation.
Trial should not to be televised. The right of accused, who is in danger of
losing his life and liberty, to a fair trial, outweighs right of public to
information. Media exposure may unduly interfere with the disposition of
the trial.
Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another
branch or agency of the government in normal course of judicial
proceedings.
It is to maintain and preserve the independence of the judiciary and to free
it from legislative interference that the Constitution mandates that "no law
shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security
of tenure of its members" and also the fiscal autonomy of the Judiciary.
CANON 14 - A Lawyer shall not refuse his services to the needy.
This Canon and its implementing rules provide for the exceptions to the
rule that lawyers generally have a right to choose which cases to accept or
decline.

It also emphasizes the lawyer's public responsibility of rendering

legal services to the needy and the oppressed who are unable to
pay attorney's fees.
The poor, when in trouble, need most the services of a lawyer.
However, they hesitate to secure such services simply because they
can't afford to pay lawyers.
Also, it is the IBP's objective to make legal services for those who
badly need them.
A lawyer may not appear as counsel without a contract of
employment. Such contract may be express or implied.
The employment of a law firm is equivalent to the retainer of a
member thereof even though one of them is consulted; conversely,
the employment of one member is generally considered as
employment of the law firm.
Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person
solely on account of the latter's race, sex creed or status of life,
or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of said
person.
Regardless of his personal feelings, a lawyer should not decline
representation because a client or a cause is unpopular or
community reaction is adverse.
This rule makes it ethically easy for a lawyer to take the defense of
an accused whom he knows, or the public believes, is guilty of a
crime.
One never knows if a person is guilty or not until the judge
determines it.

34

For every lawyer whose conscience may be pricked, there is another

whose virtue is tickled. Every case has two sides, and for every lawyer on
the wrong side, there's another on the right side.
An exception is civil actions. The rules and ethics of the legal profession
enjoin a lawyer from taking a bad case. There must be good cause to
support the case, and that it is not interposed for delay. A lawyer must also
counsel such actions, which appear to him to be just. He should not
encourage actions for any corrupt motive or interest. Finally, he may not
conduct a civil cause or defense when it is apparent that it is only meant to
harass or injure the opposite party.
Rule 14.02 - 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.
One of the obligations incident to the status and privilege of a lawyer to
practice law is to represent the poor and the oppressed in the prosecution
of their claims or the defense of their rights.
This stems from the lawyer's public responsibility arising from his office
as attorney.
As Counsel de Oficio:
The right to counsel would be meaningless if a person who needs the
services of a lawyer is deprived of legal representation because he cannot
afford to pay counsel fees. The law sees to it that this should not be the
case.
Every lawyer should welcome his appointment as counsel de oficio as a
opportunity to render public service, show that the practice of law is a
profession, and demonstrate that the discharge of his duties does not
depend upon payment or the amount of the fees.
As Amicus Curiae:

Such an appointment is an honor and recognition of his experience

and impartiality because only experienced and impartial attorneys
ma be invited by the court to appear as amicus curiae to help in the
disposition of issues submitted to it.
Assignment from the IBP:
The fulfillment of the objective of the IBP to make legal services
fully available even to the poor segment of society through legal
aid offices requires acceptance by a lawyer, who receives a request
from an IBP legal aid, office or chapter for rendition of free legal
aid of his share of tendered employment from the poor and
oppressed.
People vs Solis
Appellants here stole the livestock, and also the life, of Corsita.
Upon arraignment, they had Atty. Ginete as counsel de oficio. In
the next hearing, said counsel did not appear. They told the court
that their counsel de parte would appear the next day, and so
Ginete was relieved. However, said counsel de parte also failed to
appear. After ten months of postponements, court appointed three
counsel de oficio for them, but only one handled the case. They
were convicted, thus this appeal. They contend that they were
denied of due process for failure of trial court to afford them the
right to be defended by counsel of their own choice.
If they were indeed sincere in their desire to be defended by
counsel of own choice, the period of ten months was more than
enough for them to secure one.
Besides, during the proceedings they never manifested any such
desire. They also did not protest the appointment of counsel de
oficio for them.
Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may refuse to accept representation of an
indigent client if:
He is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or
competently;
35

He labors under a conflict of interests between him and the

prospective client or between a present client and a prospective client.

Substitution was not valid because Maggay did not formally

withdraw as counsel for Rinconada.

The thrust of Canon 14 is to make acceptance by a lawyer of professional

employment from the poor and the indigent the general rule, and his
refusal on valid grounds the exception.

Rule 14.04 - 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.

Quilban vs Robinol
Colegio de San Jose owned a parcel of land and decided to sell it to the
squatters living there at a cheap price. Said squatters formed a group
named SAMAHAN to facilitate negotiations. However, it turned out that
Martin, head of the SAMAHAN, sold parcel of land to Rivera.
The rest of the SAMAHAN then hired Atty. Robinol to recover land.
They eventually won the case. Robinol's payment was supposed to be
some cash and an equal portion of the land. They gave Robinol 75T to
pay back Rivera. It was discovered after a year that the money wasn't
turned over yet.
SAMAHAN thus hired Atty. Montemayor to replace Robinol. Robinol did
not object to his appearance. SAMAHAN also filed administrative
complaint against Robinol, who in turn charged Montemayor for entering
as counsel without his consent.
Robinol contended that he kept the money they gave him because ha
hasn't been paid yet, and that he decided to convert his share of the land
into cash. What he did was unjust, for he delayed their cause for money.

The gaining of livelihood is only a secondary consideration.

Rinconada vs Buenviaje
Basically, what happened was that Rinconada filed two cases against
Imperial. Atty. Maggay represented him in the said cases. However,
Judge Buenviaje granted Imperial's motion to dismiss cases. It was at this
point when Atty. Santos entered as new counsel for Rinconada and filed a
motion for reconsideration. Judge accepted the motion, but had the order
denying the motion delivered to Maggay instead of Santos, so when
Rinconada moved to appeal the case, it was denied because it was filed out
of time.

Rule 15.01 A lawyer, in conferring with a prospective client,

shall ascertain as soon as practicable whether the matter would
involve a conflict with another client or his won interest, and if
so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.

Neither the amount of attorney's fees nor the client's financial

ability to pay such fees should serve as the test to determine the
extent of the lawyer's devotion to his client's cause.
CANON 15 A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND
TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.
Generally, the relation of attorney-client is strictly personal and
highly confidential and fiduciary. No other human relation
involves so delicate a nature than that of attorney and client. Only
by characterizing and safeguarding it as such will a person be
encouraged to repose trust in a lawyer. Behind this is the belief that
abstinence from seeking legal advice in a good cause is an evil
fatal to the administration of justice.

It is the duty of a lawyer to disclose and explain to a prospective

client all circumstances of his relations to the parties and any
interest in or connection with the controversy, which in his honest
judgment might influence the client in the selection of counsel.
This disclosure is more for the protection of the lawyer than it is
36

for the client as concealment of facts material to employment may cause

the client to lose confidence in him. Further, a lawyer may not accept
employment from another in a matter adversely affecting any interest of
his former client. It is his duty to decline employment in such a case where
there are conflicting interests.
Maturan v. Gonzales
It is improper for a lawyer to appear as counsel for one party against the
adverse party who is his client in a related suit, That the representation of
conflicting interests is in good faith and with honest intention on the part
of the lawyer does not make the prohibition inoperative. The reason for the
prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of
trust and confidence of the highest degree. A lawyer becomes familiar with
all the facts connected with his clients case. Such knowledge must be
considered sacred and guarded with care.
Dee v. CA
Generally, an attorney is prohibited from representing parties with
contending positions. However, at a certain stage of the controversy before
it reaches the court, a lawyer may represent conflicting interests with the
consent of the parties. A common representation may work to the
advantage of the parties since a mutual lawyer, with honest motivations
and impartially cognizant of the parties disparate positions, may well be
better suited to work out an acceptable settlement of their differences,
being free of partisan inclinations and acting with the cooperation and
confidence of the parties.
Buted v. Bolisay
There is no necessity for proving the actual transmission of confidential
information to an attorney in the course of his employment by one client
in order that a subsequent client may preclude him from accepting
employment where there are conflicting interests between the two clients.
Further, the absence of monetary consideration does not exempt a lawyer
from complying with the prohibition against pursuing cases where a
conflict of interest exists. The prohibition attaches from the moment an

attorney-client relation is established and extends beyond the

duration of the professional relationship.
Nakpil v. Valdes
The proscription against representation of conflicting interests
finds application where the conflicting interests arise with respect
to the same general matter and is applicable however slight such
adverse interest may be. It applies although the attorneys
intentions and motives were honest and he acted in good faith.
However, representation of conflicting interests may be allowed
where the parties consent to the representation, after full disclosure
of facts. Disclosure alone is not enough for the clients must give
their informed consent to such representation. The lawyer must
explain to his clients the nature and extent of the conflict and the
possible adverse effect must be thoroughly understood by his
clients.
Rule 15.02 A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privileged
communication in respect of matters disclosed to him by a
prospective client.
Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a lawyer are protected
by the rule on privileged communication even if the prospective
client does not thereafter retain the lawyer or the latter declines
employment. The rationale behind this rule is to allow the
prospective client to feel free to discuss whatever he wishes
without the fear that what he discloses will be divulged or used
against him. As a corollary, the lawyer becomes equally free to
obtain information from him (See Canon 21 and its implementing
rules for a detailed discussion on privileged communication).
People v. Sandiganbayan
For the application of the attorney-client privilege, the period to be
considered is the date when the client made the privileged
communication to the attorney in relation to either a crime
37

committed in the past or with respect to a crime intended to be committed

in the future. If a client seeks his lawyers advice with respect to a crime
that he has already committed, he is given the protection of a virtual
confessional seal, which the privilege declares cannot be broken by his
attorney without his consent. The same privilege, however, does not attach
with regard to a crime, which a client intends to commit thereafter or in
the future, and for purposes of which he seeks the lawyers advice. Such
communications regarding contemplated acts, or in aid or in furtherance
thereof, are not covered by the cloak of privilege. Further, in order for a
communication to be privileged, it must be for a lawful purpose or in
furtherance of a lawful end. The existence of an unlawful purpose prevents
the privilege from attaching.
Regala v. Sandiganbayan
As a mater of public policy, a clients identity should not be shrouded in
mystery. Hence, a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to
divulge the name or identity of his client. However, several exceptions
exist. Client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that
revealing the clients name would implicate him in the very activity for
which he sought the lawyers advice. Identity is also privileged where
disclosure would open the client to civil liability. The content of any client
communication lies within the privilege if it is relevant to the subject
matter of the legal problem on which he seeks legal assistance. Moreover,
where the nature of the attorney-client relation has been previously
disclosed and it is the identity that is intended to be confidential, the
privilege may also be invoked, since such revelations would result in
disclosure of the entire transaction.
Note: According to Dean Agabin, as long as a crime has already been
committed, its disclosure is privileged communication.
Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except
by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.

There is inconsistency of interest within the meaning of the

prohibition when, on behalf of one client, it is the attorneys duty
to contend for that which his duty to another client requires him to
oppose, or when the possibility of such situation develops. Other
tests of the inconsistency of interests are: [1] whether the
acceptance of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full
discharge of his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client
or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance thereof; and [2] whether he will be called upon in his
new relation to use against his first client any knowledge acquired
in the previous employment. The test to determine whether there is
a conflict of interest is probability, not certainty, of conflict. The
rule applies even if the conflict pertains to a lawyers private
activity or in the performance in a non-professional capacity, and
his presentation as a lawyer regarding the same subject matter.
The termination of the relation of attorney and client provides no
justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in
conflict with that of his former client. A clients confidence once
reposed cannot be divested by the expiration of the professional
employment. Further, the prohibition applies irrespective of
whether or not the lawyer has acquired confidential information
from his former client.
But where no conflict of interests exists, where the clients
knowingly consent to the dual representation or where no true
attorney-client relationship is attendant, the prohibition does not
apply.
Rule 15.04 A lawyer may, with the written consent of all
concerned, act as mediator, conciliator or arbitrator in settling
disputes.

38

A lawyers knowledge of the law and his reputation for fidelity may make
it easy for the disputants to settle their differences amicably. However, the
lawyer shall not act as counsel for any of them.
Rule 15.05 A lawyer when advising his client shall give a candid
and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of the clients
case, neither overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.
As officers of the court, counsels are under obligation to advise their
clients against making untenable and inconsistent claims. Lawyers are not
merely hired employees who must unquestionably do the bidding of the
client, however unreasonable this may be when tested by their own expert
appreciation of the facts and applicable law and jurisprudence. Counsel
must counsel.
Rule 15.06 A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to
influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.
Lantoria v. Bunyi
As an officer of the court, a lawyer is commanded to help promote the
independence of the judiciary and to refrain from engaging in acts which
would influence the judicial determination of a litigation in which he is
counsel. Marked attention and unusual hospitality on the part of a lawyer
to a judge uncalled for by the personal relations of the parties subject both
the judge and the lawyer to misconstruction of motive and should be
avoided. A lawyer should not communicate or argue privately with a judge
as to the merits of a pending case and deserves rebuke and denunciation
for any device or attempt to gain from a judge special consideration or
favor.
Rule 15.07 A lawyer shall impress upon his client compliance with
the laws and the principle of fairness.

raise such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable

under the law, and to secure for the client, through honorable
means, only what is justly due him. He is required to represent his
client within the bounds of law, i.e., a lawyer is not a gun for hire.
Rule 15.08 A lawyer who is engaged in another profession or
occupation concurrently with the practice of law shall make
clear to his client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another
capacity.
A practicing lawyer may lawfully engage in any other lawful
occupation or business. However, he is required to inform his
client as to the capacity in which he acts, as certain ethical
considerations governing attorney-client relations may be operative
in one and not the other.
CANON 16 A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL
MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF HIS CLIENT THAT MAY
COME INTO HIS POSSESSION.
The well-established rule that the relation of attorney and client is
highly fiduciary and strictly confidential, requiring utmost good
faith, loyalty, fidelity, and disinterestedness on the part of the
attorney is designed to remove all temptation to take advantage of,
not only the need of his client but also of his good nature, liberality
and credulity, to obtain any undue advantage. The law in fact
requires that in all contractual property or other relations, when
one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral
dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or
other handicaps, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.
Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all money and
property collected or received for or from the client.

A lawyer should impress upon his client that his duty it to counsel or
maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and
39

In the course of his professional relationship with his client, a lawyer may
receive money or property for or from his client. The lawyer holds such
money or property in trust and he is under obligation to make an
accounting thereof. Included are moneys collected by the lawyer in
pursuance of a judgment in favor of his client as well as money not used
for the purpose for which it was entrusted to counsel. A lawyers failure to
make an accounting or to return the money upon demand constitutes
blatant disregard of this rule. He may be subjected to the disciplinary
action of the courts, ranging from suspension to disbarment, depending on
the attendant circumstances.
Rayos-Ombac v. Rayos
The nature of the office of a lawyer requires that he shall be of good moral
character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission
to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain
ones good standing in the profession.
Daroy v. Legaspi
A lawyer, under his oath, pledges to delay no man for money or malice
and is bound to conduct himself with all good fidelity to his clients. He is
obligated to report promptly the money of his clients that has come into
his possession. He should not commingle it with his private property nor
use it for personal purposes without his clients consent. Money collected
by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held in
trust and must be immediately turned over to them. When an attorney
unjustly retains money belonging to his client after it has been demanded,
he may be punished for contempt as an officer of the court who has
misbehaved in his official transactions and he is liable to a criminal
prosecution. His conversion of his clients money to his own benefit
through false pretenses constitutes deceit, malpractice, and gross
misconduct.
Licuanan v. Melo
The relation between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in its
nature and of a very delicate, exacting, and confidential character,

requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith. A lawyer should

refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or gain he
abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by the
client. Hence, lawyers are bound to promptly account for money or
property received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to
do so constitutes professional misconduct. That the lawyer has a
lien for fees on money in his hands collected for his clients does
not relieve him from the duty of promptly accounting for the funds
received.
Rule 16.02 A lawyer shall keep the funds of each client
separate and apart from his own and those of others kept by
him.
A lawyer should not commingle a clients money with that of other
clients and with his private funds, nor use the clients money for
his personal purposes without the clients consent. He should
promptly report any money belonging to his client that has come
into his possession.
Rule 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property to
his client when due or upon demand. However, he shall have a
lien over the funds and may apply so much thereof as may be
necessary to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a
lien to the same extent on all judgments and executions he has
secured for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court.
A lawyer shall deliver the funds and property of his client when
due or upon demand, subject to his lien to satisfy lawful fees and
disbursements (See Rule 22.02 for a detailed discussion on
attorneys lien). The failure to return the clients money upon
demand creates the presumption that he has misappropriated it for
his own use to the prejudice of and in violation of the trust reposed
40

in him by the client. It is a gross violation of general morality as well as of

professional ethics.
Navarro v. Meneses
A lawyers oath imposes upon him the duty to delay no man for money or
malice. The acts of a lawyer of misappropriating money entrusted to him
and failing or refusing to account for it to his client despite repeated
demands therefor indicate his unfitness for the confidence and trust
reposed in him. They tend to show a lack of personal honesty or of good
moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence and
constitute a ground for disciplinary action extending to disbarment.
Tanhueco v. de Dumo
Moneys collected by an attorney on a judgment rendered in favor of his
client constitute trust funds and must be immediately paid over to the
client. True, Section 37 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that an
attorney has a lien upon the funds, documents and papers of his client
which have lawfully come into his possession and may retain the same
until his lawful fees and disbursements have been paid, and may apply
such funds to the satisfaction thereof. He shall also have a lien to the same
extent upon all judgments for the payment of money, and executions
issued in pursuance of such judgments, which he has secured in a
litigation of his client However, the fact that a lawyer has a lien for
fees on moneys collected for a client, does not relieve him from the duty
to promptly account for the moneys received. His failure to do so
constitutes professional misconduct.
Quilban v. Robinol
A lawyer has no right to unilaterally appropriate his clients money and
convert it to the payment of his fees, when such funds were intended for a
specific purpose. To do so would not only be an ethical infraction but also
grave misconduct that renders him unworthy to continue in the practice of
the profession.

Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client
unless the clients interests are fully protected by the nature of
the case or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except when, in the interest of justice, he has
to advance necessary expenses in a legal matter he is handling
for the client.
The rule consists of two parts. The first part is intended to prevent
the lawyer from taking advantage of his influence over the client.
While a lawyer may borrow money from his client where the
clients interests are fully protected by the nature of the case he is
handling for him or by independent advice from another lawyer, he
should not abuse the clients confidence by delaying payment. The
second part is designed to assure the lawyers independent
professional judgment. For if a lawyer acquires a financial interest
in the outcome of the case the free exercise of his judgment may be
adversely affected. His acquiring an interest in the subject matter
of the case or an additional stake in its outcome may lead him to
either consider his own recovery rather than that of his client or
accept a settlement which may take care of his interest in the
verdict to the sacrifice of that of his client. In either case, he
violates his duty of undivided fidelity to his clients cause.
Related to this rule is the law prohibiting a lawyer from
purchasing, even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or
through the mediation of another, any property or interest involved
in any litigation in which he may take part by virtue of his
profession (Art. 1491 of the Civil Code). The prohibition rests on
considerations of public policy and interest and stands on the moral
obligation of an attorney to refrain from placing himself in a
position that ordinarily excites conflict between self-interest and
integrity. The rule involves four elements: [a] there must be an
attorney-client relationship; [b] the property or interest of the client
must be in litigation; [c] the attorney takes part as counsel of the
case; and [d] the attorney by himself or through another purchases
41

such property or interest during the pendency of the litigation. The

absence of any of these elements renders the prohibition inapplicable.
Cruz v. Jacinto
A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in
his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in
moral character, in honesty, in probity and good demeanor, thus rendering
him unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. As a rule, a lawyer is
not barred from dealing with his client but the business transaction must
be characterized with utmost honesty and good faith. However, the
measure of the good faith that an attorney is required to exercise in his
dealings with his clients is a much higher standard than is required in
business dealings where the parties trade at arms length. Hence, courts are
to carefully watch these transactions to ensure that the lawyer takes no
undue advantage over his client. This rule is founded on public policy for,
by virtue of his office, an attorney is in an easy position to take advantage
of the credulity and ignorance of his client. His fidelity to the cause of his
client requires him to be ever mindful of the responsibilities that should be
expected of him.
Rubias v. Batiller
Article 1491 of the Civil Code prohibits certain persons, by reason of the
relation of trust or their peculiar control over the property, from acquiring
such property in their trust or control either directly or indirectly and even
at public or judicial auctions. Lawyers, per the provision, are disqualified
from acquiring property and rights, which may be the object of any
litigation in which they take part by virtue of their profession. Such a
contract is declared by law to be an absolute nullity that cannot be cured
by ratification.
In re Ruste
The acquisition by deed of sale by an attorney of property subject of a suit,
which he is waging on behalf of his clients, constitutes malpractice.
Whether the deed of sale was executed at the instance of the complainants
who were driven by financial necessity or at the behest of the lawyer is

immaterial. In either case, the attorney occupies a vantage position

to press upon or dictate his terms to a harassed client, in breach of
the rule in the Civil Code that strives to protect the confidential
relations that exist between attorney and client.
Go Beltran v. Fernandez
A lawyer who purchases property of his client involved in a
pending litigation, in which he appeared as counsel, violates
Article 1491 of the Civil Code and is guilty of breach of
professional conduct.
Laig v. Court of Appeals
The prohibition in Article 1491 of the Civil Code does not apply
when the interest in the property of the client is acquired by his
attorney after the resolution of litigation as payment for legal
services as counsel.
Daroy v. Abecia
Neither does the prohibition apply to the sale of a parcel of land,
acquired by a client to satisfy a judgment in his favor, to his
attorney as long as the property was not the subject of the
litigation. For indeed, while judges, prosecuting attorneys, and
others connected with the administration of justice are prohibited
from acquiring property or rights in litigation or levied upon in
execution, the prohibition with respect to attorneys in the case
extends only to property and rights which may be the object of
any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their
profession.
CANON 17 - A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and he shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him.

42

A lawyer owes fidelity to the client's cause. His highest and most
unquestioned duty is to protect the client at all hazards and costs even to
himself. The finest hours of the legal profession were those where the
lawyer stood by his client even in the face and risk of danger to his person
or fortune. And his client can take comfort in the thought that his lawyer
will not abandon him when his services are needed most.
Cantiller vs. Potenciano
Peregrina Cantiller was party to two civil cases the subject of which was
the apartment she and her sister, complainant herein. Peregrina lost both
cases and was about to be ejected from the apartment. Respondent
Potenciano was then introduced to her and took upon her cause.
The respondent a civil case seeking for a restraining order and filed a
haphazardly prepared pleading. He assured that the case would be raffled
off to a judge who was his friend and that they will get favorable
judgment. However, the judge in this case asked Potenciano to withdraw
as counsel because he was his friend. He did so but Cantiller was not able
to secure another lawyer and thus no restraining order was obtained.
Prior to the judgment in the first civil case, Potenciano filed another one.
In this case, respondent got from Cantiller P10,000.00 allegedly to deposit
with the court and P1000 and $10 to bribe the judge with.
The second case was also dismissed for being similar to the first civil case.
Cantiller also found out that there was no need to deposit the P10000 with
the court and demanded the money back but respondent did not answer.
Thus this administrative complaint was filed.
WON respondent failed to exert all effort for his client's cause.
Yes. His first duty was to file the best pleading within his capability.
However, he was more interested in milking Cantiller out of her money.
Respondent knew beforehand that he would be asked to withdraw as
counsel in the first civil case, but he did not take steps to inform his client
of this and he did not even find a replacement for himself.
His actuation is definitely inconsistent with his duty to protect with utmost
dedication the interest of his client and of the fidelity, trust and confidence,
which he owes his client.

People vs. Ingco

The mere fact that his practice was extensive, requiring his
appearance in courts in Manila and environs as well as the
provinces of Bulacan and Pampanga should not have lessened that
degree of care necessary for the fulfillment of his responsibility.
Barrios, counsel de oficio for the accused, filed a motion for
extension of time for the filing of the appellants brief. Problem
was, it was fifteen days late. Hence, on Sept 28, 1970, Gaudencio
Ingco was sentenced to death by the Supreme Court.
Barrios explains that he was busy preparing for a brief of another
client and that he was appearing in the courts of Manila, QC,
Pasay, Bulacan, and Pampanga. He thought that he already filed a
motion for extension of time for Ingco but he had not.
WON respondent has shown fidelity to the cause of his client.
NO! Because of his negligence, his client was to be put to death!
The mere fact that according to him, his practice was extensive
should not have lessened that degree of case necessary for the
fulfillment of his responsibility.
Alisbo vs. Jalandoon
On March 16, 1970, Ramon Alisbo hired Jalandoon as his counsel
to commence an action to revover his share of the estate of the
spouses Sales already adjudicated to him but prescribed because no
motion for execution was filed. The defendant, Carlito Sales, in the
new cases was former client of Jalandoon.
Jalandoon prepared the complaint reviving judgment on April 1970
but delayed its filing for five months, favoring Sales.He postponed
the action so the court may resolve pending incidents in another
related case, this was to kill time so presricption would take hold.
He originally filed the complaint with Ramon Alisbo and his
brothers, but dropped the brothers as plaintiffs. This was to make
the complaint defective because Ramon was an incompetent.

43

Jalandoon sat on the case for more than a year, and thereafter impleaded
another person as Ramon's legal guardian. By that time, the action has
prescribed.
WON Jalandoon has shown fidelity to the cause of his client.
No. There is more than simple negligence resulting in the extinguishment
and loss of his client's right to action. He did not champion the cause of
Alisbo with that wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion that a lawyer is
obligated to give to every case that he accepts from a client.
Ngayan vs. Tugade
Complainants, the Ngayans, wanted to file a criminal case against Robert
Leonido and Rowena Soriano for entering their dwelling without
authorization. They asked Tugade (he was their counsel in several criminal
cases before) to file the complaint. However, in the affidavit Tugade made,
which was readily signed by Ms. Ngayan, the name of Robert Leonido
was conspicuously missing, this prompted Ms. Ngayan to point this error
out, and Tugade crossed the paragraph out saying he will edit the same.
They discharged Tugade as their counsel for the case. However, in the
course of the criminal proceedings, the very document Ms. Ngayan signed
in the possession of the defendants' counsel and presented as evidence.
It was found out that Tugade was defendant's was Tugade's classmate and
that Tugade was counsel for Leonido's brother.
WON Tugade has shown fidelity to the cause of his client.
No. Respondent's act of executing and submitting an affidavit as exhibit
for the defendants advancing facts prejudicial to the case of the Ngayans
demonstrates clearly an act of offensive personality against the Ngayans.
Additionally, respondent's failure to answer the complaint against him and
his failure to attend the investigation are evidence of his flouting
resistance to court orders.
CANON 18 - A lawyer shall serve his client with competence and
diligence.
Upon acceptance of employment, a lawyer impliedly represents that:

He possesses the requisite degree of learning, skill and ability

which is necessary to the practice of his profession and which
others similarly situated possess
He will exert his best effort in the prosecution or defense of his
client's cause
He will exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in
the use of his skill and the application of his knowledge to his
client's case
He will take such steps and make such precautions as will
adequately safeguard the client's interests
He will adopt the norms of practice expected of men with good
intentions

This duty to safeguard client's interest begins from retainer up to

the effective discharge from the case or the final disposition of the
whole subject matter of the litigation.
Legarda vs CA
Victoria Legarda was defendant in a case where New Cathay
House wanted her to sign the lease and to construct a restaurant on
her lot in West Ave., QC. She was issued a writ on preliminary
injunction. This was the point where Antonio Coronel entered his
appearance as counsel for Legarda. He filed a motion for extension
of time to file an answer to the complaint. That was the last Dean
Coronel was heard of.
Legarda failed to file her answer with the court thus evidence was
presented ex parte. Judgment was rendered against her. The
property was executed and sold and the one-year redemption
period expired.
She appealed to the CA but this time another lawyer. But Coronel
still handled the case and filed a reply to the consolidated comment
and memoranda (which he got from the reply to consolidated
comment in toto).
44

CA decided against Legarda, Coronel filed no motion for recon. She was
ordered to vacate the premises but was not relayed to her by Coronel. She
appealed to the Sc, which annulled the decisions of the TC and CA becoz
of her counsel's negligence, and also directed Coronel to answer for his
negligence.
Coronel motioned for extension of time becoz he hasn't had the
time to attend to Legarda's case becoz of the more than 80 Marcos cases
handled by him. He filed another motion becoz he became ill. The Court
junked this.
WON Coronel served his client with Competence and Diligence.
No. His failure to exercise due diligence in protecting and attending to the
interest of his client caused the latter material prejudice. Considering that
he is a law school dean and a top-quality lawyer, he should be giving topquality service. However, he did not.
Rule 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service, which he
knows or should know that he is not qualified to render. However, he
may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain
as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
A lawyer should not accept employment in a specific area of law, which he
knows or should know he is not qualified to render. This is to protect the
client, since his acceptance implies that he is competent, skillful and
knowledgeable enough to handle the case.
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without
adequate preparation.
A lawyer owes it to his client and the court to be adequately prepared to
handle the case. Thorough study and preparation is needed to safeguard
client's interests. A lawyer must be careful in the preparation of his
pleadings, for they reflect the extent of his study and preparation.
Pleadings also embody the result of his work and furnish the basis on
which to judge his competence.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted

to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render
him liable.
When a client entrusts a case to a lawyer to handle and the lawyer
accepts the assignment, it is understood that the client has granted
him authority, and the lawyer has assumed the obligation, to take al
procedural steps necessary to prosecute the client's claim or to
defend the client's rights in the action.
Whatever decision a lawyer may make or whatever step he may
take or fail to take on any of these procedural questions, even if it
will adversely affect the client's cause, will generally bind the
client and the latter may not be heard to complain that the result of
the litigation might have been different had counsel proceeded
differently.
There are also certain matters, which are known to the lawyer but
imputed to the client. As long as lawyer remains counsel of record,
any notice forwarded by the court to him is also notice to the
client. Any mistake or negligence committed by counsel or his
employee is generally binding upon the client. Of course, when
the interests of justice dictate it or when application of the rule
would result to grave injustice, the court may relax the rule. Only
ordinary diligence is required of lawyers, or that which is expected
of a good father of a family.
A lawyer must also ensure that he has an efficient system of
accepting mail, and of giving to notice to his client and the court of
any change of his address. This is to avoid any unnecessary delay
or other undesirable consequences.
A defense counsel is expected to spare no effort to save his client
from an unrighteous conviction, regardless of his personal opinion
as to the guilt of his client.

45

When accused intends to plead guilty, the lawyer has the duty to acquaint
himself with all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, inform
the accused of his constitutional rights and all the possible consequences
and repercussions of his plea.
When a lawyer is guilty of gross negligence, he may be criminally liable
under Art. 209 of the RPC, civilly liable through actions for damages, and
administratively liable.
Reontoy vs. Ibadlit
Atty. Ibadlit was counsel for Corazon Reontoy in a case for partition,
accounting and reconveyance. The case was decided and Atty. Ibadlit
received the decision on June 19, 1989. He contacted complainant's
brother and asked him to relay the message to Reontoy. Reontoy did not
contact him, so he did nothing about the case. However, Reontoy came to
his office the next month and signified her wish to appeal the decision.
However, the period to file an appeal was already expired on July 4 but
Ibadlit nevertheless filed an appeal on July 17. This was not admitted for
being filed out of time.
WON Ibadlit neglected his client's cause.
Yes. A lawyer has no authority to waive his client's right to appeal. His
failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period constitutes
negligence and malpractice proscribed by Rule 18.03 CPR. He should
have filed an appeal notwithstanding not hearing a wish to do so from his
client. If the client would rather not, then he could easily have the appeal
dismissed.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his
case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the client's request
for information.
The client is entitled to the fullest disclosure of the mode or manner by
which his interest is defended or why certain steps are taken or omitted.

Keeping the client fully informed of important developments of his

case will minimize occasions for misunderstanding or loss of trust
and confidence in the attorney.
A lawyer who repeatedly disdains to answer the inquiries or
communications of his client violates the rules of professional
courtesy and neglects his client's interests.
Wack Wack Golf and CC vs CA
This is actually a consolidation of two cases filed by two
employees of Wack Wack to exact their overtime pay from their
employer, unenjoyed vacation, moral damages and atty's fees. The
case was admitted for hearing as early as March 1955.
At this time, counsel for was still Atty. Angel Cruz of the
firm Paredes, Balcoff and Poblador. However, Wack Wack
manifested that it wanted to change lawyers and employed Atty.
Chuidian. Although Wack Wack was informed of hearing set for
early May since March 28, no representative of Wack Wack was
present on the hearing day itself. Hence, the trial court only heard
the evidence of the plaintiff uncontested and eventually, a decision
was rendered against Wack Wack. The latter appealed to the CA.
On appeal, rather than work on the merits of their case, Atty.
Chuidian says that there was excusable negligence that the trial
court should have appreciated. That there was misunderstanding
insofar as his services were contracted a day before the hearing and
that the documents were still with the former lawyer of Wack
Wack. And when he talked to them, he understood that they would
appear on the day of the trial to move for postponement but was
late by 35 minutes.
WON the petitioner committed excusable negligence.
No. The negligence was Inexcusable. The counsel of record (Atty.
Cruz) is under obligation to protect the client's interest until its
final release from the professional relationship with such client.
The court could recognize no other representation on behalf of the
46

client except such counsel of record until a formal substitution of attorney

is effected.
A party to a case has no right to rely either on the liberality of the court, or
on the generosity of the adverse party.
Blanza vs. Arcangel
In April 1955, respondent Atty. Arcangel volunteered to help complainants
Blanza and Pasion in their respective pensions claims for their deceased
spouses whom were PC soldiers. They handed over to him pertinent
documents to have them for photostating purposes. The complainants
admitting to shoulder the payment for the services of Photostatting.
However, after six years, noticing no progress in their pension claims, the
complainants demanded back the documents from Arcangel. The latter
refused to give them back saying that they should first pay him for the
Photostat services.
Hence the complainants filed this administrative case. They allege that
their claim for pension was delayed for six years because of Arcangel's
actuations.
Arcangel says that he was not obliged to follow up their claims because
there was no compensation set-up.
WON respondent is to be reprimanded.
No. There was no clear preponderance of evidence to substantiate the
claim of him delaying complainant's cause. However, Arcangel is
reminded that there is still an attorney-client relationship (mainly because
he volunteered to help them in their claim) and it was unnecessary to have
complainants wait and hope for six long years on their pension claims. He
shoud have terminated their professional relationship instead because they
refused to cooperate.
CANON 19 - A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the
bounds of the law
A lawyer owes his client entire devotion to his genuine interest, warm zeal
in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his utmost

learning and ability. NO fear of judicial disfavor or public

unpopularity should restrain him from the full discharge of his
duty.
It demands of him the most unscrupulous performance of his duty,
especially when negligence in the discharge thereof will cause
delay in the administration of justice or prejudice to the rights of
the litigant.
Public interest requires that a lawyer exert his best efforts and
ability within the bounds of the law in the prosecution or defense
of his client's cause. Thus, he also serves the ends of justice, does
honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community
in the legal profession.
However, it should not amount to obstinacy nor should it be
carried beyond the limits of sobriety and decorum.
Millare vs. Montero
Pacifica Millare, mother of complainant, won a case in the MTC of
Abra ejecting Elsa Co from the premises that is currently
possessing.
From this decision, respondent Montero, filed six appeals,
complaints or petitions (not counting the motions for
reconsideration) and even went up to the Supreme Court but still
did not desist.
Thus this complaint was brought against Montero by Mr. Millare,
Pacifica's son.
WON Montero is represented his client within the bounds of law.
No. Advocacy, within the bounds of the law, permits the attorney
to se any arguable construction of the law or rules that is favorable
to his client. But the lawyer is not allowed to knowingly advance a
claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law.

47

He also violated Canon 12 saying that it is a lawyer's duty to assist in the

speedy disposition of cases. He also committed forum-shopping.
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to
attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present,
participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal
charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Any of the acts mentioned above constitute professional malpractice,
which is a ground for disciplinary action, as by criminally prosecuting a
person without reasonable ground for the purpose of forcing him to grant
his client's claim. A lawyer should employ such means only as are
consistent with truth and honor.

A lawyer should prevent his client from any act of impropriety. If

the client persists in such wrongdoing, the lawyer should terminate
his relation with him. However, the lawyer may not divulge
information regarding the fraud since it is his duty to preserve the
confidence and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client
relationship has been terminated.
Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the
procedure in handling the case
While it is lawyer's duty to comply with the client's lawful request,
he should resist and should not follow any unlawful instruction of
his client.

In espousing his client's cause, a lawyer should not state his personal
belief as to the soundness or justice of the client's case.

In matters of law and procedure, it is the client who should give in

to the lawyer, since latter is more knowledgeable in these maters.

Technical defenses, such as lack of knowledge or information concerning

the truth of an allegation must be availed of with sincerity and good faith;
it must neither be used to confuse the adverse party as to what allegations
are really put in issue nor employed to delay the litigation.

The lawyer's duty to the court, no less than the dignity of the legal
profession, requires that he should not act like an errand boy at the
beck and call of his client, ready and eager to do his bidding.

In matrimonial cases, lawyers must avoid collusion, or even only

appearances of collusion.
Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has,
in the course of the representation, perpetuated a fraud upon a person
or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and
failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
The lawyer's duty to be candid and to secure for his client only that which
is legally and justly due him precludes him from sanctioning the client's
act of perpetuating a fraud upon the adverse party or the court.

CANON 20 A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE ONLY FAIR &

REASONABLE FEES
A lawyer has the right to have & recover from his client a
reasonable compensation for his services. A lawyer is entitled to
judicial protection against injustice, imposition, or fraud on the
part of his client as the client against abuse on the part of his
counsel. One of the duties of the court is to see that a lawyer is
paid his just fees.
Requisites for right to accrue:
Lawyer-client relationship
Rendition by the lawyer of services to his client. (there should
be a professional contract; express or implied, between a
48

lawyer & his client & that the lawyer should have rendered services
pursuant thereto.)
Written agreement is NOT necessary

But a lawyer who renders professional services in favor but over the
objection of a party cannot recover fees even though the party benefited
from the services
Acts of recognition/acceptance are in general equivalent to a prior
engagement (of lawyers services)
Clients obligation to pay arises from the principle against unjust
enrichment at the expense of another. Amount based on quantum meruit.
(as much as a lawyer deserves)
Essential requisite: acceptance of the benefits by one sought to be charged
for services rendered under circumstances as reasonably to notify him that
the lawyer performing the task was expecting to be paid compensation
therefor.
The court will fix attorneys fees on quantum meruit basis when lawyer &
client cannot agree as to the reasonable amount when:
There is no express contract as to amount of attorneys fees
Agreement as to fees is invalid due to formal defect
Lawyer & client disregard the contract fixing attorneys fees
Lawyer is precluded from concluding litigation without his fault (but
he gets full amount if theres a valid written agreement & client
dismissed him in bad faith)
Amount stipulated is unconscionable or unreasonable
The term unconscionable may be defined as that amount which, under
the circumstances surrounding the case, constitutes an over-exaggeration
of the worth of the lawyers services.

Who is liable for attorneys fees?

General rule: only the client who engaged the services of counsel
either personally or through an authorized agent is liable.
Exception: a person who accepts the benefits of the legal
representation impliedly agrees to pay the lawyers services
because he may not be permitted to enrich himself at lawyers
expense.
Persons who did not object to lawyers appearance for them &
enjoyed the benefits of the lawyers representation may be required
to pay attorneys fees.
Benefitliability rule does not apply where the party represented
by a private lawyer who was employed without authorization,
because the law specifies who its government lawyer should be, &
the benefits secured by the legal representation cannot take the
place of the law nor create an obligation on the part of the
government entity to pay the private lawyer for his services, except
when no government lawyer is available.
The lawyer who has been retained by the client are entitled to, or to
share in, attorneys fees. If more than one lawyer is employed to
handle the case, the lawyers who jointly represent the common
client for a given fee, in the absence of an agreement as to division
of fees, share equally. If several lawyers separately employed by a
client do not have express agreement with client as to amount of
fees each would receive or if they have rendered services at one
time or another in the action, each will be entitled to no more than
what his services actually performed are reasonably worth.
A layman is not entitled to attorneys fees.

49

In the absence of a law allowing compensation, counsel de oficio

CANNOT charge the government nor the indigent litigant for his services.
One of the obligations assumed by a lawyer upon oath is to render free
legal services whenever required by the court to do so. Hence, no violation
of constitutional restriction against taking without remuneration or due
process
Rules of Court provide a token compensation for attorney de oficio, which
the court may fix, subject to availability of funds.
A lawyer who is prohibited from engaging in private practice by reason of
his government position may not charge attorneys fees for his services,
should he practice illegally.
A government lawyer charged with the duty of extending free legal
services to indigent litigants may not collect fees from the litigant without
being guilty of misconduct
A retired judge/justice receiving pension cannot collect fees for appearing
in any administrative proceedings to maintain an interest adverse to the
government
Lawyers acts of misconduct, such as carelessness, negligence,
misrepresentation, abuse of clients confidence, unfaithfulness in
representing clients cause, may adversely affect or even negate his right
to fees.
Mere honest mistake in the discharge of duties does not defeat lawyers
right to fees.
Withdrawal of counsel from the case; effects:
Unceremonious withdrawal from or abandonment of the action by the
lawyer negates his right to compensation
A lawyer who is forced to resign from case for reasons attributable to
his fault or misconduct may lose his right to fees

Withdrawal of counsel who has so far done his duties

faithfully does not affect his right to fees
If withdrawal is with clients written conformity, it is
presumed that atty & client have agreed on compensation for
such services up to the date the relationship is terminated
If without clients written consent but for justifiable cause
made after due notice to client, lawyer may recover fees for
services up to the date of withdrawal.

Simultaneous representation by a lawyer of opposing parties to a

controversy, without the clients written consent made after full
disclosure of the facts, negates the lawyers right to receive
compensation from both of them
Lawyers acceptance of employment from a new client against a
former client in a matter related to the former controversy
precludes recovery of fees from the former client only if former
client objected to the representation. The new client may not defeat
lawyers right to fees in the absence of concealment & prejudice by
reason of lawyers previous relationship with the adverse party
A client cannot deprive the lawyer of his just fees already earned,
in the absence of the lawyers fault, consent, or waiver.
Discharge of lawyer by client without valid cause before the
conclusion of the litigation does not negate lawyers right to
payment for his services. If no express written agreement as to
fees, lawyer may recover fees up to the date of his dismissal. If
contract is in writing & the fee stipulated is absolute & reasonable,
the lawyer discharged without justifiable cause will be entitled to
the full amount. If the fee stipulated is contingent & the lawyer is
unlawfully dismissed before the conclusion of the action, he can
recover fees for services thus rendered
50

Exception: where client eventually wins, or prevents its successful

prosecution by dismissing, settling, or waiving, lawyer gets the full
amount stipulated in contract
The lawyer should question his discharge as counsel in order to recover
under the contract, otherwise he may recover only on a quantum meruit
basis.
Mere honest differences between client & counsel, which prompted the
dismissal, do not bar recovery of fees.
Client may not deprive attorney of his fees by dismissing his action. if
dismissal of action by client is in good faith the lawyer may recover only
the reasonable worth of his services if in bad faith & intended to defraud
lawyer of his fees, lawyer gets full amount stipulated in contract or, if no
contract, fees based on quantum meruit.
Client cannot, by compromising or settling his case, deprive lawyer of his
fees in the absence of waiver on attorneys part. if compromise is with
lawyers consent, fees to be fixed on the basis of quantum meruit. If client
settles in bad faith/in fraud of counsel, lawyer gets full amount stipulated
or, if no contract, reasonable worth of his services.
Contract for attorneys fees:
May be either oral or in writing
Fee may be absolute or contingent
May be a fixed percentage of the amount recovered in the action
May call for down payment;
Fee per appearance in court, per piece of work, per hour
Kinds of retainer fees.
General retainer: fee paid to a lawyer to secure beforehand his services as
general counsel for any ordinary legal problem that may otherwise arise in
the business of the client.

Purpose is to insure & secure his future services for a particular or

work & to remunerate him for being deprived of the opportunity of
rendering services to the other party
to prevent undue hardship on the part of attorney resulting from
rigid observance of the rule forbidding representation of adverse
interests it is usually apart from/in addition to what client has
agreed pay him for his services.
Special retainer: fee for a particular case or specific service to be
performed by a lawyer. [lawyers fees which client pays counsel as
compensation for professional services are different from
attorneys fees awarded by court. Attorneys fees awarded by court
are items of damages decreed in favor of the winning party they
are NOT awarded to the lawyer. But both types of fees are subject
to judicial control/modification.]
General rules governing validity of ordinary contracts apply to an
agreement for professional services. So a retainer whose cause,
object, or purpose is contrary to law, public policy, morals, & good
customs is null & void.
If nullity is due to illegality of object, lawyer cannot recover fees.
If nullity is due to a formal defect or to the unconscionability of the
amount of fees stipulated, lawyer may recover what is due him on
the basis of quantum meruit since the services rendered are
legitimate.
Rule 138, sec 24 provides that a written contract for services shall
control the amount to be paid unless found by the court to be
unconscionable or unreasonable.
Unconscionability of amount of attorneys fees stipulated in a
professional contract renders contract invalid. The fact that client
51

knowingly entered into such contract does not estop him from questioning
its validity on such ground.
Contingent fee contract is an agreement in which the fee [usually a fixed
percentage of what may be recovered in the action] is made to depend
upon the success of the action. Lawyer gets paid only if he wins the case,
unless client prevents the successful prosecution or defense of his action,
in which case lawyer recovers on quantum meruit basis. If client acts in
bad faith, he gets the full amount fixed in valid written contract
Contingent fees should be the subject of an express contract. Contingent
fee contracts are closely scrutinized by courts since the lawyer in effect
becomes a party litigant considering that he only gets paid if he wins (so
he might overstep the bounds of propriety), & such contracts are
susceptible to abuse (indigent litigants who may have no means to enforce
their rights other than entering into these contracts may be forced to agree
to outrageous fees)
A contingent fee contract is generally valid & binding unless it is obtained
by fraud, imposition or suppression of facts, or the fee is so clearly
excessive as to amount to extortion.
Construction of professional contract.
General rule: adopt the construction more favorable to client even if it
would work prejudice to the lawyer.
Measure of compensation; amount fixed in contract. Generally, where
there is a valid written contract fixing the fees, the contract is conclusive
as to the amount of compensation, whether it be absolute or contingent.
Albano v Coloma (21 SCRA 411)
Clients, after benefiting from services of respondent Coloma, tried to
renege on their agreement for payment of Colomas contingent fees by
dismissing her as their counsel after she had already won the case for them
& later, by attempting to impugn the authenticity of their written

agreement for payment of attorneys fees. Held: Counsel is entitled

to be fully recompensed for his services, & is entitled to the
protection of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part
of a client to escape payment of his fees. The court views with
disapproval any & every effort of those benefited by counsels
services to deprive him of his hard-earned honorarium. Such an
attitude deserves condemnation.
Quirante v FAC (169 SCRA 769)
Motion for confirmation of attorneys fees (fees also subject to
contingencies i.e. dependent on amount of recovery). Held: Since
the main case from which petitioners claims for fees may arise has
not yet become final, the determination of the propriety of said fees
& amount thereof should be held in abeyance. The remedy for
recovering attorneys fees as an incident of the main action may be
availed of only when something is due to the client.
Tanhueco v De Dumo (172 SCRA 774)
Lawyer charged 76 year-old client a contingent fee of 50% of
amount collected by him, + interest & whatever attorneys fees
may be awarded by trial court chargeable to other party. Held: law
does not per se prohibit contingent fees. But when it is shown that
a contract for contingent fee was obtained by undue influence
exercised by the attorney upon his client by any fraud or
imposition, or that compensation is clearly excessive, the court
must & will protect the aggrieved party. The Court has power to
review & modify the agreed amount of attorneys fees when it
appears to be excessive & unreasonable. On a quantum meruit
basis, no circumstances of special difficulty attending the cases
having been shown, fees should be reduced.
Rule 20.01 A lawyer shall be guided by the following factors
in determining his fees:
TIME
spent
&
EXTENT
OF
SERVICES
rendered/required
52

NOVELTY & DIFFICULTY of questions involved

IMPORTANCE of subject matter
SKILL demanded
PROBABILITY OF LOSING OTHER EMPLOYMENT as a
result of acceptance of proffered case
CUSTOMARY CHARGES for similar services & the
SCHEDULE OF FEES OF IBP CHAPTER to which he belongs
AMOUNT INVOLVED in the controversy & BENEFITS resulting
to client from the service
CONTINGENCY/CERTAINTY of compensation
CHARACTER OF EMPLOYMENT, whether occasional or
established
PROFESSIONAL STANDING of lawyer

These are mere guides only some of them may be taken into account, &
other factors may be considered, like the purchasing power of the peso
&/or clients financial capacity.
Value of lawyers services is largely determined by the nature, quality, &
quantity of his services. A hotly litigated action requires more work &
calls for higher compensation. Lawyers services should not be
fragmented & valued separately their importance & value should be
measured & considered as a whole.
Time employed is not in itself an appropriate basis for fixing
compensation, but length of employment which runs for years is
significant, since longer employment = more work, lesser opportunity for
other profitable retainers. Time devoted for study & research must be
considered (it takes more time to prepare pleading, brief, etc, than for
conducting trial in court)
The fact that office assistants have helped a lawyer cannot reduce his
compensation because he pays them & is not expected to do everything
personally

Novelty & difficulty of questions involved require greater efforts

in terms of study, research, & preparation to convince the court as
to soundness of clients cause
in fixing the lawyers fees, the court takes into account the
novelty/difficulty of questions as well as the demands on his part
on those questions
It is only fair that client should compensate his lawyer more for
being deprived of the chance to earn legal fees from others by
reason of his employment as his counsel
Lawyer may lose opportunity for other employment in either of 2
ways
Acceptance of retainer from a client precludes lawyer from
appearing for others because of prohibition against
representation of conflicting interests. If there is reasonable
expectation that had the lawyer not accepted employment from
client he would have been employed by other clients that may
call for a higher fee to compensate for the lost opportunities
Even without such expectation of employment from others, the
work may require tedious details & considerable time that may
deprive him of the opportunity to work on other cases
In fixing lawyers compensation, the result secured by him is given
much weight. The fact that a lawyer failed to secure his clients
desires does not deprive him of the right to compensation, unless
the fee agreed upon is contingent
General rule: the bigger the size/value of the interest/property in
litigation, the higher the attorneys fee is (since higher stakes
case is more hotly litigated & greater efforts required of lawyer
Inverse proportion rule: in multi-million-peso case, percentage of
fee contingent on recovery becomes smaller as amount of recovery
53

gets bigger (assumption: amount of work required remains [roughly] the

same even though interest exceeds several millions)
Value really depends upon the extent of the special & additional services
& efforts demanded of the case (e.g. even if interest is of considerable
value but calls for no extra efforts, no justification for higher fees)
Where several actions involve an identical case is litigated as a test case
on whose favorable outcome the resolution of the other cases is made to
depend (it is therefore litigated with more energy & diligence), fairness &
justice require that the lawyers fees be not limited to a proportion of the
amount involved in the test case but on the totality of the amounts in all
actions dependent on the result of the test case
Those who may be benefited by the result may be required to contribute a
proportionate share to the lawyers fees
Lawyers skill, experience, & standing bear a direct proportion to amount
of fees. Why? Aside from the hard work & devotion to duty by which he
acquired his reputation, an argument made in a pleading or brief or orally
in court acquires a different meaning & import according to the persuasive
ability & professional & personal prestige of the lawyer expounding it.
The court may take judicial notice of the prestige of a lawyer as a
distinguished member of the bar
This factor may be considered, not to enhance the fees above what is
reasonable but to ascertain WON the client is able to pay fair & just
compensation for services rendered. Also as an incident in determining
importance & gravity of interests involved.
Legislature may, by law, limit amount of attorneys fees which lawyer may
charge client. Contract of professional services in violation of such law is
void. Such law is strictly interpreted & may not extend beyond what it
expressly comprehends

Zulueta v Pan Am World Airways (49 SCRA 1)

The quantity & quality of the services rendered by the plaintiffs
counsel appearing on record, apart from the nature of the case &
the amount involved therein, as well as his prestige as one of the
most distinguished lawyers in the Philippines, of which judicial
cognizance may be taken, amply justify the award of attorneys
fees, which is a little over 10% of the damages (P700,000.00)
collectible by plaintiffs herein.
Sison v Suntay (102 Phil 769)
In determining what would be reasonable compensation for the
attorney of an administrator or executor of the intestate estate, the
size & value of the decedents estate, as well as the services
performed by counsel, should be taken into consideration.
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. v CA (181 SCRA 367)
In fixing a reasonable compensation for the services rendered by a
lawyer on the basis of quantum meruit, the elements to be
considered are generally (1) the importance of the subject matter in
controversy, (2) the extent of the services rendered,(3) the
professional standing of the lawyer. These are aside from several
other considerations [see factors 20.01]. A determination of all
these factors would indispensably require nothing less than a fullblown trial where Alafriz & Associates can adduce evidence to
establish its right to lawful attorneys fees & for petitioner to
oppose or refute the same.
Rilloraza v ETPI (309 SCRA 566)
See Metropolitan Bank above; notes under canon 20 on quantum
meruit. [Also useful to learn here that when a client employs the
services of a law firm, he does not employ the services of the
lawyer assigned to personally handle the case. Rather, he employs
the entire law firm.]

54

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 & responsibility assumed
It is improper for a lawyer to receive compensation [commission/portion
of attorneys fees] for merely recommending another lawyer to his client
(otherwise, profession is commercialized & proper appreciation of
professional responsibility may be destroyed). He gets fee only when, in
addition to referral, he performs legal service/assumes responsibility in the
case
Rule 20.03 A lawyer shall NOT, without the full knowledge &
consent of 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.
General rule: lawyer should receive compensation for services in a case
only from his client & not from any other person
Purpose: to secure the lawyers wholehearted fidelity to clients cause;
avoid suspicion on clients part that his lawyer is receiving compensation
from 3rd parties with hostile interests
Corollary: whatever a lawyer receives from the opposite party in the
service of his client belongs to his client
Rule 20.04 A lawyer shall avoid controversies with clients
concerning his compensation & shall resort to judicial action only to
prevent imposition, injustice, or fraud.
Suits to collect fees should be avoided, & only where circumstances
imperatively require should a lawyer resort to lawsuit to enforce payment
of fees. He may take judicial action to protect right to fees either in the

main action where his services were rendered or in an independent

civil suit against his client
Enforce right to fees by filing necessary petition as an incident of
the main action where his services were rendered when:
Something is due the client in such action from which fee is to
be paid
Client settles/waives his cause in bad faith in favor of adverse
party to prejudice lawyers claim for payment
May not be availed of if client recovers nothing in the main
case
Question of fees may be determined only until after decision of
main litigation & subject of recovery is at the disposition of the
court
Independent action to recover fees may be done in cases where:
The court trying main action dismissed the action or awarded
nothing to client
Court had no/lost jurisdiction over action
Person liable for attorneys fees is not a party in main action
Court reserved to lawyer the right to file separate civil suit for
recovery of fees
Services for which fees are sought by lawyer were rendered
with a matter not in litigation
Judgment debtor had fully paid judgment creditor all the
proceeds of judgment without lawyer taking any legal step to
have his fees paid directly to him out of such proceeds
Proof required:
That lawyer was retained in his professional capacity
That he rendered professional services to client
That fee claimed is reasonable
55

That fee remains unpaid notwithstanding demand

In case fee is contingent, show that contingency has occurred

Court having jurisdiction to try main action also has jurisdiction to pass
upon the question of fees even though the total sum thereof is less than
jurisdictional amount cognizable by court & jurisdiction continues until
proceeds of judgment shall have been delivered to client. Independent
civil action for recovery of attorneys fees is subject to same jurisdictional
requirement as any other ordinary civil suit
Persons who are entitled to or must pay attorneys fees have the right to be
heard upon the question of their propriety or amount. Burden of proof is
upon the lawyer to establish his allegations & he must be allowed to
adduce evidence to prove his claim. Where there is a written agreement for
attorneys fees, no other piece of evidence than that of the agreement is
necessary to prove the amount, unless the amount appears to be
unconscionable in the absence of an explanation. Until there shall have
been a hearing at which all parties concerned are given the opportunity to
be heard, trial court may not authorize payment of fees (but hearing is
presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary)
Usual defenses applicable to an ordinary suit are available: e.g. want of
jurisdiction, res judicata, prescription, nullity of contract for professional
services, negligence in discharge of lawyers duties, lack of attorney-client
relationship, payment, & unconscionableness of amount claimed
Final award of fees may be enforced by execution i.e. against any property
of client, including proceeds of judgment secured for client in main action
Corpuz v CA (98 SCRA 424)
Although atty. David may be faulted for not reducing the agreement on
fees into writing, the absence of an express contract is no argument against
the payment of fees, considering the close relationship between him &
Corpus, which signifies mutual trust. The payment of attorneys fees may
be justified by the innominate contract of facio ut des (I do & you give),

which is based on the principle against unjust enrichment. Atty

David, however, is guilty of contempt for filing a case for a writ of
execution on attorneys fees even though the main case was still
pending with the SC.
Narido v Linsangan
Contract between Atty Risma & client for handling a workmens
compensation case stipulated that Risma would get 15% of award
obtained by client. This is contrary to the explicit provision in
Workmens Compensation Act allowing only a maximum of 10%
& only where case is appealed.
Held: contract is of no force & effect, & the penalty imposed being
that of admonition merely only because Risma actually made no
effort to collect on it & had even advanced expenses for his poor
client. It was clear that he would not try to enforce the contract.
Perez v Scottish Union
The fact that Perez handled the case with competence & success
cannot be denied note the CA acquittal, for which he made oral
argument & 78-page brief! The amount of P 6000.00 cannot
therefore be adjudged excessive or unjust, especially because the
fee is in a sense contingent upon acquittal, since no insurance
money (from which the 6000 would be taken) would be
forthcoming if Mitre was acquitted.
As to Perezs income & length of practice, neither is a safe
criterion of professional ability his competency must be judged
from the character of his work.
Lastly, judicial actions for the recovery of fees, unless righteous &
well founded & unless forced by an intolerable attitude assumed
by clients, are seldom, if ever, resorted to, because they cannot fail
to create the impression, however wrong it may be, that the
lawyers instituting them are mercenary.
Judgment affirmed insofar as it sentences Mitre to pay Perez P
6000.00 as attorneys fees in arson case.
56

Sato v Rallos
Case for collection of attorneys fees claimed by Sato against estate
administrator as such & as a distributee, & also against the other
distributees. It was proven that professional services were rendered &
clients-appellees benefited therefrom.
Held: filing of complaint more than satisfies procedural requirements.
Also, the fact that the estate had already been distributed & the heirs had
received their respective shares is no bar to an award of fees to
complainant lawyer. This is in keeping with the principle against unjust
enrichment.
Canon 21. A lawyer shall preserve the confidences and secrets of his
client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated.
Rule 138 S20(e). Duties of attorneys.
To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself, to
preserve the secrets of his client, and to accept no compensation in
connection with his clients business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval;
Art. 208 RPC. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance. --- The
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and suspension shall be
imposed upon any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in dereliction
of the duties of his office, shall maliciously refrain from instituting
prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the
commission of offenses.
Rule 130 S21 (b). Privileged Communication. --(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 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;
Confidence refers to information protected by the attorney-client
privilege as defined by the provision in the ROC. This is called the
evidentiary privilege.
The word secret refers to other information gained in the
professional relationship that the client has requested to be
inviolate or that which disclosure of which would be embarrassing
to the client.
The lawyers duty to maintain inviolate his clients confidence is
perpetual. It outlasts his professional employment and continues
even after the clients death. Its purpose is to be sure that the client
will not suppress any information regarding the case to the
attorney.
The attorney-client privilege is intended primarily for the
protection of the client and incidentally in consideration for oath
and honor of the atty. If what the client seeks is not legal advice
but only accounting or business or personal assistance, the
privilege does not attach
However, some privileged communications lose their privileged
character by some supervening act done pursuant to the purpose of
communication. Thus, a communication intended by the client to
be sent to a 3rd person thru his lawyer loses its confidential
character after it has reached the 3rd party.
The attorney-client privilege exists where legal advice of any kind
is sought from an attorney in his professional capacity with respect
to communications relating to that purpose, made in confidence by
the client so as permanently to protect such communication, unless
the protection is waived
57

The privilege does not attach when it is made to a person who is not a
lawyer, even if such person performs legal services and appears in court.
However, if a person poses as a lawyer and a client confides in reliance on
the supposed attorney-client privilege, the communication is protected by
the privilege.
The attorney-client privilege embraces not only oral or written statements
but also actions, signs, or other means of communications. The only
question, in the circumstances of each case is whether they have been
intended to be a part of the communications from the client to the attorney
in confidence in connection with the legal advice sought or given.
These confidences and secrets include not only those which are protected
by the evidentiary privilege but also those which the lawyer acquired in
his professional capacity from the client without regard the nature or
source thereof or the fact that others share the knowledge and secrets of
the client because the ethical obligation of a lawyer to guard the
confidences and secrets of his client is wider in scope than the evidentiary
privilege.
If a client confides to a lawyer that he has committed perjury, the question
as whether the lawyer should disclose the perjury to the court involves a
balancing of loyalties. To the court, the lawyer owes the duty of candor
and fairness. He also has the duty to keep inviolate the clients confidence,
which requires that he not reveal the clients perjury, the wrongdoing
being a past offense. However, the duty of candor and fairness to the court
is not sufficient to override the purpose, policy, and obligation involved in
the doctrine of attorney-client privilege. The lawyer should retire from the
case, not only because his effectiveness as an advocate for the clients
cause is affected but also because his continuing to represent the client
may be construed as an agreement to the clients perjury.
Natan v Capule.

Atty Capule was charged for having failed, without justifiable

reason, to appear in the hearing of a case for which he received his
fees in full, and for having accepted professional employment in
the very case in which his former client is the adverse party. The
fact that he retired from the 1 st case before accepting the 2nd case
doesnt relieve him from his obligation of fidelity and loyalty.
What makes the violation more improper is that he actually used
the papers, knowledge and information he received as a lawyer for
his former client (complainant herein) to further his new clients
interest.
Hilado v David.
Hilado petitioned for annulment of a sale of real property by her
deceased husband. The defendant, Saad, was represented by Atty
et al, later substituted by Atty Francisco.
Hilado sought
disqualification of Francisco on the ground that he had a lawyerclient relationship with her. It appears that she first consulted
Francisco about her case, in the process turned over some papers to
him. However, he advised her not to proceed with the action.
There was a lawyer-client relationship established when Francisco
mailed Hilado a written opinion on the merits of the case. Even if
his assistant wrote the letter, it was still his firm that gave the
professional advise. He is therefore bound as if he himself wrote
it. He is precluded from accepting the opposite partys retainer
regardless of what info was received by him from his 1 st client,
Hilado.
Rule 21.01. A lawyer shall not reveal the confidences or secrets
of his client except:
When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the
consequences of the disclosure;
When required by law;
When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his
employees or associates or by judicial action.
58

Client may waive the protection of the privilege either personally or

through the attorney. But the waiver of the privilege cannot be made
partially.
The protection does not extend to communications in contemplation of a
crime or a perpetuation of a fraud. in order that these type of
communications fall under the exception, there should be proof aside from
the testimony of the client or of the attorney, so that the attorney-client
privilege is not broken through mere inquiry.
The privilege communication may be a shield of defense as to crimes
already committed. The client may confess to his guilt to this counsel and
be secured in the thought that his counsel cannot disclose it and the
attorney is duty bound to render effective legal assistance.
The privilege cannot be used to enable a person to carry out a
contemplated crime against society. A person who is committing a crime
or is about to commit a wrong can have no privilege witness. It is the duty
of the attorney to divulge the communication of his client as to his
announced intention to commit a crime to the proper authorities to prevent
the crime or to protect the person against whom it is threatened.
Rule 21.02. A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage of his client, use
information acquired in the course of employment, nor shall he use
the same to his own advantage or that of a 3rd person, unless the
client with dull knowledge of the circumstances consents thereto.
Rule 21.03. A lawyer shall not, without the written consent of his
client, give information from his files to an outside agency seeking
such information for auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting,
data processing, or any similar purpose.

The reason for the rule is that the work product of a lawyer is still
within the scope of the attorney-client privilege.
Rule 21.04. A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a client of the
firm to partners or associates thereof unless prohibited by the
client.
The rule is that the professional employment of a lw firm is
equivalent to the retainer of the members thereof even though only
one of them is consulted. The disclosure is not to a third person
because members or associates in the law firm are considered as
one person.
Rule 21.05. A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be
required to prevent those whose services are utilized by him,
from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of the client.
The clients secrets learned by the persons helping the attorney are
also under the scope of the attorney-client privilege, and the lawyer
is also bound to protect these secrets from spreading.
Rule 21.06. A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet conversation about
a clients affairs even with members of his family.
Indiscreet conversations can result in the prejudice of the clients
and will lessen the respect due to the legal profession.
Rule 21.07. A lawyer shall not reveal that he has been
consulted about a particular case except to avoid possible
conflict of interest.
The rule of privilege communication applies also to prospective
clients.

59

Canon 22. A lawyer shall withdraw his services only for good cause
and upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.
The discharge of the attorney or his substitution by another, upon the
clients initiative or action, shall not prejudice the attorneys right to full
payment of the compensation agreed in writing or in the absence of a
written attainer, to a reasonable amount based on quantum meruit.
No formal notice is needed when a client discharges his lawyer. Any act of
the client indication an unmistakable purpose to terminate the relation is
sufficient. The severance of the relation of attorney and client is not
effective until a notice of discharge by the client or a manifestation clearly
indicating that purpose is filed with the court and a copy thereof is served
upon the adverse party concerned. Until such formality is complied with,
the lawyer continues to be counsel in the case and any judicial notice sent
to him is binding upon the client even though as between them the
professional relationship has long been terminated.
The relation of the attorney and the client terminates upon the death of a
client because the relation is personal and one of agency. The relation also
terminates upon the incapacity and the incompetency of the client during
the pendency of the litigation. It shall be the duty of the lawyer to inform
the court of the happenings.
Rule 22.01 CPR. A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the
following cases:
When the client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct
in connection with the matter he is handling;
When the client insists that the lawyer pursue conduct violative of
these canons and rules;
When his inability to work with co-counsel will not promote the
best interest of the client;
When the mental or physical condition of the lawyer renders it
difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively;

When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees for the
services or fails to comply with the retainer agreement;
When the lawyer is elected or appointed to a public office;
Other similar cases.

The lawyer lacks the unqualified right to withdraw the service once
he has taken the case. He implies that he will pursue the case to its
conclusion when he decides to accept a particular case. A lawyer
may retire any time from any action or proceeding with the written
consent of his client filed in court and copy thereof served upon the
adverse party.
A lawyer may not continue employment when he discovers that his
obligation to preserve the clients confidence prevents the
performance of his full duty to his former or present client.
A lawyer who wishes to retire as counsel without consent from the
client must file a petition for withdrawal in the court. He must
serve the copy of his petition to the client, and the adverse party at
least three days before the date set for the hearing. This is to secure
that the client can secure the services of another lawyer. A lawyer,
however, should not assume that the court would grant his petition.
Death of lawyer terminates the relationship, and the representatives
of a lawyer cannot assign the case to another lawyer. If the
deceased lawyer, however, is a part of the firm, the remaining
partners continue to serve as counsel for the client.
Three ways of changing lawyers:
Client may discharge lawyer any time with or without cause
and employ another lawyer
The attorney himself may initiate the move for substitution
through application in court.
60

Attorney may initiate the move by withdrawing his appearance either

with the written consent of his client or with leave of court on some
justifiable ground.

Requisites for substitution:

Written application for substitution
Written consent of client
Written consent of attorney to be substitute, or if written consent
cannot be secured, service or notice of the application upon him.
A defective substitution does not change the counsel. The old counsel will
still have to act as counsel for the client until a proper substitution can be
made.
Professinal courtesy requires that an additional counsel would inform the
existing counsel that the client got him to help in the case.
Domingo v Aquino.
The party in the subject case was the intestate estate of Luis Domingo, Sr.
and that Atty Unson represented the estate as counsel. The fact that Luis
Domingo, Jr. engaged his services in his capacity, as administrator did not
make him the personal counsel of Luis Jr. So even if Luis Jr. was removed
as administrator, Unson continued to represent the estate. Atty Unson
continued on record in the appellate court as counsel for the estate of
appellant therein and did not file any withdrawal as counsel. Petitioner
did not inform said court of any change of counsel or of the partyadministrator, as required by Rule 138 Sec 26 of the RoC. More so, no
appearance of any new counsel for the estate has ever been filed with the
appellate court.
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 successor in the

orderly transfer of the matter, including all information

necessary for the proper handling of the matter.
The law creates in favor of a lawyer a lien not only upon the funds,
documents and papers of the client which have lawfully come into
his possession until what is due him has been paid but also a lien
upon all judgments for the payment of money and executions
issued in pursuance of such judgments rendered in the case
wherein his services have been retained by the client. The former is
known as the retaining lien while the latter is known as the
charging lien.
RETAINING LIEN
The retaining lien is the right of the attorney to retain the funds,
documents and papers of his client, which have lawfully come into
his possession until his lawful fees and disbursements have been
paid, and to apply such funds to the satisfaction thereof. It is a
general lien for the balance of the account due to the attorney from
his client for services rendered in all matters, which he may have
handled for the client, regardless of the outcome.
It is a passive right and cannot be actively enforced.
Requisites:
Attorney-client relationship
Lawful possession of the lawyer of the clients funds,
documents and papers in his professional capacity
Unsatisfied claim for attorneys fees or disbursements.
The general, possessory or retaining lien of an attorney attaches to
all properties, papers, books, documents, or securities of the client
that lawfully come to the lawyer professionally or in the course of
his professional employment, not necessarily in connection with a
particular case. The retaining lien also attaches to the clients
61

money, which comes into his possession by way of a writ of execution

ordered by the court.
The attorneys retaining lien once it has lawfully attached to funds,
document, and papers of a client is uncontestable and the courts may not
compel him to surrender them without prior proof that his fees and
disbursements have been duly satisfied.
The lawyer should not apply the clients funds in his possession to satisfy
his fees for services rendered. He should, instead, file the necessary action
in court to fix the amount of his fees, and only after the same shall have
been finally adjudicated that he can apply the clients funds to pay his fees.
The retaining lien expires when the possession lawfully ends as the lawyer
voluntarily parts with the same or offers them as evidence in court.
CHARGING LIEN
A charging lien is the right, which the attorney has upon all judgments for
the payment of money and executions issued in pursuance thereof,
obtained in favor of the client. It secures payment. Of fees and
disbursements, for the services rendered by the lawyer in the action in
which the judgment was rendered and takes effect only after he shall have
caused a statement of his claim to be entered upon the record of the
particular action with written notice thereof to his client and the adverse
party. It gives the lawyer who contributed effort to secure the favorable
judgment the same right and power as his client over the judgment and
execution to enforce his lien and secure the payment of his fees and
disbursements.
It is an equitable lien, based on the natural equity that the client should not
be allowed to appropriate the whole of the judgment in his favor without
paying the services of his counsel in obtaining or helping obtain such
judgment.
Requisites:

Attorney-client relationship
Lawyer rendered services in the action
A money judgment favorable to the client
Attorney has a claim for attorneys fees and advances
Statement of his claim has been duly recorded in the case and
it has been served to his client and the adverse party.

The lien is restricted to the amounts awarded to the client by final

judgment and does not comprise of money that according to the
same judgment, must be applied to satisfy a legitimate debt of a
client.
The lien gives the lawyer the right to collect, in payment, of his
professional fees and disbursements, a certain amount, from out of
the judgment or award rendered on favor of his client. The client
who receives the proceeds of the judgment or the person in whose
favor the client transfers them holds such proceeds in trust for the
lawyer.
In other words, the client cannot defeat the attorneys right to the
charging lien by dismissing the case, terminating the services of
his counsel, waiving his cause or interest in favor of the adverse
party or compromising his action. While the client may take any
such step even against the wishes of his lawyer, he can do so only
without prejudice to the attorneys right to fees and lien that has
already been attached.
The lawyer need not be a party to the action in order to establish
his lien and enforce it upon the judgment but in a proper case, he
may be permitted to intervene.
Obando v Figueras.
Petitioners claim that when Atty Yuseco filed the Motion to
Dismiss, he no longer represented the respondents. SC held that
Yuseco was still counsel. Representation continues until the court
62

dispenses with the services of counsel in accordance with Sec 26 Rule 138
RoC which requires that: (1) new counsel files a written application; (2)
clients written consent is obtained; (3) written consent of lawyer to be
substituted, or proof that the lawyer to be substituted has been informed in
the manner required. Besides, at the discretion of the court, an attorney
who has already been dismissed is allowed to intervene in order to protect
the clients rights.

63