Legal & Judicial Ethics, M.P.Lacsie, 2015 pg.

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 proper advice and
assistance to those seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
This proscribes competition among lawyers in the matter of securing clientele. A lawyer should not steal the other
lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service, good result or reduced fees for his
services. Neither should he disparage another, make comparisons or publicize his talent as a means to feather his law
practice. It is, however, the right of a lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice to those seeking relief against
unfaithful or neglectful counsel. (Canon 7, Canons of Professional Ethics.)
A lawyer should not steal the other lawyers client nor induce the latter to retain him by a promise of better service,
good result or reduced fees for his services. Neither should he disparage another, make comparisons or publicize his
talent as a means to feather his law practice.
In Garcia Vs. Lopez, A.C. No. 6422, August 28, 2007, complainant was the counsel of Sarmiento, the original
applicant. Upon her death, the attorney-client relationship was terminated. However, complainant was retained as
counsel by Gina Jarvia and Alfredo Ku. In filing an entry of appearance with motion of postponement in behalf of the
compulsory heirs of the late Angelita Sarmiento when in truth he was merely representing some of the heirs but not all
of them, respondent was guilty of misrepresentation which could have deceived the court. He had no authorization to
represent all the heirs. He clearly violated his lawyer's oath that he will do n o falsehood nor consent to the doing of any
in court.
Respondent failed to observe the foregoing rules (Canon 8.02). He made it appear that he was entering his appearance
as counsel for all the heirs of Sarmiento which was highly unfair to complainant who had worked on the case from the
very beginning (i.e. since 1996) and who had not been discharged as such. It is true that without the formal withdrawal
of complainant as counsel of record, respondent would merely be considered as collaborating counsel. Nevertheless, by
being less than candid about whom he was representing, respondent undeniably encroached upon the legal functions
of complainant as the counsel of record.
We cannot casually brush aside what respondent did. Even assuming that it was not a calculated deception, he was
still remiss in his duty to his fellow lawyer and the court. He should have been more careful about his actuation since
the court was relying on him in its task of ascertaining the truth.
In Likong Vs. Lim, A.C. No. 3149, August 17, 1994, there is no showing that respondent even tried to inform
opposing counsel of the compromise agreement. Neither is there any showing that respondent informed the trial court
of the alleged abandonment of the complainant by her counsel.
Instead, even assuming that complainant was really abandoned by her counsel, respondent saw an opportunity to take
advantage of the situation, and the result was the execution of the compromise agreement which, as previously
discussed, is grossly and patently disadvantageous and prejudicial to complainant. xxx Undoubtedly, respondent's
conduct is unbecoming a member of the legal profession.
On the other hand, it is the right of any lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice and assistance to those
seeking relief against unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
He may properly accept employment to handle a matter which has been previously handled by another lawyer,
provided that the other lawyer has been given notice by the client that his services have been terminated. In the
absence of such notice of termination by the client, a lawyer retained to take over a case from a peer in the bar should
do so only after he shall have obtained the conformity of the counsel whom he would substitute. If such conformity
cannot be had, he should at least give sufficient notice to such lawyer of the contemplated substitution. His entry of
appearance in the case without notice to the first lawyer amounts to an improper encroachment upon the professional
employment of the original counsel. (Ethics by Agpalo, 2009 Edition, Pg. 112)
Advice and assistance to victims of faithful and neglect counsel, proper. In Laput vs. Remotigue, 6 SCRA 45
(1962) It is, however, the right of a lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice to those seeking relief against
unfaithful or neglectful counsel. He may properly accept employment to handle a matter which has been previously
handled by another lawyer, provided that the other lawyer has been given notice by the client that his services h ave
been terminated.
In re: Soriano, 33 SCRA 801 (1970) x x x Before taking over a case handled by a peer in the Bar, a lawyer is enjoined
to obtain the conformity of the counsel whom he would substitute. And if this cannot be had, then he should, at the
very least, give notice to such lawyer of the contemplated substitution. His entry of appearance in the case without the
consent of the first lawyer amounts to an improper encroachment upon the professional employment of the original
counsel.