Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Taken from FSUU Notes

JAVIER V. CORNEJO
(A.C. No. 778, August 14, 1936)
(63 Phil 293)

FACTS:
Atty. Javier was the lawyer of Severina Teodoro in a civil case where Severina won.
The monetary award was delivered by the opposing party to Javier as Severina’s lawyer. Javier
however failed to deliver said amount to her. Subsequently, Severina hired the services of
another lawyer, Atty. Cornejo who sent a demand letter to Javier. Javeir failed to pay yet again
so Atty. Cornejo assisted Severina in filing an administrative complaint against Javier. The
administrative complaint against Javier was eventually dismissed. After said dismissal, Javier
filed an administrative case against Cornejo accusing the latter of threatening him and
instigating Severina to file an administrative case against him.

ISSUE: Whether or not the administrative complaint of Atty. Javier has merit.

HELD:
No. The language used in the demand letter is not threatening. It was an honest effort
on the part of Cornejo to serve the interest of his client. The lawyer owes entire “devotion to
the interest of his client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and exertion of
his utmost learning and ability”, to the end that nothing be taken or be withheld from him, save
by the rules of law, legally applied. Cornejo could not have instigated Severina to file the
administrative complaint. Severina already knew of what remedy to seek against Javier if he
fails to deliver what’s due her even before she hired Cornejo. The Supreme Court also stated:
“…mutual bickering and unjustifiable recrimination, between brother attorneys detract from
the dignity of the legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from this court.”

REYES V. CHIONG
(A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003)

FACTS:
Atty. Ramon Reyes is the counsel for Xu. Atty. Victoriano Chiong, Jr. is the counsel for
Pan. Xu went into a business venture with Pan. Pan was supposed to set up a Cebu-based fish
ball, tempura and seafood products factory. He did not establish it, and so Xu asked that his
money be returned. Xu then filed a case of estafa against Pan. Prosecutor Salanga then issued a
subpoena against Pan. Atty. Chiong then filed a motion to quash, but he also filed a civil
complaint for the collection of a sum of money and damages against Xu and Atty. Reyes. Atty.
Reyes was allegedly impleaded because he allegedly connived with Xu in filing the estafa case
which was baseless. IBP recommended that Chiong be suspended for 2 years.

ISSUE: Whether or not Chiong should be suspended.

Held:
YES. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall
conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor towards his professional colleagues, and
shall avoid harassing tactics against opposing counsel. If Chiong believed that the two had
conspired to act illegally, he could have instituted disbarment proceedings. As a lawyer, Chiong
should have advised his client of the availability of these remedies. Thus the filing of the cases
had no justification. Lawyers should treat their opposing counsels and other lawyers with
courtesy, dignity and civility. Any undue ill feeling between clients should not influence
counsels in their conduct and demeanor toward each other.

Page 1 of 4
Taken from FSUU Notes
ATTY. DELA ROSA V. CA
(A.M. No. CA 03-35, July 24, 2003)

FACTS:
In a criminal case, the Court of Appeals issued a TRO directing the trial court and the
City Prosecutor to refrain from conducting any further proceedings until further orders. The
Court of Appeals further directed complainant to file his comment to the petition for
review. Instead of filing the required comment, complainant filed a motion to quash the
TRO. The three accused through their respective counsels filed written oppositions to the
motion. Complainant then filed the instant administrative complaint against respondent Justices
for ignorance of the law and inexcusable negligence when they issued the TRO without basis.
Complainant in his pleadings to the three respondent lawyers described them as “brilliant
lawyers”, “legal supermen” or “sages,” which amounted to sarcasm. This statement the Court did
not countenance and consider it to be an act unbecoming of a lawyer.

ISSUES: Whether or not Atty. Dela Rosa is guilty of act unbecoming of a lawyer.

HELD:
YES. It is the duty of a lawyer to conduct himself with courtesy, fairness and candor
toward his professional colleagues. As officers of the court, lawyers are mandated to conduct
themselves honorably, fairly and candidly toward each other. Though a lawyer’s language may
be forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of
the legal profession. Obviously, complainant’s use of sarcasm in calling the three respondent
lawyers “brilliant lawyers”, “legal supermen” and “sages” fell short of this mandate. It served no
useful purpose. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascriptions has no place in the
dignity of judicial forum. Civility among members of the legal profession is a treasured
tradition that must at no time be lost to it.

ANTONIO A. ALCANTARA V. ATTY. MARIANO PEFIANCO


(A.C. No. 5938, December 3, 2002)

FACTS:
While Atty. Ramon Salvani III was conferring with a client in the Public Attorney’s
Office (PAO) at the Hall of Justice in San Jose, Antique, a woman approached them. Atty.
Alcantara saw the woman in tears, whereupon he went to the group and suggested that Atty.
Salvani talk with her amicably as a hearing was taking place in another room. At this point,
Atty. Mariano Pefianco, who was sitting nearby, stood up and shouted at Atty. Salvani and his
client, saying, “Nga-a gina-areglo mo ina, ipapreso ang imo nga kliyente para mahibal-an na
anang sala.” (“Why do you settle that case? Have your client imprisoned so that he will realize
his mistake.”)

ISSUE: did atty. Pefianco violate canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

HELD:
YES. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility admonishes lawyers to conduct
themselves with courtesy, fairness and candor toward their fellow lawyers. Lawyers are duty
bound to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. They must act honorably, fairly and
candidly toward each other and otherwise conduct themselves without reproach at all times. In
this case, respondent’s meddling in a matter in which he had no right to do so cause the
untoward incident. He had no right to demand an explanation from Atty. Salvani why the case
of the woman had not or could not be settled. Even so, Atty. Salvani in fact tried to explain the
matter to respondent, but the latter insisted on his view about the case.

Page 2 of 4
Taken from FSUU Notes
PAFLU V. BINALBAGAN ISABELA SUGAR
(G.R. No. L-23959, November 29, 1971)
(42 SCRA 302)

FACTS:
In one labor case involving the above-mentioned parties, Cipriano Cid and Associates,
counsel of record for the winning complainants, filed a notice of attorney’s lien equivalent to
30% of the total back wages. Atty. Atancio Pacis also filed a similar notice for a reasonable
amount. Quintin Muning also filed a “Petition for the Award of Services Rendered” equivalent
to 20% of the back wages. Muning’s petition was opposed by Cipriano Cid and Associates the
ground that he is not a lawyer. The records show that the charge was filed by Cipriano Cid and
Associates through Atty. Pacis. All the appearances made in behalf of the complainants were at
first by Atty. Pacis and subsequently by respondent Quintin Muning.

ISSUE: Whether or not a non-lawyer like Quintin Muning can recover attorney’s fees for legal
services rendered.

HELD:
No, awarding of attorney’s fees to a non-lawyer is condemned by Canon 34 of Legal
Ethics and is immoral and cannot be justified. There should be an attorney-client relationship
as a condition to the recovery of attorney’s fees. Such a relationship cannot exist unless the
client’s representative in court is a lawyer. Since respondent Muning is not one, he cannot
establish an attorney-client relationship; therefore, he cannot recover attorney’s fees. The
reasons are that the ethics of the legal profession should not be violated; that acting as an
attorney with authority constitutes contempt of court, which is punishable by fine or
imprisonment or both, and the law will not assist a person to reap the fruits or benefit of an act
done in violation of law; and that if were to be allowed to non-lawyers, it would leave the
public in hopeless confusion as to whom to consult in case of necessity and also leave the bar in
chaotic condition, aside from the fact that non-lawyers are not amendable to disciplinary
measures.

IN RE FELIPE DEL ROSARIO


(52 Phil 399, 1928)

FACTS:
Felipe Del Rosario was a candidate in the bar examination who failed twice.
Subsequently, he was authorized the filing of a motion for the revision of his papers for 1925
based on an alleged mistake in the computation of his grades. The court, acting in good faith,
granted this motion, and admitted Felipe Del Rosario to the bar. Thereafter, it was found out
that he has pending criminal case. He however was acquitted. It is recommended by the city
fiscal that Felipe del Rosario be ordered to surrender his certificate of attorney and that he be
forever prohibited from taking the bar examination.

ISSUE: Whether or not Felipe Del Rosario shall surrender his certificate of attorney.

HELD:
YES. The acquittal of Felipe Del Rosario upon the criminal charge is not a bar to these
proceedings. It is asking a great deal of the members of the court to have them believe that
Felipe del Rosario was totally unaware of the illegal machinations culminating in the
falsification of public documents, of which he was the sole beneficiary. To admit Felipe Del
Rosario again to the bar examination would be tantamount to a declaration of professional
purity which we are totally unable to pronounce. The practice of the 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. The standards of the legal profession are not satisfied by
conduct which merely enables one to escape the penalties of the criminal law. It would be a
disgrace to the Judiciary to receive one whose integrity is questionable as an officer of the court,
to clothe him with all the prestige of its confidence, and then to permit him to hold himself out
as a duly authorized member of the bar.

Page 3 of 4
Taken from FSUU Notes
FIVE J TAXI V. NLRC
(G.R. No. 111474, August 22, 1994)
(235 SCRA 556)

FACTS:
In a labor case for illegal dismissal and illegal deductions, private respondents obtained
favorable judgment and awarded of their back wages and the amount deducted from them.
They were represented by one Guillermo Pulia, a non-lawyer. The latter claimed for attorney’s
fee for the legal services he rendered.

ISSUE: Whether or not Guillermo Pulia as authorized representative of private respondents be


allowed attorney's fees or service fees.

HELD:
NO. Article 222 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 3 of Presidential Decree No.
1691 states that, non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any labor arbiter only: (1) if they
represent themselves, or (2) if they represent their organization or the members thereof. While
it may be true that Guillermo H. Pulia was the authorized representative of private
respondents, he was a non-lawyer who did not fall in either of the foregoing categories. Hence,
by clear mandate of the law, he is not entitled to attorney's fees. Furthermore, the statutory
rule that an attorney shall be entitled to have and recover from his client a reasonable
compensation for his services necessarily imports the existence of an attorney-client
relationship as a condition for the recovery of attorney's fees, and such relationship cannot
exist unless the client's representative is a lawyer.

PACANA V. LOPEZ
(A.C. No. 8243, July 24, 2009)

FACTS:
Pacana, being the trustee of the Multitel’s fund, sought the legal advice of Atty. Lopez
at the time Multitel had a problem due to failure of investment schemes. Pacana said a lawyerclient
relationship was established between them although no formal document was signed.
When Pacana requested for an audited financial report of all the properties turned over to her,
Lopez explained that all the properties had been returned to her clients who had money claims
against Multitel, in exchange for quitclaim documents clearing Pacana from any liability.
Pacana then filed a complaint against Lopez. The latter insisted that she represented the group
of investors of Multitel and that she merely mediated in the settlement of the claims her clients
had against the Pacana, thus no attorney-client relationship that exist between her and
petitioner.

ISSUE: Whether or not there exist an attorney-client relationship between Atty. Maricel Lopez
and Rolando Pacana.

HELD:
There exists an attorney-client relationship between Atty. Maricel Lopez and herein
petitioner Rolando Pacana. To establish the relation, it is sufficient that the advice and
assistance of an attorney is sought and received in any matter pertinent to his profession. The
most upright and ethical thing which Atty. Lopez should have done was either to advise
complainant to engage the services of another lawyer since she was already representing the
opposing parties, or to desist from acting as representative of Multitel investors and stand as
counsel for complainant. She cannot be permitted to do both because that would amount to
double-dealing and violate our ethical rules on conflict of interest.

Page 4 of 4

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi