BASIC CONCEPTS

1. Definition Branc h of moral sc ience whic h treats of the duties which an attorney owes to t he c ourts, to his clients , to his colleagues in t he
profession and t o t he public

2. Bases The Const it ution — SC prerogative to promulgat e tules on the admission to the Bar and legal assis tanc e to the underprivileged
[ Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) ]

b) Rules of Court
Rule 137: Disqualific at ion of Judicial Offic ers
Rule 138-A: Law St udent and Practice Rules
Rule 139-A: The IBP
Rule 139-B: Disbarment & Dis cipline of Attorneys
BM No. 1960: Amendment t o Sec. 1, Rule 139-B of the Revised Rules of Court

c ) Statutes
- NCC 1491 ( 5) : Lawyers cannot ac quire properties and rights which may be the object of litigat ion in which t hey may take part
by virt ue of their profession

Ramos v. Ngaseo
Doctrine: Under Article 1491(5) of the Civil Code, lawyers are prohibited from acquiring either by purchase or assignment t he
property or rights involved which are the object of the litigat ion in whic h t hey intervene by virt ue of t heir profession. The
prohibition on purc hase is all embracing to inc lude not only sales to private individuals but also public or judicial sales. The
rat ionale advanced for the prohibition is that public policy disallows the t ransac tions in view of t he fiduciary relat ionship
involved, i.e., t he relation of t rust and confidence and the peculiar control exerc ised by t hese persons. It is founded on public
policy because, by virt ue of his office, an attorney may easily t ake advant age of the credulit y and ignorance of his client and
unduly enrich himself at t he expense of his client. However, the said proh ibition appli es only if th e sale o r assig nment
of the pro perty takes place durin g the pen dency of the li tig ation involvin g the client's pro perty. Consequen tly,
where th e pro perty is acquired afte r the term ination of the case , no violation of parag ra ph 5 , Article 1491 of the
Civil Cod e attaches.

In the instant case, there was no act ual acquisition of the propert y in lit igation since the respondent only made a writt en
demand for its delivery which the c omplainant refused to c omply. Mere demand for delivery of t he litigat ed propert y does not
c ause t he transfer of ownership, hence, not a prohibit ed transaction within the contemplation of Art ic le 1491. Even
assuming arguendo t hat suc h demand for delivery is unethical, respondent's act does not fall within t he purview of A rticle 1491.

All considered, a repriman d is deemed sufficient and reas onable.

NCC 2208: rec overy of att orney’s fees
Code of Profes sional Responsibility
Cannons of Professional Et hic s

Req uiremen ts fo r Admissions to the Bar an d Good moral character as a requirement for membership in the Philippine Bar
to Rem ain in th e Practice of Law
Cas es defining good moral c haract er or what Royong v. Oblena
const it utes immoral c onduct: Doctrine: The respondent 's misc onduct, although unrelated to his offic e, may cons titute sufficient grounds for disbarment.
Respondent 's conduct though unrelated t o his office and in no way direc tly bearing on his profession, has nevertheless rendered
him unfit and unworthy of the privileges of a lawyer.

Respondent filed a sworn petition alleging "that he is a person of good moral character" and praying that S C permit
him "to take the bar examinations to be given on the first Saturday of August, 1954, or at any time as the Court may
f ix.."

But he was not then the person of good moral character he represente d himself to b e. From 1942 to the present, he
has continuously lived an adulterous life with Briccia Angeles whose husband is still alive, knowing that his
concubine is a married woman and that her marriage still subsists. This fact permanently disqualified him f rom taking
the bar examinations, and had it been known to the Supreme Co urt in 1954, he would not have been permitted to take
the bar examinations that year or thereafter, or to take his oath of of fice as a lawyer.

The moral depravit y of t he respondent is mos t apparent. His pretension that before complainant completed her eighteent h
birt hday, he refrained from having sexual interc ourse wit h her, so as not to inc ur criminal liability, as he hims elf declared — and
It n Re
hat heBasa
limited himself merely t o kissing and embracing her and s uc king her t ongue, indic at es a scheming mind, whic h t ogether
Doctrine: Abdu cti on with conse nt in volve s mora l turpi tu de . C rimes of this ch aracter invo lve moral tu rpitu de. The inh eren t nature of the act is
with his knowledge of the law, he took advant age of, for his lurid purpose.
su ch that i t i s aga inst g ood moral s and the a ccepte d rul e of rig ht con duct. Moral turpi tu de i nclu des everythi ng w hich is d one contrary to justice ,
h one sty, mo desty, or go od mora ls. Ba sa wa s d ecla red to be susp en ded for on e year imme dia te ly after he fini shed se rving h is sen te nce.

C arlo s Ba sa is a you ng la wyer con victed of the crime o f ab ductio n wi th co nsen t. He wa s se nten ced to tw o years, el even mo nths, a nd el eve n days
o f imp rison ment. The So lici to r Gen eral a sked for Basa ’s disb armen t ba sed o n his commi ssion o f a crime i nvol ving mo ral turpi tu de

Arcig a v. Maniwan g
Doctrine: The Cou rt fo und th at respo nde nt's refusa l to marry the compl ain ant wa s not so co rrupt no r un prin cipl ed a s to warra nt disb armen t. A
l awye r may b e d isba rred fo r gro ssly i mmoral cond uct, or b y rea son of hi s con viction of a crime invo lvin g mo ral tu rpitud e. A me mber of the bar
sh oul d h ave moral in te grity i n a ddi ti on to pro fe ssion al prob ity. It is d iffic ult to state with preci sion an d to fi x an infle xibl e stan da rd as to wh at is
"g rossly i mmo ral co ndu ct" o r to spe cify th e moral d eli nqu en cy a nd ob liq ui ty wh ich ren der a l awye r u nwo rth y o f co ntinu ing a s a membe r o f the b ar.
The ru le i mpli es th at wha t ap pe ars to be un con ve ntio nal b eha vio r to the strai ght-la ced ma y n ot b e the i mmo ral co ndu ct tha t wa rrants di sbarme nt.
Immora l cond uct h as be en de fi ne d as "that cond uct w hich is wil lful, fl agra nt, or sha mele ss, a nd wh ich sho ws a mora l ind iffe re nce to the op in ion o f
the g ood a nd re spectab le memb ers of th e commun ity”

N OTE: Grossl y i mmoral co ndu ct — actio ns th at a re so corrup t a s to ap proxi mate a crimin al act.
Bacarro v. P intaca
Doctrine: One of the indispens able requisites for admiss ion to the Philippine Bar is that t he applic ant mus t be of good moral
c haract er. This requirement aims t o maintain and uphold the high moral standards and the dignit y of the legal profes sion, and
one of the ways of ac hieving this end is to admit to the prac tice of t his noble profes sion only t hose persons who are known to be
honest and t o possess good moral charac ter. "A s a man of law, (a lawyer) is necessary a leader of the community, looked up t o
as a model citizen" He set s an example to his fellow citizens not only for his respect for the law, but als o for his clean living.
Thus , becoming a lawyer is more t han jus t going through a law course and passing t he Bar examinat ions. One who has t he loft y
aspiration of becoming a member of the Philippine B ar must satisfy t his Court, which has the power, jurisdict ion and duty t o
pass upon the qualifications , ability and moral c haract er of candidat es f or admission to the Bar, that he has measured up t o t hat
rigid and Ideal st andard of moral fit ness required by his chosen voc at ion.

Respondent Pinataca had f ailed to live up to the high moral standard demanded f or membership in the Bar. He had seduc ed
c omplainant into physic ally submit ting herself to him by promises of marriage. He even eloped with her and brought her t o
anot her plac e. He got her pregnant and then t old her to have an abort ion When complainant refused, he deserted her.
Complainant had t o t rack him down to as k him t o help support their child born out of wedlock, and during the few times that she
was able t o s ee him, respondent merely made promises which he apparent ly did not intend to keep. On t op of all these,
respondent had t he audacity and impudence to deny before this Court in a sworn Affidavit the paternity of his child by compl

Villasanta v. Peralta
Doctrine: This Court is of the opinion that the respondent is immoral . He made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred instit ut ion demanding respect and dignity. His
convi ction in t he cri minal case involves moral t urpitude. The act of respondent i n cont ract ing the second marriage (even hi s act in maki ng love to another woman while his first wif e is
still alive and t heir marriage still valid and existing) is cont rary t o honesty, justice, decency and morality.

I n Re La Nuevo
Doctrine 1 : Res pondent Lanuevo is t herefore guilty of serious misconduc t — of having bet rayed the trus t and c onfidenc e
reposed in him as Bar C onfidant, thereby impairing the integrity of the Bar examinations and undermining public faith in t he
Supreme Court . He s hould be disbarred.

Doctrine 2: Section 2 of Rule 138 of the Revis ed Rules of Court of 1964, in connect ion, among others, with the charac ter
requirement of candidat es for admission to the Bar, provides that "every applicant for admiss ion as a member of the Bar must
be ... of good moral c haract er ... and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfac tory evidence of good moral character,
and t hat no charges against him involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any court in the Philippines.

The c ourt ruled t hat it is evident that Lanuevo has decept ively staged a plot t o c onvince each examiner individually to re-
evaluat e t he grades of Galang in order t o help him pas s the bar without prior authorization of t he Court . His duty as a Bar
Confident is limit ed only as a custodian of the examination not ebooks aft er they are correct ed by the examiners where he is
t asked to t ally the general average of the bar candidat e. All reques ts for re-evaluation of grades from the bar exam shall be
made by t he candidat e themselves. Wit h the fact s fully est ablished t hat Lanuevo initiated the re-evaluat ion of t he exam
answers of Galang without the aut horit y of the Court, he has breached the trust and confidenc e given to him by the c ourt and
was disbarred wit h his name st ricken out from the rolls of at torneys. Galang was likewise disbarred for fraudulently concealing
t he criminal charges against him in his applic at ion for the bar exam while under oat h c onst it ut ing perjury.

Diao v. Martine z
Doctrine: Tel esforo A. Dia o w as n ot q ual ified to ta ke th e b ar exami natio ns; b ut du e to hi s fal se re pres entatio ns, he w as a llo wed to ta ke it,
l uckil y pa ssed it, and wa s there afte r ad mitte d to th e Ba r. Su ch a dmissi on havi ng bee n o btain ed und er fal se p retense s must b e, an d i s he reby
re voked . The fact tha t he h urdl ed the Bar exa mina ti ons is immateri al. Passin g such exa mina ti on s is no t the on ly qua lifica ti on to beco me an
a ttorn ey-at-la w; taki ng the p rescrib ed cou rses of l eg al study in the re gul ar mann er is eq ual ly essen ti al.
Led a v. Tabang
Doctrine 1: Tabang is s uspended indefinit ely unt il orders f rom the court. First ly, his dec laration in his application for Admission
t o t he 1981 Bar Examinat ions that he was "single" was a gross misrepresent at ion of a material fact made in utt er bad f aith, for
which he should be made answerable. Rule 7.01, C anon 7, Chapt er II of t he Code of Professional Responsibilit y explicitly
provides: "A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppres sion of a mat erial fact in c onnection
with his application for admission to t he bar." That false st at ement, if it had been known, would have dis qualified him outright
from taking t he Bar Examinations as it indubit ably exhibit s lack of good moral character. Secondly, Respondent 's conduc t in
adopting conflic ting positions in t he various pleadings submit ted in Bar M at ter No. 78 and in the c ase at bar is duplicitous and
deplorable.

Doctrine 2: Again, while in said "Explanat ion" he admit ted having been "legally married" to Complainant ( par. 1), in t his case,
however, he denies t he legality of the marriage and, instead, harps on its being void ab initio. He even denies his signat ure in
t he marriage cont ract. The factual scenario gathered from the records shows that Respondent had rec onciled with Complainant
and admitted t he marriage to put a quick finish to B ar Matter No. 78 t o enable him to take t he lawyer's Oath, which otherwis e
he would have been unable t o do. But after he had done so and had bec ome a "f ull-pledge (sic) lawyer," he again refused t o
honor his marriage t o Complainant. Respondent 's lack of good moral c haract er is only t oo evident . He has resort ed t o c onflic ting
submis sions before this C ourt to s uit hims elf. He has also engaged in devious tactics with Complainant in order to s erve his
purpose. In so doing, he has violat ed Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, whic h provides that "a lawyer owes
c andor, fairness and good faith to the c ourt" as well as Rule 1001 t hereof whic h st at es t hat "a lawyer should do no falsehood nor
c onsent to the doing of any in Court ; nor shall he mislead, or allow t he c ourt to be misled by any artifice."
I n Re Arg osin o
Pet it ioner Al Argosino passed the bar examinat ions held in 1993. The Court however deferred his oath-t aking due t o his previous
c onvic tion for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide. The criminal c ase whic h resulted in petitioner’s c onvic tion, aros e
from the death of a neophyte during fraternity initiat ion rites somet ime in Sept ember 1991.

SC required petitioner Al C. Argosino t o submit to the C ourt evidence that he may now be regarded as complying wit h t he
requirement of good moral c harac ter imposed upon t hose seeking admission to the bar to whic h Argosino complied with by
submit ting ( 15) certifications/lett ers exec ut ed by s enators, trial judges and members of religious orders.

Doctrine: The pract ic e of law is a privilege granted only to t hose who possess the strict int ellec tual and moral qualifications
required of lawyers who are ins trument s in the eff ec tive and efficient administ ration of justice. It is t he sworn duty of this Court
not only to “weed out ” lawyers who have become a disgrac e t o t he noble profes sion of the law but , also of equal importanc e, t o
prevent “ misfits” from t aking the lawyer’s oat h, t hereby further tarnishing the public image of lawyers which in recent years has
undoubtedly bec ome less t han irreproachable.

In allowing Mr. Argosino to take the lawyer’s oat h, t he C ourt recognizes that Mr. Argosino is not inherently of bad moral fiber. On
t he contrary, the various certifications show that he is a devout Catholic with a genuine conc ern for c ivic dut ies and public
service.

Requirement of good moral character
We stress to Mr. Argosino t hat t he lawyer’s oath is NOT a mere ceremony or formality for prac ticing law. Every lawyer should at
AL L TIMES weigh his act ions according to the sworn promises he makes when taking the lawyer’s oat h. If all lawyers conduct ed
t hemselves st rictly according to the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibilit y, t he administration of justice will
undoubtedly be faster, f airer and easier for everyone concerned.
This is a requirement in taking the Bar exam and maintaining one’s standing as a lawyer.

What is not good moral character This is defined in Rule 1.01 of the CPR — UNLAWFUL, DISHONEST, IMMORAL conduct
Moral Turpitude
Cases involving/ not involving moral turpitude: Edgar Y. Teves v. COMELEC and Herminio TevesRespondent Herminio G. Teves filed a petition to disqualify petitioner on the ground that in Teves v. Sandiganbayan,3 he was convicted of violating Section 3(h), Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for possessing pecuniary or financial interest in a cockpit, which is prohibited under Section 89(2) of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991. Respondent alleged that petitioner is disqualified from running for public office because he was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude which carries the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office.There are two modes by which a public officer who has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction may violate Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019. The first mode is when the public officer intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in connection with his financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction. The second mode is when he is prohibited from having such an interest by the Constitution or by law.In Teves v. Sandiganbayan, petitioner was convicted under the second mode for having pecuniary or financial interest in a cockpit which is prohibited under Sec. 89(2) of the Local Government Code of 1991. The evidence for the prosecution has established that petitioner Edgar Teves, then mayor of Valencia, Negros Oriental, owned the cockpit in question. Even if the ownership of petitioner Edgar Teves over the cockpit were transferred to his wife, still he would have a direct interest thereon because, as correctly held by respondent Sandiganbayan, they remained married to each other from 1983 up to 1992, and as such their property relation can be presumed to be that of conjugal partnership of gains in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Hence, his interest in the Valencia Cockpit is direct and is, therefore, prohibited under Section 89(2) of the LGC of 1991.Conviction under the second mode does not automatically mean that the same involved moral turpitude. A determination of all surrounding circumstances of the violation of the statute must be considered. Besides, moral turpitude does not include such acts as are not of themselves immoral but whose illegality lies in their being positively prohibited, as in the instant case.The Court clarified that not every crim

Re: Suprem e Co urt Decision dated May 2 0, 20 08 in GR No . 161 455 u nder Rule 139-B o f th e Ru les of Court v. Atty.
Rodol fo D. Pacto lin
Atty. Pactol in fals ified a publ ic d ocu ment — a l etter of reques t for fin an ci al as si stance for the volleybal l team of Ozamis C ity. Atty. Pactolin attach ed t he said
l etter and filed a compl aint fo r i llegal di sburs emen t of publ ic fund s again st t he Deputy Omb udsman to which the latter all eged ly s igned ins tead of the Mayor.
Co urt foun d Atty, Pactoli n guil ty of fals ification of document
Doctrine: This C ourt relied on t he set tled rule that in the absence of sat is fac tory explanat ion, one found in poss ess ion of and who
used a forged doc ument is the forger and therefore guilty of f alsific at ion. This Court has ruled t hat the crime of falsification of
public document is contrary to jus tice, honesty, and good morals and, therefore, involves moral t urpit ude. As a rule, this Court
exercises t he power t o disbar with great caution. B eing the most severe form of disciplinary sanc tion, it is imposed only for t he
most imperat ive reasons and in clear cases of misconduc t affec ting t he st anding and moral character of t he lawyer as an officer
of the court and a member of t he bar. Yet this Court has also consis tent ly pronounced t hat disbarment is t he appropriate penalt y
for convict ion by final judgment f or a c rime involving moral turpitude. Here, Atty. Pac tolins disbarment is warranted. The
Sandiganbayan has confirmed t hat although his c ulpabilit y for f alsific at ion has been indubitably es tablished, he has not yet
served his s entence. His c onduct only exacerbates his offens e and shows t hat he falls short of the exacting standards expect ed
of him as a vanguard of t he legal profession.

Elp idio Tang v. Atty. Georg e M. Floren do

Doctrine: It has been c onsistently held by the Court t hat poss ess ion of good moral character is not only a condit ion for
admission to t he Bar but is a continuing requirement to maint ain one's good s tanding in t he legal profession. It is the bounden
duty of law practitioners to observe the highest degree of moralit y in order to saf eguard the integrity of t he Bar .9 Consequently,
any errant behaviour on the part of a lawyer, be it in his public or private activit ies, which tends to show him defic ient in moral
c haract er, honesty, probity or good demeanor, is suffic ient to warrant his sus pension or dis barment.

In In his case, respondent admitted his illic it relations hip wit h a married woman not his wife, and worse, t hat of his client.
Contrary to respondent's claim, their consortium cannot be classified as a mere "moment of indiscret ion"10 cons idering that it
lasted for t wo (2) years and was only abort ed when complainant overheard their amorous phone conversat ion on March 13,
1995

Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides that an att orney may be disbarred or suspended f rom his office by the Court
for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misc onduct in office, grossly immoral conduct , among others
Teresita D. Santeco v. Atty. Lune B. Avance
Doctrine: As an officer of the court , it is a lawyer’s duty to uphold t he dignity and aut horit y of the court . The highest form of
respect f or judicial aut hority is shown by a lawyer’s obedience to court orders and processes.

SC held that failure to c omply with Court directives constitutes gross misc onduct, insubordination or disrespec t which merits a
lawyer’s suspension or even disbarment . Respondent’s cavalier at titude in repeatedly ignoring orders of t he Supreme Court
c onstitut es utt er disrespect to t he judicial inst it ution. Respondent’s conduct indicates a high degree or irresponsibilit y. In
repeat edly disobeying t his Court’s orders, respondent proved herself unwort hy of members hip in the Philippine Bar. Worse, she
remains indifferent to the need to reform hers elf. C learly, she is unfit to discharge the dut ies of an officer of the court and
deserves t he ultimate penalty of disbarment.
The Lawyer’s Oath Encompasses all t he et hical obligat ions of a lawyer; Obligation or duty t o the COU RT, t o CLIENT, to COLL EAGUES in t he
profession, and to the PU BLIC
Lawyers’ Oath
I, do solemnly swear t hat I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, I will support the C onstitut ion and obey t he
laws as well as the legal orders of t he duly cons tituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor c onsent t o the doing of any
in court; I will not wit tingly or willingly promot e or sue any groundless, false or unlawf ul suit , or give aid nor c onsent to t he
same; I will delay no man f or money or malice, and will conduc t myself as a lawyer acc ording to the bes t of my knowledge and
discretion, with all good fidelity as well t o the courts as to my c lient s; and I impose upon myself these voluntary obligations
without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

3. Common Terms a) Trial Lawyer — a lawyer who personally handles cases in c ourt, administ rative agencies or boards; one who engages in actual
t rial work

b) Prac ticing Lawyer —one engaged in the pract ic e of law. Prac tice of law means any activity in or our of court whic h requires
t he application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experienc e. To engage in t he pract ic e of law is to perform thos e
act s characterist ic of the profession. Generally, t o practice law is to give not ic e or render any kind of s ervice which require t he
use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.

Cayetano v. MonsodDoctrine: The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court…In general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law incorporation services, assessment and condemnation services, contemplating an appearance before judicial body, the foreclosure of mortgage, enforcement of a creditor’s claim in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, and conducting proceedings in attachment, and in matters of estate and guardianship have been held to constitute law practice.Practice of law means any activity, in or out 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. In general, a practice of law requires a lawyer and client relationship, it is whether in or out of court.Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of 86.55%. He has been a dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license fees as lawyer for more than 10 years. Atty. Monsod’s past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor — verily more than satisfy the constitutional requirement — that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years.Dissenting, J. Padilla: What constitutes practice of law? As commonly understood, "practice" refers to the actual performance or application of knowledge as distinguished from mere possession of knowledge; it connotes an active, habitual, repeated or customary action.1 To "practice" law, or any profession for that matter, means, to exercise or pursue an employment or profession actively, habitually, repeatedly or customarily. x x x Essentially, the word private practice of law implies that one must have presented himself to be in the activeand continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are available to the public for a compensation, as a source of h

c ) Quant um meruit — “as much as he has deserved”; aut horized when 1) there is no express cont ract 2) although there is a
c ontrac t, the fee st ipulated are found unreasonable or unconscionable 3) when the c ont ract for at torney’s fees is void due t o
purely f ormal matters or defect in the execution 4) when the lawyer is unable to finish t he case and 5) when bot h lawyer and
c lient disregard the cont ract
P ineda v. d e Jesus (1 )
Throughout t he he proceedings, respondent counsels were wel l-com pensat ed. T hey i ncludi ng their relat ives and f riends, even avai led of f ree product s and
t reatm ents f rom peti tioner’s dermat ology clinic. Thi s notwi thstanding, they bi lled petit ioner addi tional legal f ees amount ing to P 16 .5 mil lion whi ch the lat ter,
however, ref used t o pay. Inst ead, petit ioner issued them several checks t otaling P 1.12 mi llion as “ full payment f or set tlem ent. ” St ill not satisf ied, respondents f iled
in the same trial court a mot ion for paym ent of lawyers ’ fees f or P 50 m illi on.

Doctri ne: The prof essional engagem ent between pet iti oner and respondent s was governed by the principle of quant um m eruit which m eans “as much as the
lawyer deserves.” The recovery of at torney ’s fees on this basis i s permi tt ed, as in this case, where t here i s no express agreem ent f or the payment of att orney’ s
f ees. Basically, it is a legal mechanism which prevents an unscrupulous client from running away wit h t he fruit s of t he l egal services of counsel wi thout paying for
it . In the same vei n, it avoi ds unjust enrichm ent on t he part of t he lawyer hi mself.
F urt her, Rule 20.4 of the Code of P rofessional Responsibi lit y advises l awyers to avoid controversies with client s concerning thei r compensat ion and to resort to
judi ci al act ion only t o prevent imposit ion, inj ust ice or f raud. Sui ts to collect fees should be avoided and should be f iled only when ci rcum st ances force lawye rs to
resort to it . I n the case at bar, respondent s’ m oti on f or paym ent of t heir lawyers ’ f ees was not m eant to collect what was just ly due t hem; t he fact was, t hey had
already been adequat ely paid. Dem anding P50 mil lion on t op of t he generous sum s and perks al ready given t o t hem was an act of unconscionable greed which i s
shocki ng t o t his Court.

A s lawyers, respondent s should be rem inded that t hey are m embers of an honorable profession, t he prim ary vision of whi ch is just ice. I t is respondents ’
despicable behavior which gives l awyering a bad na me in the m inds of som e people. The vernacular has a word for it : nagsasam antala. The pract ice of law is a
decent prof ession and not a money- making trade. Compensati on should be but a mere incident . Respondents ’ claim for addit ional legal f ees was not j ust if ied.
T hey could not charge peti tioner a fee based on percent age, absent an express agreement to t hat eff ect. T he paym ents to t hem in cash, checks, f ree product s
and services f rom petit ioner’s busi ness ¬ –al l of whi ch were not deni ed by respondent s¬ – more than suffi ced for the work t hey did. The “f ull payment f or sett lem ent”
should have discharged petit ioner’s ob ligati on t o t hem.

Mam bulao Lu mber v. PNB (2)

We find the above st ipulat ion to pay attorney's fees clear enough to cover bot h c as es of foreclosure sale mentioned thereunder,
i.e., judic ially or extra-judicially. At any rat e, we find merit in the cont ent ion of t he appellant that t he award of P5,821.35 in favor
of the PNB as attorney's fees is unc onsc ionable and unreasonable, c onsidering t hat all t hat the branch att orney of t he said bank
did in connection with the foreclosure s ale of the real propert y was t o file a petition with the provincial sheriff of Camarines
Norte request ing the latt er to sell the s ame in accordance with the provisions of Act 3135.

Doctrine: Sinc e t hen this Court has invariably fixed c ounsel fees on a quantum meruit basis whenever the fees s tipulat ed
appear excessive, unc onsc ionable, or unreasonable, because a lawyer is primarily a court officer c harged with the dut y of
assisting the c ourt in administering impart ial just ic e between t he parties, and henc e, t he fees should be subjec t to judicial
c ontrol. Nor should it be ignored t hat s ound public policy demands t hat courts disregard stipulations f or counsel fees, whenever
t hey appear to be a s ourc e of speculative profit at the expense of t he debtor or mortgagor.

In det ermining the compensat ion of an att orney, the following circ umst ances should be considered: 1) the amount and
c haract er of the services rendered; 2) t he res ponsibilit y impos ed; 3) the amount of money or the value of the property affect ed
by the controversy, or involved in the employment; 4) the skill and experience c alled for in the performanc e of the service; 5)
t he professional st anding of the at torney; 6) the result s secured; 7) and whether or not the fee is contingent or abs olute, it being
a recognized rule t hat an at torney may properly charge a muc h larger fee when it is to be c ont ingent than when it is not .

d) Barratry — fomenting suits among individuals and offering his servic es on cont ingent basis

e) Ambulance chasing — figurat ively chasing an ambulance carrying the victim and off ering his services on c ontingent basis

f) Amic us c uriae — friend of the court

g) Assumpsit — an agreement or promis e made orally or in writ ing, not under s eal, a legal action t o recover damages for a
breach of s uc h an agreement

h ) Cham pertous contract — the lawyer stipu lates with his client that i n the prosecution of the case, he will bear
all the expen ses for the recovery of thing s bein g claim ed by the clien t and th e la ter agre es to pay a po rtio n of
the th ings or p ro perty reco ve re d as com pensation

1
 Bautista v. Gon zales
Doctrine: Although lawyer may in good fait h, advance the expenses of litigat ion, the s ame should be subject t o reimbursement.
The agreement between respondent and t he Fortunados, however, does not provide for reimburs ement t o respondent of
litigation expenses paid by him. A n agreement whereby an att orney agrees to pay expenses of proceedings to enforc e t he
c lient ’s rights is champert ous. Such agreements are against public policy especially where, as in this c ase, the at torney has
agreed to carry on the act ion at his own expense in consideration of some bargain to have part of the thing in disput e . The
execution of these contrac ts violates the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and his client, for which the former must
incur administrat ive sanct ions.
NOTE : Void Contract . Exc ept ion: lawyer may advance some expenses in good fait as a matt er of convenience but subject t o
reimbursement.

g) C ontingent fee arrangement — counsel does not undertake to bear all t he expens es of lit igation; fees dependent on t he
succ es s of t he case

Rayos v. Hernandez
Respondent claimed that he charged petitioner, his client, a contingent fee comprising of forty percent (40%) as
attorney’s f ees and twenty perc ent ( 20%) as litigation expenses. We believe and so hold that the contingent fee here
claimed was, unde r the facts obtaining in this case, grossly excessive and unconscionable. Such a fee structure,
when considered in conjunction with the circu mstances of this case, also shows th at an unfair advantage was taken
of the client an d legal fraud and imposition perpetrated upon him. Lawyers should not be permitte d to get a lion’s
share of the benef its due the po or and the helpless. Contracts for legal services b etwee n the helpless and attorney
should be z ealously scrutiniz ed to the end that a fair share of the benefits be not denied to the f orm er. T his Court has
the p ower to guard a client, especially an a ged and necessitous client, against such a contract. Suspension of
respondent f or six months is justif ied in the case at bar.

Doctrine: A contingent f ee arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction and is generally recognized as valid an d binding
but must be laid down in an express contract. The amount of contingent fee agreed upon by the parties is subject to
the stipulation that counsel will be paid f or his legal services only if the suit or litigation prospers. A much higher
compensation is allowed as contingent fee in consideration of the risk that the lawyer may get nothing if the suit
f ails. 27 Contracts of this nature are permitted because they redound to the b enefit of the poo r client and the lawyer
"especially in cases where the client has meritorious cause of action, but no means with wh ich to pay f or legal
services unless he can, with the sanction o f law, make a contract for a contingent fee to be paid o ut of the proceeds
of the litigation. Of tentimes, the contingent fee arrangement is the only means by which the poor and helpless can
seek redress for injuries sustained and have their ri ghts vindicated.

Contingent fee contracts are subject to the supervision and close scrutiny of the court in order that clients may be
4. Lawyering A profession, not a business in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary considerations
protected from unjust charges. 29 Section 13 of the Ca nons of P rof essional Ethics state s that "a contract for a
B. CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY contingent fee, where sa nctioned by law, should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case including the
risk and uncertainty of the compensation, but sho uld always be subject to the supervision of a court, as to its
Fourfold duty of Lawyers:
reasonableness.
To So ciety CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uph old the co nstitu tio n, obe y the laws of the land an d prom ote respect fo r law and
C leg al processes.

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer s hall not engage in unlawf ul, dishones t, immoral or deceitful c onduct.
Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not c ounsel or abet ac tivities aimed at defiance of the law or at les sening confidence in t he legal
system
Rule 1.03 — A lawyer s hall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or proc eeding or delay any man’s c ause.
E CANON
Rule 1.042—— A lawyer
A lawyer shall
s hall make his
encourage h isclients
leg al to
services available
avoid, end or set tlein an efficienift itand
a controversy will conveni
admit of ent mann
a fair er com patible
settlement.
with the in depen dence, in tegrity and effe ctiveness of th e profession .

Rule 2. 01 — A lawyer shall not rejec t, except for valid reasons , t he cause of t he defenseles s or the oppressed.
Rule 2.02 — In such cases, even if the lawyer does not accept a c ase, he shall not refuse to render legal advice t o the person
c oncerned if only to the extent nec ess ary to safeguard the latt er’s rights.
Rule 2.03 — A lawyer s hall not do or permit to be done any act designed primarily t o solic it legal business.
Rule 2.04 — A lawyer s hall not charge rates lower than t hose cust omarily prescribed unles s the c ircumstanc es so warrant

T CANON 3 — A lawyer i n m aking known his legal services shall use on ly true, ho nest, fair, dign ified and ob jective
in form atio n or statement of facts.

Rule 3.01 — A lawyer shall not use or permit t he use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, dec ept ive, undignified, self-laudat ory
or unfair statement or c laim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
Rule 3.02 — In the choic e of a firm name, no false, misleading or as sumed name shall be used. The cont inued us e of t he name
of a deceased part ner is permis sible provided that the firm indicates in all it s communic at ions that the said partner is dec eased.
Rules 3.03 — Where a partner ac cepts public offic e, he shall withdraw from the firm and his name shall be dropped from the firm
name unless t he law allows him to pract ic e law c oncurrent ly.
Rule 3.04 — A lawyer shall not pay or give anything of value to representatives of the mass media in anticipat ion of , or in return
for, publicity to at tract legal business.

D CANON 4 — A lawyer shall particip ate in the develop ment of the l egal system by initiating or supp orting efforts in
law reform and in the im provemen t of th e admin istration of justice.

A CANON 5 — A lawyer shall ke ep abreast of legal develop ment develop ments, particip ate in continu ing legal
(MCL E) ed ucatio n p rograms, su pport efforts to achieve high standard s in law schools as well as in the practical train ing
of law stu dents and assist in dissem inating info rmation reg arding th e law and ju rispru dence.

G CANON 6 — These canons shall app ly to lawye rs in governme nt service int h e disch arg e of their official tasks.

Rule 6.01— The primary duty of a water engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to s ee that just ic e is done. The
suppression of f act s or the conc ealment of wit nesses capable of est ablis hing the innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible and is cause for disc iplinary ac tion.
Rule 6.02 — A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to promot e or advance his privat e interests , nor
allow the latt er to interfere with his public duties.
Rule 6.03 — A lawyer s hall not , after leaving government service, accept engagement or employment in connection with any
matter in whic h he had int ervened while in s aid service.

2. To the Legal P rofe ssion CANON 7 — A l awyer sh all at all times uph old the integrity and d ignity of th e legal profession an d su pport the
I activities o f the integrated bar.

Rule 7.01 — A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making false statement or s uppressing a material fac t, in c onnection
with his application for admis sion to the bar.
Rules 7.02 — A lawyer s hall not support the application for admission t o the bar of any person known by him be unqualified in
respect t o c harac ter, education, or other relevant attribute.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in c onduct t hat adversely reflects on his fitness to prac tice law, nor shall he, whet her in
public or privat e life, behave in a s candalous manner to the disc redit of the legal profession.

C CANON 8 — A lawyer sh all condu ct hi mself with courtesy, fairness an d cando r toward his profession al co lleagues,
an d shall avoid harassing tactics ag ainst opposing cou nsel.

Rule 8.01 — A layer s hall not, in his profess ional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwis e improper.
Rule 8.02 — A lawyer shall not , direct ly or indirect ly, enc roach upon t he professional employment of anot her lawyer; however, it
is the right of any lawyer, wit hout fear or favor, to give proper advice and assis tanc e t o t hose seeking relief against unfaithful or
neglect ful counsel.

U CANON 9 — A lawyer shall n ot, directly or ind irectly, assist in the unautho rized practice of law.

Rule 9.01— A lawyer shall not delegat e to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only be
performed by a member of t he Bar in good s tanding.
Rule 9.02 — A lawyer shall not divide or st ipulate to divide a fee f or legal services with persons not licensed to pract ice law,
exc ept:
Where t here is a pre-existing agreement with a part ner or as soc iate t hat , upon t he latt er’s death, money shall be paid over a
reasonable period of time t o his estate or to the persons specified in the agreement ; or
Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer, or
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
a profit -sharing arrangement,
3. To the Cou rts CANON 10 — A lawyer o wes can dor, fairness and g ood faith to th e co urt.
C
Rule 10. 01 — A lawyer shall not do any fals ehood, nor cons ent to the doing of any in c ourt ; nor s hall he mislead, or allow t he
Court to be mis lead by any artific e.
Rule 10.02 — A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent t he cont ent of a paper, the language or the argument of
opposing counsel, or the t ext of a decision or authorit y, or knowingly cit e as law a provision already rendered inoperat ive by
repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact t hat which has not been proved.
Rule 10.03 — A lawyer shall not observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them t o defeat the ends of justice.

Res CANON 11 — A lawyer shall ob serve an d mai ntain the resp ect d ue to the cou rts and to jud icial officers and sh ould
in sist on similar cond uct b y others.

Rule 11.01 — A lawyer shall appear in c ourt properly at tired.

Rule 11.02 — A lawyer shall punc tually appear at c ourt hearings.
Rule 11.03 — A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offens ive or menac ing language or behavior bef ore the Courts.
Rule 11.04 — A lawyer shall not at tribute to a Judge motives not support ed by the record or have no mat eriality t o t he case.
Rule 11.05 — A lawyer shall submit grievances against a Judge t o t he proper aut horities only.

S CANON 12 — A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the sp eedy and efficient
ad ministration of justice.

Rule 12.01 — A lawyer shall not appear for t rial unless he has adequately prepared himself on the law and the f ac ts of his case,
t he evidenc e he will adduce and the order of its preference. He should also be ready with the original doc uments for c omparison
with the copies.
Rule 12.02 — A lawyer shall not file multiple act ions arising from the same cause.
Rule 12.03 — A lawyer shall not, after obt aining extension of t ime t o file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period laps e
without submitt ing the s ame or off ering an explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04 — A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impos e t he execution of a judgement or misuse Court processes.
Rule 12.05 — A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his witness during break or recess in the trial, while the witness is st ill under
examination.
Rule 12.06 — A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a witness to misrepres ent himself or t o impersonate another.
Rule 12.07 — A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or harass a witness or needlessly inconvenience him.
Rule 12.08 — A lawyer shall avoid t est ifying in behalf of his c lient, except:
on formal mat ters, such as the mailing, authent ic at ion or custody of an instrument, and the like;
on subs tant ial mat ters, in cases where his testimony is essential t o t he ends of justice in which event he must , during his
t est imony, entrust the t rial of the cas e t o anot her c ounsel.

Me CANON 1 3 — A lawyer shall rely up on the me ri ts of his cause and refrain from any imp ropriety wh ich tend s to
in fluen ce, or gives the app earance of influ encing the cou rt.

Rule 13.01 — A lawyer shall not extraordinary attention or hospitality t o, nor seek opportunit y for, c ult ivat ing familiarity wit h
Judges.
Rule 13.02 — A lawyer shall not make public statement s in t he media regarding a pending c as e t ending to arous e public opinion
for or against a party.
Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite interference by another branch or agency of the government in t he normal c ours e
of judicial proceedings.
4. To the Clien t CANON 14 — A lawyer shall not refuse his services to th e need y.
R
Rule 14.01 — A lawyer shall not decline to represent a person solely on t he acc ount of t he latter’s race, sex, creed or status of
life or because of his own opinion regarding the guilt of the said person.
Rule 14.02 — A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and sufficient c ause, an appoint ment s c ounsel de oficio or as
amic us curiae, or a request from the Int egrat ed bar of the Philippines or any if its c hapters for rendition of free legal aid
Rule 14.03 — A lawyer may not refuse to acc ept representation of an indigent client unless:
he is in no posit ion to carry out the work effec tively or compet ent ly
he labors under a c onflic t of int erest between him and t he prospect ive client or between a present c lient and the prospective
c lient ;
Rule 14.04 — A lawyer who acc ept s the cause of a person unable to pay his professional fees shall obs erve t he same standard
of conduc t governing his relations with paying clients .
O CANON 15 — A lawyer shall o bserve can dor; fairn ess and loyalty in all his d ealings and transaction s with h is
clients.

Rule 15.01 — A lawyer, in c onferring with a prospec tive client , shall ascert ain as soon as prac ticable whet her the mat ter would
involve a c onflict with another client or his own interest, and if so, shall f orthwit h inform the prospective c lient .
Rule 15.02 — A lawyer shall be bound by t he rule on privilege communication in respect of matter disc losed to him by a
prospective client .
Rule 15.03 — A lawyer shall not repres ent c onflic ting interests exc ept by written consent of all concerned given after a full
disclos ure of facts .
Rule 15.04 — A lawyer may, wit h t he writ ten consent of all concerned, act as mediator, conc iliat or or arbit rator in settling
disput es .
Rule 15.05 — A lawyer, when advising his client, shall give a c andid and hones t opinion on the merits and probable results of
t he client ’s c as e, neit her overstating nor understating the prospects of the case.
Rules 15.06 — A lawyer shall not state or imply t hat he is able t o influence any public office, tribunal or legislat ive body.
Rule 15.07 — A lawyer shall impress upon his client c ompliance wit h t he laws and t he principles of fairness.
Rule 15.0 8 — A lawyer wh o is en gaged in anoth er professio n or occup ation concurrently with the practice o f law
T shall m ake
CANON 16 — clear
A lawyer
to h isshall
clienthold
whether
in trust
is acting
al l moneys
as a lawyer
and properties
or in an other
of hiscapacity.
client that may com into his possessi on.

Rule 16.01 — A lawyer shall acc ount for all money or propert y collec ted or received for or from the clientRule 16.02 — A lawyer
shall keep t he funds of each client separate and apart from his won and t hose of others kept by him.
Rule 16.03 — A lawyer shall deliver t he fund and propert y of 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 t o s atisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving not ic e
t o promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also have a lien t o t he same extent on all judgments and executions he has sec ured
for his client as provided for in the Rules of Court .
Rule 16.04 — A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless t he c lient’s interests are fully protect ed by t he nature of
t he c ase or by independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend money t o a c lient except, when in t he interest of justice, he has
t o advance necessary expenses in a legal matt er he is handling for the client.

Charg ing Lien — Rule 138 . Se c. 37, Revised An att orney shall have a lien upon the funds, document s and papers of his c lient which have lawfully come int o his possession
Rul es of Court: P roced ure for ch arging lien and may retain the same until his lawful f ees and disbursements have been paid, and may apply such funds to the satisfaction
t hereof. He shall also have a lien t o the same ext ent upon all judgment s for the payment of money, and executions issued in
pursuance of such judgment s, whic h he has secured in a litigation of his client, from and after t he time when he s hall have t he
c aused a st at ement of his claim of such lien to be entered upon the rec ords of t he court rendering such judgment, or issuing
such exec ut ion, and shall have t he c aused writ ten not ic e thereof to be delivered t o his client and t o the adverse paty; and he
shall have the same right and power over such judgment s and executions as his c lient would have t o enforce his lien and sec ure
t he payment of his just fees and disbursements .
Fi CANON 17 — A lawyer owes fid elity to th e cause of his client and he shall be mindful of the tru st and con fiden ce
rep osed in h im.
C CANON 18 — A lawyer shall serve hi s client with competen ce an d dilig ence.

Rule 18.01 — A lawyer shall not undert ake a legal service which he knows or should know t hat he is not qualified to render.
However he may render service if, wit h the consent of his client, he can obt ain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is
c ompetent on the mat ter.
Rule 18.02 — A lawyer shall not handle any legal matt er wit hout adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03 — A lawyer s hall not neglect a legal matt er ent rusted t him, and his negligence in connect ion therewit h s hall render
him liable.
Rule 18.04 — A lawyer shall keep the client informed of t he st at us of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time t o t he
Z CANON 19 — Afor
c lient ’s request lawyer shall re prese nt his clie nt with zeal within th e boun ds of th e law.
information.

Rule 19.01 — A lawyer s hall employ only fair and honest means t o maintain t he lawful objec tives of his client and shall not
present, part ic ipate in presenting or threaten t o pres ent unfounded c riminal charges to obtain and improper advant age in any
c ase or proceeding.
Rule 19.02 — A lawyer who has received information that his c lient has, in the c ours e if the representation, perpetrat ed fraud
upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon t he client to rec tify the same, and failing whic h shall t erminate t he
relationship with such client in ac cordance with the Rules of Court .
Rule 19.03 — A lawyer shall not allow his client t o dictate the proc edure in handling the case.
Fair CANON 20 — A lawyer shall charg e only fair and reason able fees.

Rule 20.01 —A lawyer shall be guided by t he following factors in det ermining the extent his fees:
The t ime spent and the extent of t he services rendered or required;
The novelty and difficulty of t he quest ions involved;
The importance of the subject matt er;
The skill demanded
The probably of los ing ot her employment as a result of acceptance of t he proferred case;
The c us tomary charges for similar servic es and t he sc hedule of fees of the IBP chapter to whic h he belongs;
The amount involved in the controvers y and t he benefits resulting t o the client from the servic e;
The c ontingency or cert ainty of c ompens at ions;
The c harac ter of the employment, whether oc casional or established; and
The professional standing of the lawyer
Rule 20.02 — A lawyer shall, in cases of referral, with t he c onsent of his c lient , be ent it led to a division of foes in proportion t o
t he work perf ormed and responsibility ass umed.
Rule 20.03 — A lawyer shall not, without t he full knowledge and c onsent of the c lient , acc ept any fee, reward, costs,
c ommission, int eres t, rebat e or forwarding allowance or other compensation whatsoever related to his professional employment
from anyone other than t he c lient .
Rule 20.04 — A lawyer shall avoid cont roversies with t he c lient s concerning his c ompensation and shall res ort t o judic ial action
only to prevent imposition, injustice or fraud.

Co CANON 21 — A l awyer shall p reserve th e co nfid ences an d secrets of his client even after th e attorney-client
relation is term inated.

Rule 21.01 — A lawyer shall not reveal t he confidences or secrets of his client except:
When authorized by the c lient aft er ac quaint ing him of the consequenc es of the disc losure;
When required by law;
When necessary to collect his fees or t o defend hims elf, his employees or associat es or by judicial ac tion.
Rule 21.02 — A lawyer shall not, t o the dis advantage of his client , use inf ormation acquired in t he course of employment, nor
shall he use the same to his own advantage or t hat of a t hird person, unless the client wit h full knowledge of the circ umst ances
c onsents thereto.
Rule 21.03 — A lawyer shall not , without the writ ten consent of his client , give inf ormation from his files to an out side agenc y
seeking s uc h informat ion for auditing, st at is tical, bookkeeping, accounting, dat a processing, or any s imilar purpose.
Rule 21.04 — A lawyer may disclose t he affairs of a c lient of the firm t o part ners or associates thereof unless prohibited by t he
c lient .
Rule 21.05 — A lawyer shall adopt such measures as may be required t o prevent those whose services are utilized by him, f rom
disclos ing or using confidences or secrets of the client.
Rule 21.06 — A lawyer shall avoid indisc reet conversation about a client’s affairs even wit h members of his family.
W Rule 21.07
CANON 22——A lawyer
A lawyer
shallshall
not reveal
with draw
t hat he hishassebeen
rvices
consult
o nlyedfor
about
go od
a part
cauicse
ularan
c as
d eupon
except
n otice
t o avoid
apppossible
ropriatec onflic
in the
t of
interest.
circu mstan ces.

Rule 22.01 — A lawyer may withdraw his services in any of the f ollowing c ases:
When t he client pursues an illegal or immoral course of conduct in connec tion with the matt er he is handling;
When t he client insists t hat t he lawyer pursue conduct violative of thes e canons and rules;
When his inability to work with the c o- counsel will not promot e t he best int eres t of the c lient ;
When t he ment al or physical condition of the lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the employment effectively;
When t he client deliberately fails t o pay t he fees for the s ervices or fails t o comply with the ret ainer agreement ;
When t he lawyer is elect ed or appoint ed to public offic e; and
Other similar c ases.
Rule 22.02 — A lawyer who wit hdraws or is discharged shall, subjec t to a retainer lien, immediat ely t urn over all papers and
property to whic h the client is entitled, and shall cooperate with his s uc cessor in the orderly transfer of the matt er, inc luding all
informat ion necessary for t he proper handling of the mat ter.