CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

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.

Fairness and Honesty Rule 138, Sec. 20(d). Duties of attorneys.—It is the duty of an attorney: (d)

To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.

In supporting his client’s cause, a lawyer should not state his personal belief as to the soundness or justice of his case. A lawyer’s personal belief has no real bearing on the case. If expression of belief were permitted, it would give improper advantage to the older and better known lawyer whose opinion would carry more weight. Also, if such were permitted, omission to make such assertion might be taken as an admission of the lack or belief in the soundness of his client’s cause.

Atty. George C. Briones vs. Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez, A.C. No. 6691, April 27, 2007Respondent is found guilty of and REPRIMANDED for violation of Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The complainant in this disbarment case is Briones, the Special Administrator of the Henson Estate. The respondent is Atty. Jimenez, the counsel for Heirs of Henson. Before respondent assisted the Heirs in filing the criminal complaint against complainant, he sent demand letters to the latter to comply with the RTC Order to deliver the residue of the estate to the Heirs of Henson. Considering that complainant did not reply to the demand letters, respondent opted to file said criminal complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to obey the lawful order of the court.

The Order referred to is the third part of the assailed Order which directs complainant to deliver the residue to the Heirs in proportion to their shares. As aptly pointed out by complainant, respondent should have first filed the proper motion with the RTC for execution of the third part of said Order instead of immediately resorting to the filing of criminal complaint against him. A mere perusal of the rest of the Order dated April 3, 2002 readily discloses that the approval of the report of complainant as Special Administrator was suspended

prior to the audit of the administration of complainant. Consequently, the RTC would still have to determine and define the residue referred to in the subject Order. The filing of the criminal complaint was evidently premature.

Respondent claims that he acted in good faith and in fact, did not violate Rule 19.01 because he assisted the Heirs in filing the criminal complaint against herein complainant after the latter ignored the demand letters sent to him; and that a lawyer owes his client the exercise of utmost prudence and capability. The Court is not convinced. Fair play demands that respondent should have filed the proper motion with the RTC to attain his goal of having the residue of the estate delivered to his clients and not subject complainant to a premature criminal prosecution.

Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated 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.

Rectification of Client’s Fraud Canon 19.02 requires the lawyer to terminate his relationship with the

client in the event the latter fails or refuses to rectify the fraud. On the other hand, Canon 41 of the Canons of Professional Ethics permits

the lawyer to inform the person injured by the fraudulent acts of his client or the injured party’s counsel. Canon 41 may collide with the lawyer’s duty to keep the client’s confidence inviolate which may be the reason for the revision. Canon 41. Discovery of imposition and deception. –When a lawyer

discovers that some fraud or deception has been practiced, which was unjustly imposed upon the court or party, he should endeavor to rectify it; at first by advising his client, and should endeavor to rectify it; and if his client refuses to forego the advantage thus unjustly gained, he should promptly inform the injured person or his counsel, so that they may take appropriate steps.

Rule: A lawyer may not volunteer the information concerning the client’s commission of fraud to anybody, as it will violate his obligation to maintain his client’s secrets undisclosed.

Valeriana U. Dalisay vs. Atty. Melanio Mauricio, A.C. No. 5655, January 23, 2006The case is a motion for reconsideration of a Decision finding Atty. Melanio "Batas" Mauricio, Jr., respondent, guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct and imposing upon him the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. Valeriana U. Dalisay, complainant, engaged respondent’s services as counsel a civil case. Notwithstanding his receipt of documents and attorney’s fees in the total amount of P56,000.00, respondent never rendered legal services for complainant. As a result, she terminated the attorney-client relationship and demanded the return of her money and documents, but respondent refused.

Upon learning of our Decision, respondent went to the MTC to verify the status of the civil case. There, he learned that the tax declarations and title submitted by complainant are not official records of the Municipal Assessor and the Registry of Deed. Thereupon, respondent filed a complaint against complainant, charging her with falsification (tampered evidence). Complainant contends that respondent violated the principle of confidentiality between a lawyer and his client when he filed falsification charges against her.

As a lawyer, respondent is expected to know this Rule. Instead of inaction, he should have confronted complainant and ask her to rectify her fraudulent representation. If complainant refuses, then he should terminate his relationship with her.

There is also no truth to his claim that he did not render legal service to complainant because she falsified the documentary evidence in Civil Case No.00-044. Pleadings show that he learned of the alleged falsification long after complainant had terminated their attorney-client relationship. It was a result of his active search for a justification of his negligence in Civil Case No. 00-044. As a matter of fact, he admitted that he verified the authenticity of complainant’s title only after the "news of his suspension spread in the legal community." To our mind, there is absurdity in invoking subsequent knowledge of a fact as justification for an act or omission that is fait accompli.

Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure on handling the case.

Control of Proceedings Rule 138, sec. 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients.—Attorneys have

authority to bind their clients in any case by any agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure. But they cannot, without special authority, compromise their client's litigation, or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash.

A lawyer should seek instruction from his client on any substantial matter concerning the litigation, which requires decision on the part of the client (i.e. whether to compromise the case, or to appeal an unfavorable judgment). In procedural matters, the client must yield to the lawyer. In matters of law, it is the client who should yield to the lawyer and not

the other way around. Lawyer’s duty to the court is foremost. The dignity of the legal profession may be compromised.

Mistakes or Negligence of Lawyer Binding Upon Client (1998, 200, 2002 BAR EXAMS)General Rule: Client is bound by attorney’s conduct, negligence and mistake in handling case or in management of litigation and in procedural technique, and he cannot be heard to complain that result might have been different had his lawyer proceeded differently.

Exceptions:1) Where adherence thereto results in outright deprivation of client’s liberty

or property or where interest of justice so requires.2) Where error by counsel is purely technical which does not affect

substantially client’s cause.3) Ignorance, incompetence or inexperience of lawyer is so great and error

so serious that client, who has good cause is prejudiced and denied a day in court.

4) Gross negligence of lawyer.5) Lack of acquaintance with technical part of procedure.

Luzviminda Lijauco vs. Atty. Rogelio Terrado, A.C. No. 6317, August 31, 2006On February 13, 2004, an administrative complaint was filed by complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco against respondent Atty. Rogelio P. Terrado for gross misconduct, malpractice and conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court

when he neglected a legal matter entrusted to him despite receipt of payment representing attorney’s fees.

According to the complainant, she engaged the services of respondent sometime in January 2001 for P70,000.00 to assist in recovering her deposit with Planters Development Bank, Buendia, Makati branch in the amount of P180,000.00 and the release of her foreclosed house and lot located in Calamba, Laguna. The property identified as Lot No. 408-C-2 and registered as TCT No. T-402119 in the name of said bank is the subject of a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession then pending before the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna, Branch 24 docketed as LRC Case No. B-2610.

Complainant alleged that respondent failed to appear before the trial court in the hearing for the issuance of the Writ of Possession and did not protect her interests in the Compromise Agreement which she subsequently entered into to end LRC Case No. B-2610.

Respondent denied the accusations against him. He averred that the P70,000.00 he received from complainant was payment for legal services for the recovery of the deposit with Planters Development Bank and did not include LRC Case No. B-2610 pending before the Regional Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna.

By openly admitting he divided the Php70,000.00 to other individuals as commission/referral fees respondent violated Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that a lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law. Worst, by luring complainant to participate in a compromise agreement with a false and misleading assurance that complainant can still recover after Three (3) years her foreclosed property respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which says a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rural Bank of Calape Inc. (RBCI) vs. Atty. Benedict Florido, A.C. No. 5731, June 18, 2010FACTS: This is a complaint for disbarment filed by the members of the Board of Directors of the Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RBCI) Bohol against Atty. James

Benedict Florido, herein respondent. RBCI alleged that respondent violated his oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. According to RBCI, respondent and his clients, Dr. Domeciano Nazareno, Dr. Remedios Relampagos, Dr. Manuel Relampagos, and Felix Rengel, through force and intimidation, with the use of armed men, forcibly took over the management and the premises of RBCI. They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay, the bank manager, destroyed the bank’s vault, and installed their own staff to run the bank. However, In his comment, respondent denied RBCI’s allegation and explained that he acted in accordance with the authority granted upon him by the Nazareno-Relampagos group, the lawfully and validly elected Board of Directors of RBCI. Respondent said he was merely effecting a lawful and valid change of management. Respondent alleged that a termination notice was sent to Garay but he refused to comply and to ensure a smooth transition of managerial operations, respondent and the Nazareno-Relampagos group went to the bank to ask Garay to step down. However, Garay reacted violently and grappled with the security guard’s long firearm. Respondent then directed the security guards to prevent entry into the bank premises of individuals who had no transaction with the bank and also, through the orders of the Nazareno-Relampagos group, also changed the locks of the bank’s vault.

ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. James Florido’s act is a ground for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

HELD: Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon taking their professional oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law. Verily, a lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. Thus, their duty to protect their clients’ interests is secondary to their obligation to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. While they are obliged to present every available legal remedy or defense, their fidelity to their clients must always be made within the parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth, the law, and the fair administration of justice and that, any means,