ethics finals rev

LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS 25

AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS

C. DUTIES TO THE COURT

CANON 12 – A lawyer shall exert every effort and

consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient

administration of justice.

Rule 12.01 – A lawyer shall not appear for trial

unless he has adequately prepared himself on

the law and the facts of his case, the evidence

he will adduce and the order of its proferrence.

He should also be ready with the original

documents for comparison with the copies.

Rule 12.02 – A lawyer shall not file multiple

actions arising from the same cause.

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.

Rule 12.04 – A lawyer shall not unduly delay a

case, impede the execution of a judgment or

misuse Court processes.

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.

Rule 12.06 – A lawyer shall not knowingly

assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to

impersonate another.

Rule 12.07 – A lawyer shall not abuse,

browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly

inconvenience him.

Rule 12.08 – A lawyer shall avoid testifying in

behalf of his client, except:

o on formal matters, such as the mailing,

authentication or custody of an

instrument, and the like; or

o 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.

CASES:

Atty. Vaflor-Fabroa vs Atty Paguinto – Rule 12.03

(Not to delay cause)

Respondent prepared and notarized a joint

affidavit-complaint which was the basis of the

Information for Estafa filed against Petitioner.

Respondent also filed 6 other criminal

complaints for violation of the Corporation

Code of the Philippines. Petitioner, who was

the Chairperson of the General Mariano

Alvarez Services Cooperative (GEMASCO),

was sent a Notice of General Assembly for her

removal. The Notice was signed by

respondent. Thereafter, Respondent and his

group took over the GEMASCO office and its

premises.

By conniving with the other members in taking

over the Board of Directors and the

GEMASCO facilities, Respondent violated the

provisions of the Cooperative Code of the

Philippines, the GEMASCO By-laws, as well

as the Lawyer’s Oath, which provides that a

lawyer shall support the Constitution and obey

the laws.

He also violated the Oath, that a lawyer shall

“not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any

groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid

or consent to the same”, when respondent

caused the filing of baseless criminal

complaints against Petitioner.

He violated Rule 12.03 when after obtaining

an extension of time to file comment on the

complaint he failed to file any and ignored this

Court’s subsequent show cause order.

A Court’s Resolution is “not to be construed as

a mere request, nor should it be complied with

partially, inadequately, or selectively.”

Mattus vs Atty Villaseca – Rule 12.03 (Not to delay

cause)

Complainant engaged the services of

Respondent to represent her in a case for

Estafa filed against her. However,

Complainant alleged that Respondent was

often absent during court hearings but still

collected appearance fees, frequently sought

postponement of trial when he was present,

failed to file a demurrer to evidence, failed to

present evidence and only filed a

memorandum, and that Respondent was



negligent in handling the case resulted in her

and her husband’s conviction.

A lawyer is expected to exert his best efforts

and ability to preserve his client’s cause, for

the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client

likewise serves the ends of justice.

Respondent violated Rule 12.03 when he

failed to submit a demurrer for evidence,

without offering any explanation why he failed

to do so. As a result, it’s as if he is deemed to

have waived his right to file the said pleading.

His omission constitutes inexcusable

negligence since 9 months had elapsed from

the time the trial court granted Respondent 20

days to file the demurrer.

The moment Atty. Villaseca agreed to handle

the complainant’s criminal case he became

duty-bound to serve his clients with

competence and diligence, and to champion

their cause with whole-hearted fidelity. By

failing to afford his clients every remedy and

defense that is authorized by the law, Atty.

Villaseca fell short of what is expected of him

as an officer of the Court. The duty of a lawyer

is to uphold the integrity and dignity of the

legal profession by faithfully performing his

duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and

to his clients.

Also violated Rule 18.03 (Not to neglect legal

matters) and Canon 17 (Trust and confidence).

Bugaring and RBBI vs Hon Espanol – Rule 12.04

(Not delay or impede the execution of judgment or

misuse court process)

A lawyer should not be carried away in

espousing his client’s cause. He should not

forget that he is an officer of the court, bound

to exert every effort and placed under duty, to

assist in the speedy and efficient

administration of justice. He should not,

therefore, misuse the rules of procedure to

defeat the ends of justice per Rule 10.03 or

unduly delay a case, impede the execution of

a judgment or misuse court processes, in

accordance with Rule 12.04.

Lawyers should be reminded that their primary

duty is to assist the courts in the

administration of justice. Any conduct which

tends to delay, impede or obstruct the

administration of justice contravenes such

lawyer’s duty.

Manila Pest Control vs WCC – Rule 12.04 (Not delay

or impede the execution of judgment or misuse court

process)

A complaint for compensation was filed

against Manila Pest Control, and was

submitted for decision in favor of Mario Abitria,

the complainant in the case. The counsel for

Manila Pest Control failed to appear at the

hearing. The decision of the WCC was sent to

Atty Camacho but care of petitioner’s counsel,

Atty Corpuz. MPC contends that the one

“officially furnished” with a copy of such

decision was not its counsel, who was without

any connection with Atty. Camacho. Therefore,

it had not received a copy of a decision which

could not thereafter reach the stage of finality.

Such contention does not have merit. As

stated in the affidavit of one of WCC’s

employees, Gerardo Guzman, he went to the

office of Atty Corpuz to deliver a copy of the

decision, but Atty Corpuz refused to receive

the said decision alleging that he was no

longer handling the case. Atty Corpuz instead

instructed Mr Guzman to deliver it to Atty

Camacho since it was allegedly Atty Camacho

handling the case.

Such conduct where out of excess of zeal and

out of a desire to rely on every conceivable

defense that could delay if not defeat the

satisfaction of an obligation incumbent on

one’s client, a counsel would put on the most

favorable light on a course of conduct which

certainly cannot be given the stamp of

approval.

Malonzo vs Principe – Rule 12.04 (Not delay or

impede the execution of judgment or misuse court

process)

NAPOCOR instituted expropriation

proceedings against several lot owners in



Bulacan including Complainant in this case.

Complainant is a member of SANDAMA, an

organization of lot owners affected by the

expropriation proceedings. SANDAMA

engaged the services of Respondent’s law

firm. A complaint for disbarment was filed

before the IBP, where complainant claimed

that respondent, without authority entered his

appearance as the former’s counsel in the

expropriation proceedings. And after illegally

representing him, Respondent claimed 40% of

the selling price of his land by way of

attorney’s fees. However, Respondent

contends that Complainant is a member of

SANDAMA, which through its President,

Danilo Elfa, engaged the services of

Respondent’s law office. And that

Complainant executed an SPA in favor of Elfa

to act in behalf of complainant.

In relation to Rule 12.04 - The Court cannot

hold respondent guilty of censurable conduct

or practice justifying the penalty recommended.

While filing the claim for attorney’s fees

against the individual members may not be the

proper remedy for respondent, the Court

believes that he instituted the same out of his

honest belief that it was the best way to

protect his interests. After all, SANDAMA

procured his firm’s services and was led to

believe that he would be paid for the same.

There is evidence which tend to show that

respondent and his firm rendered legal and

even extra-legal services in order to assist the

landowners get a favorable valuation of their

properties. They facilitated the incorporation

of the landowners to expedite the negotiations

between the owners, the appraisers, and

NAPOCOR. They sought the in their

bargaining with NAPOCOR. Suddenly, just

after concluding the compromise price with

NAPOCOR and before the presentation of the

compromise agreement for the court’s

approval, SANDAMA disengaged the services

of respondent’s law firm.

Sambajon et al vs Atty Suing – Rule 12.05, 12.06,

12.07 (Proper behavior; Lawyer shall not harass

witness)

Respondent is the counsel for Complainants in

a case for illegal dismissal filed against

Microplast Inc. The labor arbiter dismissed the

case based on the Individual Release Waiver

and Quitclaims purportedly signed and sworn

to by the 7 complainants. 4 of the 7 denied

having signed and sworn to before the labor

arbiter the documents or having received the

considerations therefor.

Respondent is guilty to manipulating 4 of the

alleged Release Waiver and Quitclaim.

As an officer of the court, a lawyer is called

upon to assist in the administration of justice.

He is an instrument to advance its cause. Any

act on his part that tends to obstruct, perverts

or impedes the administration of justice

constitutes misconduct.

Respondent violated CPR with his behavior of

deceiving the NLRC with the

misrepresentation in the execution of the

Release Waiver and Quitclaims. He also tried

to coach his client or influence him to answer

questions in an apparent attempt not to

incriminate Respondent.

PNB vs Uy Teng Piao – Rule 12.08 (Not to testify on

behalf of client)

Uy Teng Piao was sued by PNB for non-

payment of obligations.

With respect to the testimony of the bank’s

attorney, although the law does not forbid an

attorney to be a witness and at the same time

an attorney in a cause, 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.



NOTES:

PD 1829 (Penalizing Obstruction Of

Apprehension And Prosecution Of Criminal

Offenders)

Acts:

(a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any

criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission

of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by

means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit,

intimidation, force or threats;

(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing

any paper, record, document, or object, with intent to

impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or

admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or

official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in

the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal

cases;

(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the

escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable

ground to believe or suspect, has committed any

offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent

his arrest prosecution and conviction;

(d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose

of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the

execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name

and other personal circumstances for the same

purpose or purposes;

(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by

obstructing the service of process or court orders or

disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in

Tanodbayan, or in the courts;

(f) making, presenting or using any record,

document, paper or object with knowledge of its falsity

and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the

investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal

cases;

(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any

benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discounting,

or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender;

(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with

the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or

property or that of any immediate member or members

of his family in order to prevent such person from

appearing in the investigation of, or official

proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition,

whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a

person from appearing in the investigation of or in

official proceedings in, criminal cases;

(i) giving of false or fabricated information to

mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from

apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or

property of the victim; or fabricating information from

the data gathered in confidence by investigating

authorities for purposes of background information and

not for publication and publishing or disseminating the

same to mislead the investigator or to the court.

Rule 3, Sec. 16, Rules of Court:

Death of party; duty of counsel. — Whenever a

party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not

thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel

to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such

death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and

address of his legal representative or representatives.

Failure of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a

ground for disciplinary action.

The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be

substituted for the deceased, without requiring the

appointment of an executor or administrator and the

court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor

heirs.

The court shall forthwith order said legal

representative or representatives to appear and be

substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from

notice.

If no legal representative is named by the counsel

for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall

fail to appear within the specified period, the court may

order the opposing party, within a specified time to

procure the appointment of an executor or

administrator for the estate of the deceased and the

latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the

deceased. The court charges in procuring such

appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may

be recovered as costs.



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..

Rule 13.01 – A lawyer shall not extend

extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor

seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with

Judges.

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 a party.

Rule 13.03 – A lawyer shall not brook or invite

interference by another branch or agency of

the government in the normal course of

judicial proceedings.

CASES:

Nestle Phil vs. Sanchez – Canon 13 (Refrain from act

giving appearance of influence)

From July 8-10, union members of Union of

Filipro Employees or the Kimberly

Independent Labor Union, who filed a case in

court intensified their pickets that they had

been conducting since June 17 in front of the

Padre Faura gate of the SC

Despite of the warning given by the court to

their leaders and counsel, the picketing

continued

The union members are obstructing the

access to and egress from the court’s

premises. They have also constructed

provisional shelters along the sidewalks, set

up kitchens and littered the place. they took

turns haranguing the court all day long with

the use of loudspeakers

The Counsel of the union members

apologized to the court and promised that the

incident will not be repeated again.

The picketing was actually done by the

members of the PAMANTIK (Pagkakaisa ng

MAnggagawa sa Timog Katalugan), an

unregistered loose allegiance of about 75

unions in the Southern Tagalog and not by

either the Union of Filipro Employees or the

Kimberly Independent Labor Union.

But the court will not hesitate in future similar

incidents to apply the full force of the law and

punish for contempt those who attempt to

pressure the court to acting one way or the

other in any case pending before it.

The court is entitled to proceed to the

disposition of its business in an orderly

manner, free from outside interference

obstructive of its functions and tending to

embarrass the administration of justice.

Any attempt to pressure or influence courts of

justice through the exercise of either right

amounts to an abuse thereof and is no longer

within the ambit of constitutional protection,

and that any such efforts to influence the court

constitute contempt of court.

In re De Vera – Canon 13 (Refrain from act giving

appearance of influence)

Atty De Vera made some snide remarks

regarding the possibility that the Supreme

Court might rule favorably on the

Constitutionality of Plunder Law.

The remarks were far from being constructive

criticisms and served no other purpose other

than to debase the incumbent justices.

His statements are not fair criticisms of any

decision of the Court, but are threats made

against it to force the Court to decide the issue

in a particular manner, or risk earning the ire

of the public. It tends to promote distrust an

undermines public confidence in the judiciary,

by creating the impression that the Court

cannot be trusted to resolve cases impartially,

uninfluenced by public clamor and other

extraneous influences.

Cruz vs Salva – Rule 13.02 (No public statements to

Media) “Trial by publicity”

Fiscal conducted an investigation but the

investigation was conducted in a rather

unusual manner by inviting people, especially

the media, in the Municipal Hall and even



gave them the opportunity or prerogative to

direct their questions to Cruz

Salva should have done investigation privately

in his office and not publicly in the session hall

of Municipal Court of Pasay where

microphones were installed and media people

were present. He should also not have made

the media people ask questions. SC was

disturbed and annoyed by such publicity

Martelino vs Alejandro – Rule 13.02; Corregidor

massacre

Petitioners contend that they can no longer be

given a fair trial because of the wide publicity

given to their case and that same will render

the judges deciding the case biased as what

they read in the newspaper will necessarily

affect their decision.

the spate of publicity in this case before us did

not focus on the guilt of the petitioners but

rather on the responsibility of the Government

for what was claimed to be a "massacre" of

Muslim trainees. If there was a "trial by

newspaper" at all, it was not of the petitioners

but of the Government.

Also, the Court Martial actually postponed the

trial to a later date to remove any doubt to the

fairness of the judges’ decision.

In re Request Radio TV Coverage – Rule 13.02; the

request to hold a live coverage of Estrada’s trial before

the Court was denied for the reason that doing the

same could affect the actuations of the judges. No

matter how impartial a judge is, if he knows that he’s

being watched by the public, his demeanor will surely

be affected; he’ll be very reserved and inhibited in

making remarks that may earn him the ire of the public.

Guidelines were laid down by the Supreme Court

regarding live coverage of trials in this case.

An audio-visual recording of the Maguindanao

massacre cases may be made both for

documentary purposes and for transmittal to

live radio and television broadcasting.

Media entities must file with the trial court a

letter of application, manifesting that they

intend to broadcast the audio-visual recording

of the proceedings and that they have the

necessary technological equipment and

technical plan to carry out the same, with an

undertaking that they will faithfully comply with

the guidelines and regulations and cover the

entire remaining proceedings until

promulgation of judgment.

No selective or partial coverage shall be

allowed. No media entity shall be allowed to

broadcast the proceedings without an

application duly approved by the trial court.

A single fixed compact camera shall be

installed inconspicuously inside the courtroom

to provide a single wide-angle full-view of the

sala of the trial court. No panning and zooming

shall be allowed to avoid unduly highlighting or

downplaying incidents in the proceedings. The

camera and the necessary equipment shall be

operated and controlled only by a duly

designated official or employee of the

Supreme Court. The camera equipment

should not produce or beam any distracting

sound or light rays. Signal lights or signs

showing the equipment is operating should not

be visible. A limited number of microphones

and the least installation of wiring, if not

wireless technology, must be unobtrusively

located in places indicated by the trial court.

The public Information Office and the Office of

the Court Administrator shall coordinate and

assist the trial court on the physical set-up of

the camera and equipment.

The transmittal of the audio-visual recording

from inside the courtroom to the media entities

shall be conducted in such a way that the least

physical disturbance shall be ensured in

keeping with the dignity and solemnity of the

proceedings and the exclusivity of the access

to the media entities.

The hardware for establishing an

interconnection or link with the camera

equipment monitoring the proceedings shall

be for the account of the media entities, which

should employ technology that can (i) avoid

the cumbersome snaking cables inside the

courtroom, (ii) minimize the unnecessary



ingress or egress of technicians, and (iii)

preclude undue commotion in case of

technical glitches.

If the premises outside the courtroom lack

space for the set-up of the media entities

facilities, the media entities shall access the

audio-visual recording either via wireless

technology accessible even from outside the

court premises or from one common web

broadcasting platform from which streaming

can be accessed or derived to feed the

images and sounds.

At all times, exclusive access by the media

entities to the real-time audio-visual recording

should be protected or encrypted.

The broadcasting of the proceedings for a

particular day must be continuous and in its

entirety, excepting such portions thereof

where Sec. 21 of Rule 119 of the Rules of

Court applies, and where the trial court

excludes, upon motion, prospective witnesses

from the courtroom, in instances where, inter

alia, there are unresolved identification issues

or there are issues which involve the security

of the witnesses and the integrity of their

testimony (e.g., the dovetailing of

corroborative testimonies is material, minority

of the witness).

The trial court may, with the consent of the

parties, order only the pixelization of the image

of the witness or mute the audio output, or

both.

To provide a faithful and complete broadcast

of the proceedings, no commercial break or

any other gap shall be allowed until the days

proceedings are adjourned, except during the

period of recess called by the trial court and

during portions of the proceedings wherein the

public is ordered excluded.

To avoid overriding or superimposing the

audio output from the on-going proceedings,

the proceedings shall be broadcast without

any voice-overs, except brief annotations of

scenes depicted therein as may be necessary

to explain them at the start or at the end of the

scene. Any commentary shall observe the sub

judice rule and be subject to the contempt

power of the court;

No repeat airing of the audio-visual recording

shall be allowed until after the finality of

judgment, except brief footages and still

images derived from or cartographic sketches

of scenes based on the recording, only for

news purposes, which shall likewise observe

the sub judice rule and be subject to the

contempt power of the court;

The original audio-recording shall be

deposited in the National Museum and the

Records Management and Archives Office for

preservation and exhibition in accordance with

law.

The audio-visual recording of the proceedings

shall be made under the supervision and

control of the trial court which may issue

supplementary directives, as the exigency

requires, including the suspension or

revocation of the grant of application by the

media entities.

The Court shall create a special committee

which shall forthwith study, design and

recommend appropriate arrangements,

implementing regulations, and administrative

matters referred to it by the Court concerning

the live broadcast of the proceedings pro hac

vice, in accordance with the above-outlined

guidelines. The Special Committee shall also

report and recommend on the feasibility,

availability and affordability of the latest

technology that would meet the herein

requirements. It may conduct consultations

with resource persons and experts in the field

of information and communication technology.

All other present directives in the conduct of

the proceedings of the trial court (i.e.,

prohibition on recording devices such as still

cameras, tape recorders; and allowable

number of media practitioners inside the

courtroom) shall be observed in addition to

these guidelines.



Foodsphere Inc. vs Atty Mauricio Jr. – Rule 13.02;

“Batas Mauricio;” Livespread with UOD

“Batas Mauricio” – Maurico being the radio

host.

Used his position as a radio host to blackmail

Foodsphere by threatening the latter that he’d

make derogatory statements regarding its

Food products.

He violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of

Professional Responsibility, which mandates:

A lawyer shall not make public statements in

the media regarding a pending case tending to

arouse public opinion for or against a party.

For despite the pendency of the civil case

against him and the issuance of a status quo

order restraining/enjoining further publishing,

televising and broadcasting of any matter

relative to the complaint of CDO, respondent

continued with his attacks against complainant

and its products

Maglasang vs People – Rule 13.03 (Not to invite

outside interference)

Castellano, acting as counsel for Maglasang,

accused all the 5 justices of the Court’s 2nd

division of biases and/or ignorance of the law

or knowingly rendering unjust judgments or

resolution.

Atty. Castellano sought to pass the blame on

his deficiencies to the judges in hope of

salvaging his reputation to his client.

It was Atty Castellano’s fault that the legal fees

were not properly paid which caused the

dismissal of Maglasang v People case.

D. DUTIES TO THE CLIENT

CANON 14 – A lawyer shall not refuse his services to

the needy.

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.

Rule 14.02 – A lawyer shall not decline,

except for serious and sufficient cause, an

appointment as counsel de officio 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.

Rule 14.03 – A lawyer may not refuse to

accept representation of an indigent client if:

o he is not in a position to carry out the

work effectively or competently;

o he labors under a conflict of interest

between him and the prospective

client or between a present client and

the prospective client.

Summary:

Canon 12 – Assist in Speedy and Efficient

Administration of Justice

o 12.01 – Adequate Preparation

o 12.02 – Forum Shopping

o 12.03 – Not to Delay Case

o 12.04 – Not Delay or Impede the

Execution of Judgment or Misuse

Court Process

o 12.05 – 12.07 – Proper Behavior;

Lawyer Shall Not Harass Witness

o 12.08 – Not to Testify on Behalf of

Client

Canon 13 – Refrain from Act Giving

Appearance of Influence

o 13.01 – No Extraordinary

Attention

o 13.02 – No Public Statements to

Media

o 13.03 – Not to Invite Outside

Interference



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.

CASES:

Francisco vs Atty Portugal – Rule 14.01 (Availability

of services regardless of status)

Respondent withdrew as counsel for the

petitioner for the reason of lack of financial

consideration and case load.

Respondent has a higher duty to be

circumspect in defending the accused for their

life and liberty is on the line. It is the strict

sense of fidelity of a lawyer to his client that

distinguishes him from any other profession in

society. As to the respondent’s conduct in

dealing with complainants, he definitely fell

short of the high standard of assiduousness

that a counsel must perform to safeguard the

rights of his clients. Respondent had not been

candid in his dealings with the complainants;

the prudent step was at least to inform the

clients of the adverse situation since they

called him to check the status of the case

Once he agrees to take up the cause of the

client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause

and must always be mindful of the trust

reposed in him. After agreeing to take up the

cause of the client, a lawyer owes fidelity to

his cause and client, even if the client never

paid any fee for the attorney-client relationship

Also, no notice of withdrawal was submitted by

the lawyer. As a lawyer, he is presumably

steeped to the procedures and practices in

court.

In re Atty Adriano – Rule 14.02 (Providing Counsel

de Oficio), 14.04 (Same standard of conduct for paying

and non-paying clients)

Atty Adriano was assigned counsel de oficio

by the Court and was required to prepare and

file a brief within 30 days from notice. He

sought several special extensions but still

failed to file his brief.

By specific authority, this Court may assign an

attorney to render professional aid to a

destitute appellant in a criminal case who is

unable to employ an attorney.

Correspondingly, a duty is imposed upon the

lawyer so assigned "to render the required

service."

A lawyer so appointed "as counsel for an

indigent prisoner", our Canons of Professional

Ethics demand," should always exert his best

efforts" in the indigent's behalf. No excuse at

all has been offered for non-presentation of

appellant's brief. And yet when he received

notice of his appointment, and when the last

show cause order was issued by this Court,

more than sufficient time was afforded counsel

to prepare and file his brief de oficio.

Perez vs Atty Dela Torre – Rule 14.03 (Valid ground

for refusal – Conflicting interest)

Atty Dela Torre went to the Municipal bldg

with prepared extra judicial confessions.

He made representations that he could

secure their freedom if they sign the

confessions. Unknown to the accused,

Atty Danilo was representing the heirs of

the murder victim.

Under Rule 15.03 of the CPR, a lawyer

shall not represent conflicting interests

except by writtenconsent of all concerned

given after a full disclosure of the facts.

Respondent is therefore duty bound to

refrain from representing two parties

having conflicting interests in a

controversy. The prohibition against

representing conflicting interest is founded

on principles of public policy and good

taste. In course of a lawyer-client

relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts

connected with the client’s case, including

the weak and strong points of the case. It

behooves lawyers not only to keep

inviolate the client’s confidence, but also

to avoid the appearance of impropriety

and double-dealing for only then can

litigants be encouraged to entrust their

secrets to their lawyers which is of

paramount importance in the



administration of justice. His

representation of opposing clients in the

murder case invites suspicion of double-

dealing and infidelity to his clients. What is

unsettling is that respondent assisted in

the execution by the two accused of

their confessions whereby they admitted

their participation in various serious

criminal offenses knowing full well that he

was retained previously by the heirs of

one of the victims. Respondent, who

presumably knows the intricacies of the

law, should have exercised his

better judgment before conceding to

accused’s choice of counsel.

Canoy vs Atty Ortiz – Rule 14.03 (Valid ground for

refusal); Atty turned councilor.

Atty Ortiz was the lawyer of Canoy in a

case before NLRC. Without the knowledge

of Canoy, the case had already been

dismissed by the NLRC because of Atty

Canoy’s fault.

Canoy’s defense: He was elected as

councilor – tight schedule.

Being elected to a public office is not

enough cause to leave one’s client in the

dark. Such act does not only erode the

public’s confidence in the lawyer, in

particular, but also in the judiciary, in

general.

NOTES:

Nature of Lawyer-Client relationship

o Relation as strictly personal

o Relation as fiduciary and confidential

o Rules protective of relation

The Concept of Retainer or Employment

o Concept of Retainer and its Necessity

(Rule 138, Sec. 21, Rules of Court)

o Employment of a Law Firm

Rule 138, Sec. 20 (h), Rules of Court

Duty of a lawyer:

(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal

to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed;

Rule 138, Sec. 31, Rules of Court

Attorneys for destitute litigants. — A court may

assign an attorney to render professional aid free of

charge to any party in a case, if upon investigation it

appears that the party is destitute and unable to

employ an attorney, and that the services of counsel

are necessary to secure the ends of justice and to

protect the rights of the party. It shall be the duty of the

attorney so assigned to render the required service,

unless he is excused therefrom by the court for

sufficient cause shown.


Duty of court to inform accused of his right to

counsel. — Before arraignment, the court shall inform

the accused of his right to counsel and ask him if he

desires to have one. Unless the accused is allowed to

defend himself in person or has employed a counsel of

his choice, the court must assign a counsel de oficio to

defend him. (6a)


Appointment of counsel de oficio. — The court,

considering the gravity of the offense and the difficulty

of the questions that may arise, shall appoint as

counsel de oficio only such members of the bar in

good standing who, by reason of their experience and

ability, can competently defend the accused. But in

localities where such members of the bar are not

available, the court may appoint any person, resident

of the province and of good repute for probity and

ability, to defend the accused. (7a)


Time for counsel de oficio to prepare for

arraignment. — Whenever a counsel de oficio is

appointed by the court to defend the accused at the

arraignment, he shall be given a reasonable time to

consult with the accused as to his plea before

proceeding with the arraignment. (8)


Appointment of counsel de oficio for the accused.

— If it appears from the record of the case as

transmitted that (a) the accused is confined in prison,

(b) is without counsel de parte on appeal, or (c) has

signed the notice of appeal himself, the clerk of court



of the Court of Appeals shall designate a counsel de

oficio.

PD 543 (Authorizing The Designation Of

Municipal Judges And Lawyers In Any Branch

Of The Government Service To Act As

Counsel De Oficio For The Accused Who Are

Indigent In Places Where There Are No

Available Practicing Attorneys)

Section 1. Designation of Municipal Judges and

lawyers in any branch of the government service, as

counsel de oficio. In places where there are no

available practicing lawyers, the District Judge or

Circuit Criminal Court Judge shall designate a

municipal judge or a lawyer employed in any branch,

subdivision or instrumentality of the government within

the province, as counsel de oficio for an indigent

person who is facing a criminal charge before his court,

and the services of such counsel de oficio shall be

duly compensated by the Government in accordance

with Section thirty-two, Rule One Hundred Thirty Eight

of the Rules of Court.

If the criminal case wherein the services of a counsel

de oficio are needed is pending before a City or

municipal court, the city or municipal judge concerned

shall immediately recommend to the nearest District

Judge the appointment of a counsel de oficio, and the

District Judge shall forthwith appoint one in

accordance with the preceding paragraph.

For purposes of this Decree an indigent person is

anyone who has no visible means of support or whose

income does not exceed P300 per month or whose

income even in excess of P300 is insufficient for the

subsistence of his family, which fact shall be

determined by the Judge in whose court the case is

pending, taking into account the number of the

members of his family dependent upon him for

subsistence.

CANON 15 – a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness,

and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his

clients.

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 own interest,

and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective

client.

Rule 15.02 – A lawyer shall be bound by the

rule on privilege communication in respect of

matters disclosed to him by a prospective

client.

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.

Rule 15.04 – A lawyer may, with the written

consent of all concerned, act as mediator,

conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.

Rule 15.05 – A lawyer when advising his client,

shall give a candid and honest opinion on the

merits and probable results of the client's case,

neither overstating nor understating the

prospects of the case.

Rule 15.06 – A lawyer shall not state or imply

that he is able to influence any public official,

tribunal or legislative body.

Rule 15.07 – A lawyer shall impress upon his

client compliance with the laws and the

principles of fairness.

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.

CASES:

Aromin vs Boncavil – Canon 15 (Observe candor,

fairness, loyalty)

Despite the adverse decision to the petitioner,

Atty Boncavil did not inform the petitioner nor

filed either a motion for reconsideration or a

notice of appeal to prevent the decision from

becoming final. No offer of written evidence

was submitted by Boncavil despite the RTC’s

order.



Once a lawyer agrees take up the cause of a


and must always be mindful of the trust and

confidence reposed in him. He must serve the

client with competence and diligence and

champion the client’s cause with wholehearted

fidelity, care and devotion. Het he owes entire

devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal

in the maintenance and defense of his client’s

rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning

and ability to the end that nothing be taken or

withheld from his client.

Jardin vs Villar – Canon 15 (Observe candor,

fairness, loyalty)

Atty. Villar was the counsel of Jardin in a

collection of sum of money before RTC.

Despite several extensions given to Atty. Villar,

he failed to file his formal offer of exhibits

which eventually led to the dismissal of the

case.

The act of Villar was in violation of CPR.

Canon 15 provides that a lawyer shall observe

candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings

and transactions with his client. From the

foregoing facts, it is clear that the failure of

Atty. Villar Jr. to file the formal offer of

documentary exhibits led the dismissal of the

collection of sum of money case. He failed to

offer any explanation for his failure to file the

formal offer of Exhibits within the several

extensions of time given him by the trial court

to do so. There is no doubt that it was part of

Atty. Villar Jr as Redentor Jardin’s counsel to

file said Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits,

and his dereliction of this duty has prejudiced

the interest of his client’s interest. His

disregard of the resolution of the court

directing him to file his comment on the

complaint and the attitude he exhibited when

he failed to file his answer when he was

required by the Commission on Bar Discipline

shows imprudence and lack of respect for the

authority of the Court.

Atty Jalandoni vs Atty Villarosa – Rule 15.01, 15.03

(Conflict of Interest), 15.04 (Mediator, Conciliator or

Arbitrator)

Atty Villarosa represented both Jalandoni and

his son in law. He was the counsel of

Jalandoni’s son in law in a case filed with the

RTC by the PRC against the former. Jalandoni

was holding about 82 percent of the PRC’s

shares of stocks. A day prior to the trial

Villarosa filed a motion to withdraw as counsel

to Atty. Jalandoni alleging that he was the

retained counsel of Jalandoni’s son in law.

However, despite being fully aware that the

interest of his client Jalandoni [holding an

equivalent of Eighty-two (82%) percent of

PRC’s shares of stocks] and the interest of

PRC are one and the same, notwithstanding

the fact that Jalandoni was still his client in

Civil Case No. 97-9862, respondent opted to

represent opposing clients at the same time.

Note: Before representing Jalandoni, the

respondent was already representing

Jalandoni’s son in law.

IMPORTANT ( HOW TO DETERMINE CONFLICT OF

INTEREST )!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

It is only upon strict compliance with the

condition of full disclosure of facts that a

lawyer may appear against his client;

otherwise, his representation of conflicting

interests is reprehensible. Conflict of interest

may be determined in this manner:

There is representation of conflicting interests

if the acceptance of the new retainer will

require the attorney to do anything which will

injuriously affect his first client in any matter in

which he represents him and also whether he

will be called upon in his new relation, to use

against his first client any knowledge acquired

through their connection.

The rule on conflict of interests covers not only

cases in which confidential communications

have been confided but also those in which no

confidence has been bestowed or will be used.



Another test of the inconsistency of interests is

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 also whether he will be called upon in his

new relation to use against his first client any

knowledge acquire in the previous

employment. The first part of the rule refers to

cases in which the opposing parties are

present clients either in the same action or in a

totally unrelated case; the second part

pertains to those in which the adverse party

against whom the attorney appears is his

former client in a matter which is related,

directly or indirectly, to the present controversy.

The rule prohibits a lawyer from representing

new clients whose interests oppose those of a

former client in any manner, whether or not

they are parties in the same action or in totally

unrelated cases. The cases here directly or

indirectly involved the parties’ connection to

PRC, even if neither PRC nor Lumot A.

Jalandoni was specifically named as party-

litigant in some of the cases mentioned.

Hornilla vs Atty Salunat – Rule 15.01, 15.03 (Conflict

of Interest)

Whatever dealings or transactions with

whomever client the law firm wishes to enter

into, the individual members thereof are

deemed part of the same. Consequently, such

members can’t represent parties who have an

adverse claim to the law firm’s clients under

the guise that such representation is not in

behalf of the law firm but one which is

personal.

Gonzales vs Atty Cabucana – Rule 15.01, 15.03

(Conflict of Interest)

Whether the service is pro bono in nature is

not an excuse to represent conflicting interests.

San Jose Homeowners vs Romanillo – Rule 15.01,

15.03 (Conflict of Interest)

Respondent represented the inconsistent

interests of SJHAI, DCI as substituted by

Lydia Durano-Rodriguez and the

Montealegres. Respondent was admonished

yet he continued to represent Durano-

Rodriguez against SJHAI. It is inconsequential

that petitioner never questioned the propriety

of respondent’s continued representation of

Lydia Durano-Rodriguez. The lack of

opposition does not mean tacit consent. As

long as the lawyer represents inconsistent

interests of two (2) or more opposing clients,

he is guilty of violating his oath.

Diana Ramos vs Atty Imbang (supra) – Rule 15.02

(Privilege communication – to preserve the secrets of

a client)

Ma. Luisa Hadjula vs Atty Madianda – Rule 15.02

(Privilege communication – to preserve the secrets of

a client)

Petitioner went to Atty. Madianda to seek legal

advice and brought with her several

documents (Marriage certificate) Relationship

between the 2 soured and respondent used

the knowledge she acquired from petitioner

during her consultation with the former.

The moment complainant approached the

then receptive respondent to seek legal advice,

a veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved

between the two. Such relationship imposes

upon the lawyer certain restrictions

circumscribed by the ethics of the profession.

Among the burdens of the relationship is that

which enjoins the lawyer, respondent in this

instance, to keep inviolate confidential

information acquired or revealed during legal

consultations. The fact that one is, at the end

of the day, not inclined to handle the client’s

case is hardly of consequence. Of little

moment, too, is the fact that no formal

professional engagement follows the

consultation. Nor will it make any difference

that no contract whatsoever was executed by

the parties to memorialize the relationship.



Rollon vs Atty Naraval – Rule 15.05 (Candid, honest

advice), 18.01 (Client consent with collaborating

counsel)

Despite the knowledge that the decision had

long become final, respondent still took the

petitioner’s case.

Respondent should have given her a candid,

honest opinion on the merits and the status of

the case. Apparently, the civil suit between

Rosita Julaton and complainant had been

decided against the latter. In fact, the

judgment had long become final and

executory. But he withheld such vital

information from complainant. Instead, he

demanded P8,000 as filing and service fee

and thereby gave her hope that her case

would be acted upon.

Yu vs Bondal – Rule 15.05 (Candid, Honest advice)

This case involved 5 cases, 4 of which were

duly attended by the respondent attorney.

However, because of neglect attributable to

the petitioner some of the cases were

dismissed.

No violation of Rule 15 as again, the fault is on

the part of petitioner not the respondent lawyer.

Reddi vs Atty Sebrio Jr. – Rule 15.06 (Not state or

imply influence)

Rule 15.06 - "A lawyer shall not state or imply

that he is able to influence any public official,

tribunal or legislative body.”

Atty. Sebrio represented, to secure title to the

lot, settle the mortgage obligation, relocate

squatters on the lot, and bribe a judge to

"close the transaction. He convinced

complainant to pay bribe money to our judges

since, he claims, that it is a common practice

in the Philippines.

Rural Bank of Capale, Inc vs Atty Florido – Rule

15.07 (Impress compliance with laws)

Atty. Florido and his clients, Nazareno-

Relampagos group, through force or

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.

It is the lawyer’s duty to promote or respect

the law and legal processes and to abstain

from activities aimed at defiance of law or

lessening the confidence of the legal system.

15.07 of the CPR requires a lawyer to impress

upon his client compliance with the law and

principles of fairness. A lawyer must employ

only fair and honest means to attain the lawful

objectives of his client. It is his duty to counsel

his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods

in seeking justice and refrain an intentional

wrong to their adversaries. Their duty to

protect their clients’ must always be made

within the parameters of the law and ethics,

never at the expense of truth, the law, and the

fair administration of justice.

Dr. Gamilla et al vs Atty Marino Jr. – 15.08 (Dual

Profession)

Marino was both the president of the Union

and the lawyer of it.

The courts said that this was not even a

question of accountability and transparency it

was a question of a conflict of interests. It was

found out that he only disclosed the said

accounts upon filing a disbarment case

against him by the complainants when is

should be before the settlement of labor case

against the management of UST. The 7m

which he acquired from the compromise

agreement and the attorney’s fees from the

1990 labor case and him being the President

of the UST faculty union shows that there is a

conflict of interest under Rule 15.08.

NOTES:


Oath regarding duty to client



CANON 16 – A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys

and properties of his client that may come into his

profession.

Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all

money or property collected or received for or

from the client.

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.

Rule 16.03 – A lawyer shall deliver the funds

and property 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 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.

Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow money

from his client unless the client's interest 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.

CASES:

Atty Salomon Jr. vs Atty Frial – Rule 16.01

(Account); Unauthorized use of Volvo and Nissan Car

When should a lawyer make an account of

money or properties? PROMTLY! “As soon

as practicable”

Volvo was destroyed in a fire ; Nissan’s value

deteriorated because of respondent’s fault

( Both properties were attached )

Money of the client or collected for the client

or other trust property coming into the

possession of the lawyer should be reported

and accounted for promptly and should not

under any circumstances be commingled with

his own or be used by him.

The Court said that a lawyer is first and

foremost an officer of the court. As such, he is

expected to respect the court’s order and

processes. Atty. Frial miserably fell short of his

duties as such officer. He trifled with the writ of

attachment the court issued. Atty. Frial was

remiss in his obligation of taking good care of

the attached cars. He also allowed the use of

the Nissan Sentra car by persons who had no

business using it. He did not inform the court

or at least the sheriff of the destruction of the

Volvo car. What is worse is that he took

custody of them without so much as informing

the court, let alone securing, its authority.

Future property – even if not yet property of

his client, if in case he wins, it would be used

to satisfy judgment.

Almandarez vs Atty Langit – Rule 16.01 (Account);

also Sec. 25, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court

Atty. Langit withdrew the amount deposited to

the court by the defendant which rightfully

belonged to his client.

Respondent committed a flagrant violation of

his oath when he received the sum of money

representing the monthly rentals intended for

his client, without accounting for and returning

such sum to its rightful owner. Respondent

received the money in his capacity as counsel

for complainant. Therefore, respondent held

the money in trust for complainant.

Respondent should have immediately notified

complainant of the trial court's approval of the

motion to withdraw the deposited rentals.

Upon release of the funds to him, respondent

could have collected any lien, which he had

over them in connection with his legal services,

provided he gave prompt notice to

complainant. A lawyer is not entitled to

unilaterally appropriate his client's money for

himself by the mere fact that the client owes

him attorney's fees. In this case, respondent

did not even seek to prove the existence of

any lien, or any other right that he had to

retain the money.

Respondent's failure to turn over the money to

complainant despite the latter's demands

gives rise to the presumption that he had



converted the money for his personal use and

benefit. This is a gross violation of general

morality as well as of professional ethics,

impairing public confidence in the legal

profession.

Chua and Hsia vs Atty Mesina – Rule 16.01

(Account)

Atty. Mesina obtained the title of a parcel of

land from the petitioners under the

representation that she would return the same

after 4 months and that, after the lapse of 4

months the title had not been returned. –

Failure to account

Lawyer and client not barred from business

dealings but should be with utmost honest and

good faith. Why? Because the court

recognized unequal relationship between the

lawyer and the client, wherein the lawyer

might abuse his position.

Viray vs Atty Sanicas – Rule 16.01 (Account); lawyer

got 95k/180k lawyer’s fee, did not inform client.

Viray won in a labor case against the spouses

Lopez. The spouses were ordered by the labor

arbiter to pay the amount of 190k to Viray.

Without the knowledge of Viray, Atty Sanicas

had been receiving partial payments from the

spouses.

The CPR demands the utmost degree of

fidelity and good faith in dealing with the

moneys entrusted to lawyers because of their

fiduciary relationship.

Respondent had been receiving payment on

behalf of complainant for 3 months, but he

didn’t even inform the latter of such fact nor

rendered an accounting. It was only when an

Alias Writ of Execution was issued that

complainant discovered that the spouses

already gave respondent the total amount of

P95,000 as partial payment for the award

granted by the tribunal. He was not even

authorized to receive payment and even

refused to deliver the said amount after

demand of the complainant from him.

Even if Sanicas was authorized to receive

payment it is still incumbent upon him to

promptly inform his client of the amounts

received.

Note ( IMPORTANT!!!!) The fact that a lawyer

has a lien for his attorney's fees on the money

in his hands collected for his client does not

relieve him from the obligation to make a

prompt accounting. A lawyer has no right to

unilaterally appropriate his client's money for

himself by the mere fact alone that the client

owes him attorney's fees.

Hernandez vs Go – Rule 16.02 (Keep Client’s Fund

Separate); lawyer kept the properties instead of selling

them.

Atty Go advised her to give him her three land

titles (Lots 848-A, 849-Q, and 849-P; all

situated in Zamboanga City) so he could sell

them to enable her to pay her creditors. He

also persuaded her to execute deeds of sale

in his favor without any monetary

consideration.

Later on, Go bought the properties himself and

used the same to pay the petitioner’s creditors.

Under Rule 16.02, CPR: A lawyer shall keep

the funds of each client separate and apart

from his own and those of others kept by him.

Respondent abused this trust and confidence

when he did not sell the properties and instead

used his own money to pay the obligations

and kept the properties for himself. Clearly, he

did not adhere faithfully and honestly in his

duty as her counsel. His actions were deceitful,

dishonest, unlawful, and grossly immoral, far

below the moral bar demanded by Court in

upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal

profession.

Tarog vs Atty Ricafort – Rule 16.02 (Keep Client’s

Fund Separate)

Money was given to Ricafort which was to be

consigned in the Court. However, when the

petitioners inquired as to the status of

consignation, the respondent informed them



that the same was deposited in his account,

and that he promised to return the same to the

petitioners.

Rule 16.02, imposes on an attorney the

obligation to keep all funds of his client

separate and apart from his own and from

those of others kept by him.

Atty Ricafort’s act of depositing the amount of

P65,000 in his personal account without the

consent of the Tarogs and not return it upon

demand, and for him to fail to file the

memorandum and yet not return the amount of

P15,000 upon demand constituted a serious

breach of his duties as a lawyer.

Businos vs Ricafort – Rule 16.03 (Delivery of Funds;

Lawyer’s Lien)

30 thousand was entrusted to the respondent

for deposit in the bank of petitioner’s husband.

2 thousand represented the amount which the

respondent demanded from petitioner

supposedly for a bond in a civil case even if

there really was no such bond.

There is no doubt that respondent is guilty of

having used the money of his clients without

their 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.

Respondent, by converting the money of his

clients to his own personal use without their

consent, and by deceiving the complainant

into giving him the amount of P2,000.00

purportedly to be used as a bond which was

not required, is, undoubtedly, guilty of deceit,

malpractice and gross misconduct. By so

doing, he betrays the confidence reposed in

him by his clients. Not only has he degraded

himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he has

besmirched the fair name of an honorable

profession.

“When an attorney unjustly retains in his

hands money of 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;

Quilban vs Robinol – Rule 16.03 (Delivery of Funds;

Lawyer’s Lien)

Atty. Robinol had no right to unilaterally

appropriate his clients’ money not only

because he is bound by a written agreement,

but also because, under the circumstances, it

was highly unjust for him to have done so.

Also, he is bereft of any legal right to retain his

clients’ funds intended for a specific purpose –

the purchase of land. He stands obliged to

return the money immediately to their rightful

owners.

Barnachea vs Quicho – Rule 16.04 (No Borrowing,

Lending)

Respondent’s services were engaged to

transfer title of property from petitioner’s sister

to the petitioner for which 2 checks were

issued in favor of Quicho to pay for the legal

fees.

After the lapse of 2 months, no such transfer

was effected. Respondent failed to return the

same to the petitioner.

A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or

property of his client that may come to his

possession. He is a trustee to said funds and

property. He is to keep the funds of his client

separate and apart from his own and those of

others kept by him.

The lawyer’s failure to return the money of his

client upon demand gave rise to a

presumption that he has misappropriated said

money in violation of the trust reposed on him.

Rubias vs Batiller – Rule 16.04 (No Borrowing,

Lending); IMPORTANT!!! – Purchase of property

under litigation by lawyer is void.

The purchase by a lawyer of the property in

litigation from his client is categorically

prohibited by Article 1491 paragraph (5) of the



Philippine Civil Code, and that consequently,

plaintiff's purchase of the property in litigation

from his client (assuming that his client could

sell the same since as already shown above,

his client's claim to the property was defeated

and rejected) was void and could produce no

legal effect, by virtue of Article 1409,

paragraph (7) of our Civil Code which provides

that contracts "expressly prohibited or

declared void by law' are "inexistent and that

"(T)hese contracts cannot be ratified. Neither

can the right to set up the defense of illegality

be waived."

Article 1491 of our Civil Code (like Article 1459

of the Spanish Civil Code) prohibits in its six

paragraphs 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 a public or judicial auction," as

follows: (1) guardians; (2) agents; (3)

administrators; (4) public officers and

employees; judicial officers and employees,

prosecuting attorneys, and lawyers; and (6)

others especially disqualified by law.

New Civil Code recognizes absolute nullity of

contracts "whose cause, object, or purpose is

contrary to law, morals, good customs, public

order or public policy" or which are "expressly

prohibited or declared void by law" and

declares such contracts "inexistent and void

from the beginning."

Nullity of such prohibited contracts is definite

and permanent and cannot be cured by

ratification. The public interest and public

policy remain paramount and do not permit of

compromise or ratification. In his aspect, the

permanent disqualification of public and

judicial officers and lawyers grounded on

public policy differs from the first three cases

of guardians, agents and administrators

(Article 1491, Civil Code), as to whose

transactions it had been opined that they may

be "ratified" by means of and in "the form of a

new contact, in which cases its validity shall

be determined only by the circumstances at

the time the execution of such new contract.

The causes of nullity which have ceased to

exist cannot impair the validity of the new

contract. Thus, the object which was illegal at

the time of the first contract, may have already

become lawful at the time of the ratification or

second contract; or the service which was

impossible may have become possible; or the

intention which could not be ascertained may

have been clarified by the parties. The

ratification or second contract would then be

valid from its execution; however, it does not

retroact to the date of the first contract."

As applied to the case at bar, the lower court

therefore properly acted upon defendant-

appellant's motion to dismiss, on the ground of

nullity of plaintiff's alleged purchase of the land,

since its juridical effects and plaintiff's alleged

cause of action founded thereon were being

asserted against defendant-appellant.

NOTES:

Art. 1491, Civil Code

The following persons cannot acquire by purchase,

even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or

through the mediation of another:

(1) The guardian, the property of the person or

persons who may be under his guardianship;

(2) Agents, the property whose administration or

sale may have been entrusted to them, unless the

consent of the principal has been given;

(3) Executors and administrators, the property of

the estate under administration;

(4) Public officers and employees, the property of

the State or of any subdivision thereof, or of any

government-owned or controlled corporation, or

institution, the administration of which has been

intrusted to them; this provision shall apply to judges

and government experts who, in any manner

whatsoever, take part in the sale;

(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks

of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and

employees connected with the administration of justice,

the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an



execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or

territory they exercise their respective functions; this

prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment

and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property

and rights which may be the object of any litigation in

which they may take part by virtue of their profession.

(6) Any others specially disqualified by law.

(1459a)

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

When does the money come to the possession of

lawyer?

Demand letter

Settlement

Criminal case ( accused dies )

Release of bond

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.

CASES:

Zabaljauregui Pticher vs Atty Gagate – Acts of

Respondent which proved to be inimical to the interest

of petitioner

Atty. Gagate, without the consent of Bantegui,

changed the lock of the Consulting Edge office

door, this prompted Bantegui to file before the

Prosecutor’s Office.

Cristina was prevailed upon by Atty. Gagate to

put a paper seal on the door of the said

premises, assuring her that the same was

legal. On the scheduled meeting, Bantegui

expressed disappointment over the actions of

complainant and respondent, which impelled

her to just leave the matter for the court to

settle. She then asked them to leave, locked

the office and refused to give them a duplicate

key.

Violation of Canon 17 - Respondent remained

unmindful of his client’s trust in him – in

particular, her trust that respondent would only

provide her with the proper legal advice in

pursuing her interests – thereby violating

Canon 17 of the Code.

Records definitively bear out that respondent

completely abandoned complainant during the

pendency of the grave coercion case against

them; this notwithstanding petitioner’s efforts

to reach him as well as his receipt of the

P150,000.00 acceptance fee.

A lawyer’s duty of competence and diligence

includes not merely reviewing the cases

entrusted to his care or giving sound legal

advice, but also consists of properly

representing the client before any court or

tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or

conferences, preparing and filing the required

pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with

reasonable dispatch, and urging their

termination even without prodding from the

client or the court.

Cantiller vs Potenciano – Atty Hemorroid; The

petitions submitted by Potenciano were poorly

prepared.

Libertad was made to sign by respondent what

she described as a “hastily prepared, poorly

conceived, and haphazardly composed

petition for annulment of judgment. Libertad

alleges that Atty. Potenciano promised her

that the necessary restraining order would be

secured if only because the judge who would

hear the matter was his "katsukaran" (close

friend).

At the hearing of the preliminary injunction Atty.

Potenciano withdrew his appearance as

counsel for complainant. Thus, no restraining

order or preliminary injunction was obtained.

The Court agrees that the 2 petitions appear

to be poorly prepared and written. Libertad

reposed full faith in Atty. Potenciano. His first

duty was to file the best pleading within his

capability. Apparently respondent was more

interested in getting the most out of the

complainant who was in a hopeless situation.



He bragged about his closeness to the judge

concerned in one case and talked about the

need to "buy" the restraining order in the other.

Worse still he got P 10,000.00 as alleged

deposit in court which he never deposited.

Instead he pocketed the same

The Court also emphasized that when a

lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby

covenants that he will exert all effort for its

prosecution until its final conclusion. The

failure to exercise due diligence or the

abandonment of a client's cause makes such

lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client

had reposed on him. The acts of respondent in

this case violate the most elementary

principles of professional ethics.

Alisbo vs Jalandon

The surrounding circumstances leads with no

other conclusion than that Attorney Jalandoon,

betrayed his client Ramon Alisbo's trust and

did not champion his cause with that

wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion that a

lawyer is obligated to give to every case that

he accepts from a client. There is more than

simple negligence resulting in the

extinguishment and loss of his client's right of

action; there is a hint of duplicity and lack of

candor in his dealings with his client, which

call for the exercise of this Court's disciplinary

power.

The impression we gather from the facts is

that Attorney Jalandoon used his position as

Alisbo's counsel precisely to favor his other

client, Carlito Sales, by delaying Alisbo's

action to revive the judgment in his favor and

thereby deprive him of the fruits of his

judgment which Attorney Jalandoon, as Sales'

counsel, had vigorously opposed. Thus,

although Atty. Jalandoon prepared Alisbo's

complaint for revival of judgment on April 18,

1970, he delayed its filing until September 12,

1970. He postponed filing the action by asking

the Court instead to resolve pending incidents

in said Civil Case No. 4963. By doing that, he

frittered away what little time was left before

the action would prescribe. The original

complaint which he filed in the names of

Ramon Alisbo and his brothers was only

partially defective because of Ramon's

incompetence. By dropping the other plaintiffs,

leaving alone the incompetent Ramon to

prosecute the action, respondent made the

second complaint wholly defective and

ineffectual to stop the running of the

prescriptive period.

Ngayan vs Tugade – Discarded affidavit was

furnished by the respondents to the adverse parties.

In the case at bar, complainants claim that

respondent furnished the adverse parties in a

certain criminal case with a copy of their

discarded affidavit, thus enabling them to use

it as evidence against complainants. This

actuation constitutes betrayal of trust and

confidence of his former clients in violation of

paragraph (e), Section 20, Rule 138 of the

Rules of Court. Inasmuch as respondent failed

to answer the complaint filed against him and

despite due notice on four occasions, he

consistently did not appear on the scheduled

hearing set by the Office of the Solicitor

General, this claim remained uncontroverted.

Respondent's act of executing and submitting

an affidavit as exhibit for Robert Leonido and

Rowena Soriano advancing facts prejudicial to

the case of his former clients such as the fact

that the crime charged in complainants'

affidavit had prescribed and that he was asked

to prepare an affidavit to make the offense

more grave so as to prevent the offense from

prescribing demonstrates clearly an act of

offensive personality against complainants,

violative of the first part of paragraph (f),

Section 20, Rule 138, Rules of Court. Likewise,

respondent's act of joining the adverse parties

in celebrating their victory over the dismissal

of the case against them shows not only his

bias against the complainants but also

constitutes a degrading act on the part of a

lawyer. It was meant only to titillate the anger

of complainants.



In re: Suspension of Atty Maquera – Suspension in

Guam

The Superior Court of Guam found that

Maquera acquired his client's property by

exercising the right of redemption previously

assigned to him by the client in payment of his

legal services. Such transaction falls squarely

under Article 1492 in relation to Article 1491,

paragraph 5 of the Civil Code, which prohibits

the lawyer's acquisition by assignment of the

client's property which is the subject of the

litigation handled by the lawyer. Under Article

1492 the prohibition extends to sales in legal

redemption.

This is also a valid ground for his suspension

from the practice of law here as it is violative

of the Code of Professional Responsibility,

specifically, Canon 17 which states that "[a]

lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his

client and shall be mindful the trust and

confidence reposed in him;" and Rule 1.01

which prohibits lawyers from engaging in

unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful

conduct. However, it bears stressing that the

Guam Superior Court's judgment ordering

Maquera's suspension from the practice of law

in Guam does not automatically result in his

suspension or disbarment in the Philippines.

Under Section 27,Rule 138 of the Revised

Rules of Court, the acts which led to his

suspension in Guam are mere grounds for

disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction,

at that only if the basis of the foreign court's

action includes any of the grounds for

disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction

( i.e. an act or omission con or other gross

misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or a

violation of the lawyer's oath) Likewise, the

judgment of the Superior Court of Guam only

constitutes prima facie evidence of Maquera's

unethical acts as a lawyer. More

fundamentally, due process demands that he

be given the opportunity to defend himself and

to present evidence.

NOTES:

If a lawyer decides to take a case, he must be

mindful of the fidelity to the cause of his client

and the trust and confidence imposed by the

latter.

You can abandon your client:

o Client, instead of complying, insists on

violating the law.

o Failure to pay attorney’s fees

o Health reasons (but not all)

CANON 18 – a lawyer shall serve his client with

competence and diligence.

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.

Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any

legal matter without adequate preparation.

Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal

matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in

connection therewith shall render him liable.

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.

CASES:

Parinas vs Atty. Paguinto – implied warranty of

competence, diligence and legal proficiency

Complainant Parinas engaged the services of

respondent to annul her marriage to Danilo

Soriano. Respondent told complainant that the

subsequent hearings for the case was due to

the judge being sick or out of town. However,

complainant found out that there was no such

case filed in court.

Respondent contends that he has other cases

to handle and attend to that were far more



important. In the end, complainant withdrew

the complaint as she was no longer interested

in pursuing the case.

A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client

and must be mindful of the trust and

confidence reposed in him. He shall serve his

client with competence and diligence, and his

duty to safeguard the client’s interests

commences from his retainer until his effective

release from the case.

Rule 18.02 is clear that a lawyer shall not

handle any legal matter without adequate

preparation. He has the duty to prepare for

trial with diligence and deliberate speed.

Rule 18.03 also provides that a lawyer shall

not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and

his negligence shall render him liable.

A compromise or withdrawal of charges does

not terminate an administrative case against a

lawyer. A proceeding for suspension or

disbarment is not the same as a civil action

where the complainant is a plaintiff and the

respondent lawyer is a defendant. A

Disciplinary proceeding does not involve a

private interest and afford no redress for

private grievance. They are solely for the

public welfare. The lawyer is called upon to

answer to the court for his conduct as an

officer of the court.

De Juan vs Atty Baria III – Rule 18.01 client’s

consent is needed when lawyer is in need of a

collaborating counsel

Complainant filed for illegal dismissal against

her company. Respondent represented

complainant for contingency fee agreement.

The labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor

complainant. However the NLRC reversed the

decision. When complainant came to know of

the reversal, she asked the respondent what

to do, to which the latter answered, “Paano

niyan iha, hindi ako marunong gumawa ng

Motion for Reconsideration.” [ay rugo]

Once a lawyer agrees to take up a cause of a


and must be mindful of the trust and

confidence reposed in him.

Filing a motion for reconsideration is not even

a complicated legal task. It was incumbent

upon the lawyer to return to his books and re-

familiarize himself with the procedural rules.

Or he should have referred or collaborated

with another counsel with the consent of his

client.

Rollon vs Atty Naraval (supra) – Rule 15.05, 18.01

Fernandez vs Atty Novero Jr. – Rule 18.02

(adequate preparation)

Respondent is the counsel for complainant in

a civil case filed against the Bacolod City

Water District.

The dismissal of the case was because of the

respondent’s following acts:

o He did not attend the scheduled

hearing, nor seek for a postponement

thereof, thus he was considered to

have waived further presentation of

his evidence and formal offer of his

exhibits.

o The motion for recon had been filed

out of time.

o He shifted the blame to complainant

claiming that the latter was insisting to

present his sister as their last witness,

when in fact, the sister had already

testified and there was no more

witness to present.

The respondent’s failure to file his formal offer

of exhibits constitutes inexcusable negligence

as it proved fatal to the cause of his client.

Further, his inefficiency in filing the motion for

reconsideration on time resulted to the order

issued by the trial court dismissing the case

became final.

A counsel must constantly keep in mind that

his actions or omissions, even malfeasance or

nonfeasance would be binding on his client.

Lawyers are expected to be acquainted with



the rudiments of the law and legal procedure,

and anyone who deals with them has the right

to expect not just a good amount of

professional competence, but also a whole-

hearted fealty to the client’s cause. Also, it is

not a defense that he could not control his

client is not a defense, a lawyer should not

dictate the course of the case.

Barbuco vs Atty Beltran – Rule 18.03 (not to neglect

legal matters)


respondent for the purpose of filing an appeal

before the Court of Appeals. However, such

appeal was dismissed due to the failure of

respondent to file Appellant’s Brief (it was filed

43 days late).

Respondent contends that he was involved in

a vehicular accident and suffered physical

injuries, thus making him to lose track of

deadlines for the filing of pleadings.

A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter

entrusted to him, and his negligence shall

render him liable. The contention of

respondent cannot serve to excuse him from

filing his pleadings on time considering that he

was a member of a law firm composed of not

just one lawyer. He could have asked any of

his partners to file the Brief for him, or at least,

to file a motion for extension of time to file the

pleading

Endaya vs Atty. Oca – Rule 18.03 (not to neglect

legal matters)

Respondent was a PAO lawyer assigned to

handle the case of unlawful detainer filed

against complainant spouses. However,

respondent failed to submit the required

affidavits and position paper. The trial court

dismissed the unlawful detainer case but on

appeal, it ordered the complainant to vacate

the property. Thus complainant filed the

administrative complaint against respondent

due to the latter’s inaction, losing the

opportunity for the complainant to present their

cause and the case.

Respondent’s failure to file the affidavits and

position paper at the lower court did not

actually prejudice his clients, for the court

nevertheless rendered a decision favorable to

them. However, the failure to file is still a

violation of rule 18.03. Respondent failed to

file appeal memorandum before the RTC

which resulted to their loss in the unlawful

detainer case, this denied the spouses the

chance of putting up a fair fight in the dispute.

Dalisay vs Mauricio – “Batas Mauricio”; Rule 18.03

(not to neglect legal matters)

Dalisay engaged the services of Atty Mauricio

for a civil case. Complainant had paid

respondent attorney’s fee of P56,000 and

gave him the documents needed for the civil

case. However respondent never rendered

legal services for her. Respondent contends

the following: a.) that complainant did not

engaged his services as counsel in a civil case,

but instead hired him for the purpose of filing a

petition of nullity of title and a petition for

review of a decree and that on the day he was

engaged as counsel, the civil case was

already submitted for decision; b.) that

respondent refused to provide him the

documents related to the case which

prevented him from doing the job; c.) and that

complainant offered tampered evidence in the

civil case and that prompted him to file

falsification cases against complainant.

A.) Rule 18.03 provides that a lawyer shall not

neglect a legal matter entrusted upon him, and

his negligence in connection therewith shall

render him liable. Atty. Mauricio assumed

obligations when he received the amount of

P56,000 to handle the civil case. His

contention came too late because he already

stated in his comment that complainant

engaged his services for the civil case and

was referred by Atty Lozano, who originally

handled the said case. Thus, Atty Mauricio

was neglectful in the performance of his duties

as counsel for complainant.



B.) Rule 18.02 provides that a lawyer shall not

handle any legal matter without adequate

preparation. When a lawyer accepts a case,

his acceptance is an implied representation

that he possesses the requisite academic

learning, skill and ability to handle the case.

As a lawyer, he knows where to obtain copies

of the certificates of title. His contention cannot

bear merit since he admitted himself that his

office managed to verify the authenticity of the

titles. However, despite of that, he did not take

any action on the case despite having been

paid for his services. This amounts to

abandonment of his duties and taking undue

advantage of his client.

C.) It was shown in the pleadings that he

learned of the alleged falsification long after

complainant had terminated their attorney-

client relationship. And admitted that he

verified the authenticity of the title only after

the news of his suspension spread in the legal

community. Assuming that complainant indeed

offered falsified evidence, Rule 19.02 provides

that he should have confronted her and asked

her to rectify the fraudulent representation.

And if she refuses, respondent can terminate

his relationship with her under Rule 22.01.

Ruiz vs Santos – Rule 18.04 (inform client on the

status of the case)

Atty Ang was the counsel for petitioners Ruiz

against respondent Santos for a case

involving the non-payment of broker’s fee. The

trial court rendered a decision in favor of

respondent Santos, and the appeal was

denied due to the failure to pay the appeal fee

within the reglementary period, making the

decision final and executory. Petitioners Ruiz

alleged they were prevented from awaiting

themselves of an appeal due to the mistake

and negligence of Atty Ang.

The failure of Atty Ang to pay the appellate

docket fees on time constitutes negligence.

Despite the express desire of the petitioner to

file an appeal, Atty Ang paid only 9 days after

the last day of appeal.

If there is an adverse decision, the proper

remedy is to file a Motion for Reconsideration

to appeal. In this case, Atty Ang instead filed a

petition of a relief from judgment. He also

failed to advice the client of what he failed to

do.

A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the

status of the case and shall respond within a

reasonable time to the client’s request for

information.

Sps. Soriano vs Atty Reyes – Rule 18.04 (inform

client on status of case)


respondent in a civil case (1st case) for

declaration of nullity with injunction and/or

restraining order. While the case of pending,

respondent reassured complainant that he

was diligently attending to the case and will

inform them of the status. Complainants again

engaged the services of respondent for the

same cause (2nd

case) against the Technology

and Livelihood Resource Center. The 1st case

was dismissed for failure of the respondent to

file a pre-trial brief; likewise, the 2nd

case was

dismissed for failure to prosecute. Respondent

kept the real status of the cases were kept

from the complainant.

The court stressed that the attorney-client

relationship is highly fiduciary. There is always

a need for the client to receive from the lawyer

periodic and full updates on developments

affecting the case. In failing to inform his

clients of the status of their cases, respondent

failed to exercise such skill, care, and

diligence as men of the legal profession

commonly possess and exercise in such

manners of professional employment.

Somosot vs Atty Lara – Rule 18.04 (inform client on

status of case); Contributory negligence (torts)

Respondent is the counsel of complainant in a

collection case filed against the latter by

Golden Collection Marketing Corporation.

After filing the Answer to the Complaint, the

respondent failed to fully inform her of further

developments in the case and that she only



heard about the case when there was already

a decision against her. Complainant also

learned that respondent wanted to withdraw

as counsel without her knowledge and

consent. Respondent also failed to oppose

Motion for Judgment on the pleadings, where

the consequence of this is that there will be no

trial and the court can render judgment based

on the pleadings.

While the respondent did not completely

abandon the case, there was poor handling of

the complainant’s defense. The complainant

was never informed of the development of the

case and the omission eventually led t the

grant of the plaintiff’s motion for judgment on

the pleadings, which in turn led to the decision

against the defendants.

A lawyer may withdraw from a case upon a

good cause such as when a.) the client

deliberately fails to pay the fees; b.) failure to

comply with the terms of the retainer

agreement; c.) or when the lawyer is elected

or appointed to public office. In this case

however, respondent did not cite these

reasons before the trial court. Instead he

merely filed a Notice of Withdrawal of

Appearance citing only his client’s unknown

location and failure to communicate as

reasons for his client’s lack of express consent

to his withdrawal.

The court in this case applied the doctrine of

contributory negligence (Torts), where the

conduct of complainant falls short of the

standard of conduct to which he should

conform for his own protection and cooperates

with the negligence of defendant in bringing

about the plaintiff’s harm. He may recover

damages but the court shall mitigate the

damages to be awarded. Complainant was

neglectful in not contacting her lawyer to know

the status of her case.

NOTES:

REMEMBER!!:

A lawyer must know the facts of his case, the

law and jurisprudence applicable to it, as well

as the complete knowledge and control of the

evidences (testamentary and documentary).

A lawyer should inform his client on the status

of his case within practicable time if upon

request of client or as soon as practicable.



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.

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.

Rule 19.03 – A lawyer shall not allow his client

to dictate the procedure in handling the case.

CASES:

Sambajon et al vs Atty Suing (supra) – also in Rule

12.05 – 12.07

Pena vs Atty Aparicio – Rule 19.01 (fair and honest);

blackmail case

Respondent is the counsel for Grace Hufana

in an illegal dismissal case. Complainant sent

notices to Grace Hufana to explain her

absences and to return to work, to which

respondent wrote a reply stating that his

client’s claim for separation pay, and that he

would file and claim bigger amounts including

moral damages, as well as multiple charges

such as tax evasion, falsification of documents,

and cancellation of business license to

operate due to violations of laws.

A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal

within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01

provides that 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.

The threats in the letter were not only

unethical for violating Canon 19, but also

amounts to blackmail. The letter was obviously

designed to secure leverage to compel

complainant to yield to their claims. It is more

than a simple demand to pay.

Summary:

Canon 14 – Service to the Needy

o 14.01 – Availability of Services

Regardless of Status

o 14.02 – Providing Counsel de

Oficio

o 14.03 – Valid Ground for Refusal

o 14.04 – Same Standard of

Conduct for Paying and Non-

Paying Clients

Canon 15 – Observe Candor, Fairness,

Loyalty

o 15.01 – Conflict of Interest

o 15.02 – Privilege Communication

(To Preserve the Secrets of a

Client)

o 15.03 – Conflict of Interest

o 15.04 – Mediator, Conciliator or

Arbitrator

o 15.05 – Candid, Honest Advice

o 15.06 – Not State or Imply

Influence

o 15.07 – Impress Compliance with

Laws

o 15.08 – Dual Profession

Canon 16 – Hold in Trust Client’s Moneys

and Properties

o 16.01 – Account

o 16.02 – Keep Client’s Fund

Separate

o 16.03 – Delivery of Funds;

Lawyer’s Lien

o 16.04 – No Borrowing, Lending

Canon 17 – Trust and Confidence

Canon 18 – Competence and Diligence

o 18.01 – Client Consent with

Collaborating Counsel

o 18.02 – Adequate Preparation

o 18.03 – Not to Neglect Legal

Matters

o 18.04 – Inform Client on Status of

Case



Que vs Atty Revilla Jr (supra) – Canon 8, Rule 19.01

Pena vs Atty Aparicio (supra) – Rule 19.01, 19.02

Dalisay vs Atty Mauricio Jr (supra) – Rule 18.03,

19.02

Donton vs Dr Tansingco (supra) – Rule 1.02, 19.02

Atty Solidon vs Atty Macalalad – Rule 19.03

(Control proceedings)

Respondent is the Chief of the Legal Division

of DENR in Tacloban City. Although he is in

public service, the DENR Secretary gave him

the authority to engage in the practice of law.

Complainant asked respondent to handle the

judicial titling of a parcel of land owned by the

relatives of complainant. After paying the initial

legal fees, complainant tried to contact

respondent to follow-up on the status of the

case. However, he did not receive any

response from respondent.

Respondent on the other hand contended that

it was his client that failed to communicate

with him. That he had already prepared the

draft of the petition, and he simply failed to file

it because he still lacks the needed

documentary evidence that his clients should

have furnished.

Rule 18.03 states that a lawyer shall not

neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his

negligence in connection therewith shall

render him liable.

The mere failure of the lawyer to perform the

obligations due to the client is considered per

se a violation. The lawyer bears the duty to

serve his client with competence, diligence

and to exert his best efforts, within the bounds

of the law, the interest of his client.

Competence not only in the knowledge of the

law but also in the management of cases by

giving appropriate attention and due

preparation.

In relation to rule 19.03, it is not his clients

who should contact him and dictate the

proceedings of the case, but rather him as

their counsel, should be the one.

NOTES:

Rule 138, Sec. 20 (d)

(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;

CANON 20 – A Lawyer shall charge only fair and

reasonable fees.

Rule 20.01 – A lawyer shall be guided by the

following factors in determining his fees:

o The time spent and the extent of the

service rendered or required;

o The novelty and difficulty of the

questions involved;

o The importance of the subject matter;

o The skill demanded;

o The probability of losing other

employment as a result of acceptance

of the proffered case;

o The customary charges for similar

services and the schedule of fees of

the IBP chapter to which he belongs;

o The amount involved in the

controversy and the benefits resulting

to the client from the service;

o The contingency or certainty of

compensation;

o The character of the employment,

whether occasional or established;

o The professional standing of the

lawyer.

Rule 20.02 – A lawyer shall, in case of referral,

with the consent of the client, be entitled to a

division of fees in proportion to the work

performed and responsibility assumed.

Rule 20.03 – A lawyer shall not, without the

full knowledge and consent of the 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.

Rule 20.04 – A lawyer shall avoid

controversies with clients concerning his

compensation and shall resort to judicial

action only to prevent imposition, injustice or

fraud.

CASES:

Urban Bank vs Pena – quantum meruit

Respondent was a stockholder, director and

corporate secretary of ISCI. He was given

authority to take over the Pasay property,

which was owned by ISCI, against the tenants

upon the expiration of the lease. On the day

the lease was about to expire, ISCI and

Petitioner Urban Bank executed a Deed of

Sale over the Pasay property. The lessee

surrendered possession of the Pasay property

to ISCI but the unauthorized sub-tenants

refused to vacate the premises. Pursuant to

the authority given by ISCI to him, respondent

had the gates closed and posted security

guards at the property. He later learned that

the property had been transferred from ISCI to

Urban Bank. He informed the Senior VP of

Petitioner Bank about the situation. The VP

then told respondent that they would be

retaining his services in guarding the Pasay

property. The same safeguard was also given

by the President of petitioner bank, and that

after the turn-over he would be given 10%

compensation and attorney’s fees. After

respondent successfully cleared the property

of the tenants, he made several attempts to

contact respondent bank in order to collect his

dues. Petitioner bank refused to pay

respondent since, as they contended, that it is

ISCI and not them that had originally engaged

the services of respondent in securing the

premises, thus they could not be held liable.

The trial court granted that respondent should

be payed P28,500 (10% of the market value of

the property), while the CA reversed the

decision stating that since there was no

contract of agency created between petitioner

and respondent, he is entitled P3,000 for his

expenses.

The Court in this case ruled that respondent

should be compensated for his services

rendered based on the principle of unjust

enrichment and quantum meruit. He is entitled

to P3,000 as correctly ruled by CA.

There was no written agreement that petitioner

agreed to pay respondent a specific amount or

percentage for his services. However, it

cannot be denied that respondent indeed

rendered his services.

REMEMBER – GR: A stipulation on a lawyer’s

compensation in a written contract controls the

amount of fees that the contracting lawyer

may be allowed to collect. XPN: In the

absence of a written agreement, the attorney’s

fees are fixed on the basis of quantum meruit

or “as much as he deserves.”

In fixing a reasonable compensation for the

services rendered by a lawyer on the basis of

quantum meruit, the following should be

considered (Rule 20.1, CPR):

o The time spent and extend of services

rendered;

o Novelty and difficulty of the questions

involved;

o Importance of the subject matter;

o Skill demanded;

o Probability of losing other employment

as a result of acceptance of the

proffered case;

o Customary charges for similar

services;

o Amount involved in the controversy

and the resulting benefits for the

client;

o Certainty of compensation;

o Character of employment; and

o Professional standing of the lawyer.

No extra-ordinary skills employing advanced

legal training or sophisticated legal

maneuvering were required to be employed in

ejecting the sub-tenants. Lawyering is not a

business; it is a profession in which duty to

public service, not money, is the primary

consideration. Therefore, in this case, the



court granted him P3,000 for the expenses

incurred and additional P1,500 for the services

performed in securing the rights of petitioner

as owner of the property.

Masmud vs NLRC – ordinary vs extraordinary

concept of legal fees

Alexander Masmud (deceased; substituted by

his wife) engaged the services of Atty Go as

his counsel in a complaint filed against First

Victory Shipping Services for non-payment of

permanent disability benefits, medical

expenses, etc. Alexander agreed to pay

attorney’s fees on a contingent basis, as

follows: a.) 20% of the total monetary claims

as settled or paid; and b.) additional 10% in

case of appeal. Also, any award of attorney’s

fees shall pertain to respondent’s law firm as

compensation. The monetary claims of

Alexander were granted except his claim for

medical expenses. Several appeals were

made by First Victory, however both were

dismissed. The decision of the NLRC became

final and executory, thus Evangelina (wife)

received the amount of P3,454,079.20. She

then paid Atty Go P680,000. Atty Go avers

that the P680,000 is only equivalent to 20% of

the awards, thus leaving the balance of 10%,

plus the award pertaining to the counsel as

attorney’s fees. Evangelina contends that the

claim for attorney’s fees of 40% of the total

monetary award was null and void based on

Art 111 of the Labor Code.

Ordinary attorney’s fees pertain to the

reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by

his client for the legal services rendered to the

latter.

Extraordinary attorney’s fees, on the other

hand, are attorney’s fees awarded by the court

as indemnity for damages to be paid by the

losing party to the prevailing party, such that,

in any of the cases provided by law where

such award can be made, e.g., those

authorized in Article 2208 of the Civil Code,

the amount is payable not to the lawyer but to

the client, unless they have agreed that the

award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional

compensation or as part thereof.

In this case, the court applies the ordinary

concept of attorney’s fees, or the

compensation that Atty Go is entitled to

receive for representing Evangelina, in

substitution of her husband, before the labor

tribunals and before the court.

Art 111 of the Labor Code provides: (a) In

cases of unlawful withholding of wages the

culpable party may be assessed attorney's

fees equivalent to ten percent of the amount of

the wages recovered.

Art 111 of the Labor Code deals with the

extraordinary concept of attorney’s fees. It

regulates the amount recoverable as

attorney’s fees in the nature of damages

sustained by and awarded to the prevailing

party. It may not be used as the standard in

fixing the amount payable to the lawyer by his

client for the legal services he rendered.

In determining Atty Go’s compensation, Sec

24, Rule 138 of the Rule of Court should be

observed.

The retainer contract between Atty. Go and

Evangelina provides for a contingent fee. The

contract shall control in the determination of

the amount to be paid, unless found by the

court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.

Attorney's fees are unconscionable if they

affront one's sense of justice, decency or

reasonableness. The decree of

unconscionability or unreasonableness of a

stipulated amount in a contingent fee contract

will not preclude recovery. It merely justifies

the fixing by the court of a reasonable

compensation for the lawyer's services.

The Court finds nothing illegal in the

contingent fee contract between Atty Go and

Evangelina’s husband. Considering that Atty

Go represented his client successfully, it is

only proper that he should receive adequate

compensation for his efforts. A lawyer is as

much entitled to judicial protection against



injustice or imposition of fraud on the part of

his client as the client is against abuse on the

part of his counsel. The fact that a lawyer

plays a vital role in the administration of justice

emphasizes the need to secure to him his

honorarium lawfully earned as a means to

preserve the decorum and respectability of the

legal profession.

Atty Orocio vs Angulan et al – contingency fee,

quantum meruit

The National Power Corporation Welfare Fund

was created for the purpose of granting

monthly welfare allowance to all NAPOCOR

employees. Congress enacted EPIRA (Electric

Power Industry Reform Act), which directed

the restructuring of the power industry which

includes the reorganization of NAPOCOR.

Thus, the NAPOCOR Welfare Fund was

abolished. Consequently, some of the

employees in the Welfare Fund resigned,

retired, or separated from service. Thereafter,

the NAPOCOR Welfare Fund Board of

Trustees authorized the release of P184

million for distribution to the Welfare Fund

members who resigned, retired, or separated

upon the effectivity of EPIRA. This prompted

the non-EPIRA separated members (those

who have resigned, retired, or separated prior

to the effectivity of the EPIRA), to demand

their equal share in the remaining assets of

the Welfare Fund. They engaged the services

of petitioner Atty Orocio. Under their legal

retainer agreement, petitioner was entitled to a

Contingency Fee of 15% of whatever amounts

are recovered. NAPOCOR and the non-EPIRA

separated members executed a Compromise

Agreement, which contained a stipulation that

15% Attorney’s Fees shall be deducted from

the earnings of those non-EPIRA separated

members. Petitioner Orocio then filed a motion

for approval of charging attorney’s lien for the

amount equivalent to 15% of the monies due

the non-EPIRA separated members as his

Attorney’s Fees, which was opposed by

respondents (officers of NAPOCOR and

defendants in the mandamus case).

In a Contingency Fee Contract, the client and

his lawyer enters into a written contract

whereby the latter would be paid attorney’s

fees only if the suit or litigation ends favorably

to the client.

However, in cases where contingent fees are

sanctioned by law, the same should be

reasonable, and should always be subject to

the supervision of a court, such that Canon 20

of CPR, a lawyer is tasked to charge only fair

and reasonable fees.

Attorney’s Fees are unconscionable if they

affront one’s sense of justice, decency or

reasonableness, or if they are so

disproportionate to the value of the services

rendered.

In this case, due to petitioner’s dedication and

persistence, respondents finally agreed to

settle amicably with the non-EPIRA separated

members. Hence, it is fair to conclude that

petitioner was entitled to a reasonable high

compensation.

However, petitioner’s attorney’s fees in the

amount of P17,794,572.70 or equivalent to

15% of the P 119,196,000.00 corrected

earnings differential of the non-EPIRA

separated members should be equitably

reduced. Under Section 24, Rule 138 of the

Rules of Court, a written contract for services

shall control the amount to be paid therefor

unless found by the court to be

unconscionable or unreasonable. The

amounts which petitioners may recover are

essentially the same awards which we grant to

illegally dismissed employees in the private

sector. In such cases, our Labor Code

explicitly limits attorney’s fees to a maximum

of 10% of the recovered amount.

As such, petitioner is entitled to collect only, as

attorney’s fees, an amount equivalent to 10%

of the P119,196,000.00 or P11,919,600.00.

But since petitioner admitted having already

received an amount of P3,512,007.32 as his

attorney’s fees, he is only entitled to remaining

P8,407,592.68.



Quirante vs IAC – case itself or separate case

because the court already has the knowledge of the

extent of the services rendered

Dr. Casasola, father of respondents, had a

contract with a building contractor named

Norman Guerrero. The PHILAMGEN

Insurance acted as bondsman for Guerrero. In

view of Guerrero's failure to perform his part of

the contract within the period specified, Dr.

Casasola, thru his counsel, Atty. John

Quirante, sued both Guerrero and

PHILAMGEN before the Court of first Instance

of Manila for damages. TC ruled in favor of Dr.

Casasola. Thereafer, he died leaving his wife

and children. Petitioner filed a motion for the

confirmation of his attorney’s fees. He avers

that there was an oral agreement between him

and Dr. Casasola, which was allegedly

confirmed in writing by the widow and two

daughters of the deceased. Pursuant to the

agreement, petitioner is entitled to the

following: a.) In case of recovery of the

P120,000 surety bond, the attorney’s fees

shall be P30,000; b.) In case the Court awards

damages in excess of the P120,000 bond, it

shall be divided eqully between the heirs of

Casasola, Atty Quirante, and Atty Cruz.

Petitioner lawyer is not entitled to attorney’s

fees since the main case from which he claims

for their fees may arise has not yet become

final. An attorney’s fee cannot be determined

until after the main litigation has been decided

and the subject of recovery is at the

disposition of the court. The issue over

attorney’s fee only arises when something has

been recovered from which the fee is to be

paid.

In the determination of attorney’s fees, it can

be filed a separate case or under the same

case since the Court already has the

knowledge of the extent of the services

rendered.

Metrobank vs CA – Sec 37, Rule 138 of the Rules of

Court

Private respondents were the lawyers of

petitioner Metrobank in a civil case filed

against it involving parcels of land. There were

two instances where private respondents

asked for the fixing of attorney’s fees: a.)

During the pendency of the case, when

Metrobank transferred said parcels of land to

Service Leasing Corportaito, private

respondents charging lien, pursuant to Sec 37,

Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, equivalent to

25% of the actual and current market values of

the litigated properties as its attorney’s fees;

b.) Based upon subsequent dismissal of the

case, private respondent filed a motion to fix

its attorney’s fees based on quantum meruit.

Petitioner avers that they have paid services

of its lawyers in full but private respondent

contend that partial amounts forwarded to

them did not consist of payment.

Private respondent is not entitled to the

enforcement of its charging lien for payment of

its attorney’s fees. Respondent cannot charge

a lien due to the dismissal of the civil case.

Such enforceability is only applicable to

money claims and only to dismissed

judgments if there is an applicable law or pre-

existing agreement between the parties.

Sec 37, Rule 138 states that “. . . 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.”

Not knowingly by the party of Atty Alafritz, the

property already belongs to Metrobank, his

client. Therefore, no litigation took place. The

dismissal order neither provided for any

money judgment nor made any monetary

award to any litigant.

A separate civil action is not necessary for the

enforcement of such lien, since it is within the

jurisdiction of the court trying the main case



and this jurisdiction subsists until the lien is

settled.

In fixing the compensation based on quantum

meruit, there are three elements:

o The importance of the subject matter

in the controversy;

o The extent of the services rendered;

and

o The professional standing of the

lawyer.

The Court reiterates that the legal profession

is for the public service instead of capital gain.

Its aim is to uphold public interest and not

profiteering.

Research Services vs CA – retainer fee, contingency

fee, quantum meruit

Petitioner engaged the services of Atty

Fonacier for the action to rescind the Joint

Venture Agreement filed by Jose Fidel and

Atonia Carreon against petitioner. While the

case was pending, petitioner, without the

knowledge of Atty Fonacier, entered into a

MoA with Filstream International, where the

former assigned its rights and obligations

under the Joint Venture Agreement in favor of

Filstream for P28 million. Thereafter, petitioner

terminated the services of Atty Fonacier. Atty

Fonacier filed a motion to direct payment of

attorney’s fees in the sum of 7,000,000 (10%

of the payment made by Filstream to his

client). Trial Court ruled on the basis of

quantum meruit – Petitioner pays 600,000. CA

affirmed based on the retainer contract

governing between the parties, where there is

a minimal amount of P800 per month plus

contingent fees on collection cases aside from

the attorney’s fee recovered from any law suit.

Petitioner argued that Atty. Fonacier was not

entitled to attorney’s fees under the retainer

contract. Atty Fonacier contends that

Research Services assured him that non-

collection cases were included in the

contingent fee arrangement specified in the

retainer contract.

The retainer contract shows that it was a

general retainer, since its primary purpose

was to secure beforehand the services of Atty

Fonacier for any legal problem which might

afterward arise. The fixed retaining fee was

P800/month.

In absence of an agreement to the contrary,

the retaining fee is neither made nor received

in consideration of the services contemplated;

it is apart from what the client has agreed to

pay for the services which he has retained him

to perform. In the retainer contract in question,

there was no intention to make the retaining

fee as the attorney’s fees for the services

contemplated.

While there was no mention of “non-collection”

cases in the contract, nevertheless, it also did

not show that Atty Fonacier agreed to render

professional service gratuitously. Unless

expressly stipulated, rendition of professional

services by a lawyer is for a fee or

compensation and is not gratuitous.

However, Atty Fonacier cannot collect

attorney’s fees on contingent basis because

the civil case is still unresolved, and such fee

would become due and demandable only if

and when the petitioner obtains judgment in

his favor. If at all, he could only be entitled to

attorney’s fees on the basis of quantum meruit.

Ramos vs Atty Ngaseo – Rule 20.04 (avoid

compensation controversy with client except when

there is imposition of fraud)

Complainant filed a complaint for suspension

against respondent for violation of CPR and

Art. 1491 of the Civil Code for the demand of a

1,000 sq m of land, a litigated property, as

payment for the latter’s appearance fees.

Respondent contends that he can collect the

unpaid appearance even without a written

contract on the basis of quantum meruit. And

that his acceptance and appearance fees

were reasonable because a Makati-based

legal practitioner would not handle a case for

an acceptance fee of only P20,000 and

P1,000 per court appearance. Furthermore,



that he did not violate Art 1491 of the Civil

Code because when he demanded the

delivery of the 1000 sq. m. of land which was

offered and promised to him in lieu of the

appearance fees, the case has been

terminated, when the appellate court ordered

the return of the 2-hectare parcel of land to the

family of the complainant.

Under Art. 1491(5) of the Civil Code, lawyers

are prohibited from acquiring either by

purchase or assignment the property or rights

involved which are the objects of the litigation

in which they intervene by virtue of their

profession. Public policy disallows the

transactions in view of the fiduciary

relationship involve, where the relation of trust

and confidence and the peculiar control

exercised by these persons. An attorney may

easily take advantage of the credulity and

ignorance of his client and unduly enrich

himself at the expense of his client.

GR: Prohibition applies if the sale or

assignment of the property takes place during

the pendency of the litigation involving the

client’s property.

XPN: No violation of Art. 1491(5), if

the property is acquired after the termination

of the case.

For there to be a violation of Art. 1491, the

illegal transaction must be consummated by

the actual transfer of the litigated property

either by purchase or assignment in favor of

the prohibited individual. In this case, there

was no actual acquisition of the litigated

property since the respondent only made a

written demand for its delivery. Mere demand

for the delivery of the litigated property does

not cause the transfer of ownership.

Hence, respondent is only found guilty of

conduct unbecoming a member of the legal

profession in violation of Rule 20.04 of Canon

20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,

where a lawyer shall avoid controversies with

clients concerning his compensation and shall

resort to judicial action only to prevent

imposition, injustice or fraud.

NOTES:

RA 5185, Sec. 6 (An Act Granting Further

Autonomous Powers To Local Governments)

Section 6. Prohibition Against Practice. A member

of the Provincial Board or City or Municipal Council

shall not appear as counsel before any court in any

civil case wherein the province, city or municipality, as

the case may be, is the adverse party: Provided,

however, That no member of the Provincial Board

shall so appear except in behalf of his province in any

civil case wherein any city in the province is the

adverse party whose voters are en-franchised to vote

for provincial officials, nor shall such member of the

Provincial Board or City or Municipal Council appear

as counsel for the accused in any criminal case

wherein an officer or employee of said province, city or

municipality is accused of an offense committed in

relation to the latter's office, nor shall he collect any

fee for his appearance in any administrative

proceedings before provincial, city or municipal

agencies of the province, city or municipality, as the

case may be, of which he is an elected official.

The provisions of this Section shall likewise apply to

provincial governors and city and municipal mayors.


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, with a view to the

importance of the subject matter of the controversy,

the extent of the services rendered, and the

professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be

bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses

as to the proper compensation, but may disregard

such testimony and base its conclusion on its own

professional knowledge. A written contract for services

shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless

found by the court to be unconscionable or

unreasonable.




Compensation for attorneys de oficio. — Subject

to availability of funds as may be provided by the law

the court may, in its discretion, order an attorney

employed as counsel de oficio to be compensates in

such sum as the court may fix in accordance with

section 24 of this rule. Whenever such compensation

is allowed, it shall be not less than thirty pesos (P30) in

any case, nor more than the following amounts: (1)

Fifty pesos (P50) in light felonies; (2) One hundred

pesos (P100) in less grave felonies; (3) Two hundred

pesos (P200) in grave felonies other than capital

offenses; (4) Five Hundred pesos (P500) in capital

offenses.

Rule 138, Sec. 20 (e), Rules of Court

Duties of Attorneys:

(e) 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 client's business except from him or with his

knowledge and approval;

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Attorney’s Fees (awarded by court) –

actually paid to the party not to his actual

counsel.

Attorney’s Lien – attorney’s claim on a

client’s property until compensation is duly

made.

Retainer’s Fee – preliminary fee paid to

ensure and secure a lawyer’s future services,

to remunerate him from being deprived, by

being retained by one party, of the opportunity

of rendering services to the other party and of

receiving pay from him.

Contingency Fee – lawyer gets paid

depending on the success of the case.

Quantum Meruit – as much as he deserves.

CANON 21 – A Lawyer shall preserve the confidence

and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client

relation is terminated.

Rule 21.01 – A lawyer shall not reveal the

confidences or secrets of his client except;

o When authorized by the client after

acquainting him of the consequences

of the disclosure;

o When required by law;

o When necessary to collect his fees or

to defend himself, his employees or

associates or by judicial action.

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 third person, unless the client with full

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.

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.

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 clients.

Rule 21.06 – A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet

conversation about a client's affairs even with

members of his family.

Rule 21.07 – A lawyer shall not reveal that he

has been consulted about a particular case

except to avoid possible conflict of interest.

CASES:

Hilado vs David – conflict of representation

Petitioner Blandina Gamboa Hilado brought an

action against Selim Jacob Assad to annul the

sale of several houses and lot executed during

the Japanese occupation by Mrs. Hilado’s

deceased husband. Atty Dizon, one of the

counsels of Petitioner, wrote to Atty Francisco,



counsel of respondents, urging him to

discontinue representing the respondents

because Petitioner Hilado had consulted to

Atty Francisco about her case, where on one

occasion she “turned over the papers” to Atty

Francisco, and the latter sent her a written

opinion.

WON there is a breach of the trust and

confidence reposed upon the lawyer by his

client; WON there is conflict of representation.

Hilado had the purpose of securing Atty

Francisco’s professional services, and

submitted documents which was the basis of

the written opinion on the merits of the case

mailed by the firm of Atty Francisco. Thus, an

attorney-client relationship can be said to have

ensued between the two of them. The letter,

which his firm sent to Hilado, binds and estops

him in the same manner and degree as if he

wrote it personally. Information obtained from

a client by a member or assistant of the firm is

information imparted to the firm.

Bun Siong Yao vs Atty Aurelio – obligation to

preserve the confidences and secrets of a client

survives even until the death of the client

Respondent Atty Aurelio is a stockholder and

the retained counsel of Solar Farms &

Livelihood Corporation and Solar Textile

Finishing Corp since 1987, of which

Complainant Bun Siong Yao is a major

stockholder. Respondent is also the brother-

in-law of complainant’s wife.

Complainant purchased several parcels of

land using his personal funds but was

registered in the name of the corporations

upon the advice of respondent. When

complainant’s wife and respondent had a

disagreement, respondent demanded the

return of his investment in the corporations but

when complainant refused to pay, he filed 8

charges of estafa and falsification of

commercial documents against complainant

and his wife and other officers of the

corporation. Complainant alleged that the

series of suits filed against him and his wife is

a form of harassment and constitutes an

abuse of the confidential information which

respondent obtained by virtue of his

employment as counsel.

Contention – since 1999 he was no longer the

counsel for complainant or Solar Textile

Finishing Corp. And that he never used any

confidential information in pursuing the

criminal cases he filed but only used

information which he obtained by virtue of his

being a stockholder.

The obligation to preserve the confidences

and secrets of a client arises at the inception

of their relationship. The protection given to

the client is perpetual and does not cease with

the termination of the litigation, nor is it

affected by the party's ceasing to employ the

attorney and retaining another, or by any other

change of relation between them. It even

survives the death of the client.

Gento vs Silapan – information arising from A-C

relationship

Respondent is a lessee of complainant and he

also handles the cases of the latter. He

borrowed P200,000 from complainant to

purchase a new car. In return, he issued a

postdated check to answer for the 6 months

interest on the loan and mortgaged his house

and lot. When complainant tried to encash the

postdated check, it was dishonored as the

account of respondent was already closed.

Despite repeated demands, respondent still

failed to make, payment prompting

complainant to file a criminal case for violation

of BP 22 and a civil case for judicial

foreclosure of real estate mortgage.

Respondent violated Canon 21 when he

disclosed that complainant was engaged in

illegal business practices and his intention to

bribe government officials.

The privilege against disclosure of confidential

communications or information is limited only

to communications which are legitimately and

properly within the scope of a lawful



employment of a lawyer. However, the matters

he disclosed were not indispensable to protect

his rights and they were not pertinent to the

foreclosure case.

Junio vs Atty Grupo – “kailangan ng pera dahil

nagfifinals na ang mga anak niya” case


respondent for the redemption of a parcel of

land registered in the name of her parents.

She gave respondent P25,000 to be used in

the redemption of the said property. However,

respondent did not redeem the property.

Instead, he allegedly used the money to help

with his children’s educational expenses.

A lawyer is bound to observe candor, fairness,

and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions

with his client.

5 years had passed since respondent retained

the cash for his own personal use. What’s

worse is that the passage of time he somehow

forgot about the obligation. This clearly shows

his blatant disregard of his obligations which

reflects on his honesty and candor.

Uy vs Atty Gonzales – information obtained outside

of A-C rel (contrast with Genato vs Silapan)


respondent to prepare and file a petition for

the issuance of a new certificate of title. When

the petition was about to be filed, respondent

went to complainant’s office demanding a

certain amount other than what was previously

agreed upon. Instead of filing the petition,

respondent filed a letter-complaint against him

for Falsification of Public Documents.

No violation of Rule 21.02 because the

information used in the Estafa through

Falsification of Public Documents case were

obtained by respondent due to his personal

dealings with complainant. It was not obtained

in his professional capacity, but as a

redemptioner of a property originally owned by

his deceased son and therefore, the facts he

alleged in his complaint for estafa was not in

any way violation of Canon 21. There is no

way we can equate the filing of the complaint

against complainant to a misconduct that is

wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity

and good demeanor or that renders him

unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.

To hold otherwise would be precluding any

lawyer from instituting a case against anyone

to protect his personal or proprietary interests.

NOTES:

Rule 138, sec 20 (e), Rules of Court

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 client's business except from him or with his

knowledge and approval;

Rule 130, Sec 24 (b), Rules of Court

Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged

communication. — The following persons cannot

testify as to matters learned in confidence in the

following cases:

(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, or with a view to, 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;

Art. 208, Revised Penal Code

Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and

tolerance. — The penalty of prision correccional in its

minimum period 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.



ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Rule 21.01 – GR: Not to reveal confidence

and secrets

XPN:

o Authorized by client

o Required by law

o Necessary to collect fees

Rule 21.02 – Can use information received in

course of employment provided that there is

consent given by the client.

Rule 21.03 – GR: No giving of information to

outside agency

XPN: use for

o Auditing

o Bookkeeping

o Accounting

o Statistical

o Data processing

o Any similar purpose

Rule 21.04 & 21.05 – GR: Law office may

share information

XPN:

o when prohibited by client

Rule 21.06 – Cannot give information not only

to family members but also to friends

Rule 21.07 – GR: Not to reveal that lawyer

was consulted

XPN:

o In order to avoid possible conflict of

interest

CANON 22 – A Lawyer shall withdraw his services

only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the

circumstances.

Rule 22.01 – A lawyer may withdraw his

services in any of the following case:

o When the client pursues an illegal or

immoral course of conduct in

connection with the matter he is

handling;

o When the client insists that the lawyer

pursue conduct violative of these

canons and rules;

o When his inability to work with co-

counsel will not promote the best

interest of the client;

o When the mental or physical condition

of the lawyer renders it difficult for him

to carry out the employment

effectively;

o When the client deliberately fails to

pay the fees for the services or fails to

comply with the retainer agreement;

o When the lawyer is elected or

appointed to public office; and

o Other similar cases.

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

cooperative with his successor in the orderly

transfer of the matter, including all information

necessary for the proper handling of the

matter.

CASES:

Domingo vs Aquino – Rule 22.01 (good causes for

withdrawal of services)

Asuncion Domingo Sta. Maria and Atty. Luis

Domingo, Jr. were appointed co-special

administrators of the estate of Luis Domingo,

Sr. Pedro Aquino filed a money claim on the

estate. CFI approved the money claim of

Aquino. Both parties appealed to the CA. CA

affirmed CFI judgment with modifications in

favor of Aquino (allowed compounded interest).

The estate's counsel in the CA, Atty. Jose A.

Unson, did not receive the notice and copy of

the judgment sent to him by registered mail;

but the estate's attorneys in the intestate

proceedings pending in the lower court, Attys.

Primicias, Del Castillo and Macaraeg, were

verbally informed by respondent's counsel of

the judgment. Consuelo Domingo de Lopez

filed on March 9, 1967, with the CA an

"Appearance with Motions for Substitution and

to be served with a copy of the Judgment,"

stating that Asuncion Domingo Sta. Maria had

long resigned as special administratrix with the

permission of the intestate court, that Atty.

Luis Domingo, Jr. (who had caused the

prosecution of the appeal) was removed from

his trust by the intestate court, for having

squandered cash funds of the estate, that, as

a consequence, she was appointed judicial



administratrix and has since been

administering the estate alone; that as judicial

administratrix, she wished to file a motion for

reconsideration and that the clerk of court be

directed to serve copy of said judgment on her

counsel instead of on Atty. Unson and praying

that as present judicial administratrix, she be

substituted in lieu of the former joint

administrators and that her counsel be served

with copy of the CA’s decision.

Records show that ATTY UNSON was the

counsel of record of the ESTATE OF

DOMINGO in the appellate court and never

filed any withdrawal as such counsel. Even

after the removal of ATTY DOMINGO as

administrator of the estate, ATTYUNSON filed

in the appellate court his memorandum for the

estate. Moreover, while it may be true that

ATTY UNSON ceased as counsel for the

estate and for the former administrator when

the intestate court granted his motion to

withdraw as counsel by virtue of his

appointment to and assumption of public office

of Assistant Administrator of the Sugar Quota

Administration, this was true only as far as the

intestate court was concerned. He continued

on record in the appellate court and did not file

any withdrawal as counsel. In addition to that,

no appearance of new counsel for the estate

was ever filed. It follows that since notice and

copy of the appellate court’s decision were

served by registered mail on the estate’s

counsel of record ATTY UNSON and the latter

failed to claim his mail on the 5th day after the

first notice of the post master, such service

was deemed completed and effected and

binding upon the client, in this case the Estate

of Domingo. As to the contention that removal

of ATTY DOMINGO as administratrix means

removal of ATTY UNSON as the estate’s

counsel because ATTY DOMINGO was the

one who engaged the services of ATTY

UNSON, the fact that ATTY UNSON’S

services were engaged by ATTY DOMINGO in

his official capacity as administrator, did not

make ATTY UNSON his personal counsel.

ATTY UNSON continued to be authorized to

represent the estate as its counsel until the

new administrator DOMINGO DE LOPEZ

should terminate his services which she never

did.

Montano vs IBP and Atty Juan Dealca – Rule 22.01

(good causes for withdrawal of services); “you lawyer

for yourself” case

Complainant hired the services of Respondent

lawyer as his counsel in collaboration with one

Atty Gerona in a case pending before the CA.

They agreed upon an attorney’s fees of

P15,000. Respondent demanded another

P4,000 and the remaining balance of P3,500

prior to the filing of Montano’s brief. When

complainant was unable to pay, respondent

withdrew his appearance as counsel. When he

returned the case folder, he attached a note

stating “Pepe and Del Monte, for breaking

your promise, since you do not want to fulfill

your end of the bargain, here’s your reward:

Henceforth, you lawyer for yourselves. Here

are you papers.”

Under Canon 22 of the CPR, a lawyer shall

withdraw his services only for good cause and

upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.

Rule 22.01 provides for valid causes of

withdrawal of services.

In the present case there was no proper

withdrawal as complainant did not deliberately

fail to pay him the attorney’s fees.

Elisa Venterez vs Atty Cosme – Rule 22.01 (good

causes for withdrawal of services)


respondent for a civil case for declaration of

ownership with damages. The ruling was

against them. Complainant directed

respondent to file a Motion for

Reconsideration or a Notice of Appeal, but the

latter failed or refused to do so. He then asked

another lawyer to prepare a MR. 2 month after

respondent received the adverse decision,

respondent filed for a Notice of Retirement of

counsel. He contends the son of one of the

complainants informed him that he was

withdrawing the case from respondent

because they already contacted another

lawyer to create the MR for them.



Once a lawyer takes up the cause of the client,

he owes fidelity to such cause and must be

mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in

him. A lawyer is not at liberty to abandon his

client and withdraw his services without

reasonable cause and only upon notice

appropriate in the circumstances. In this case,

when respondent received the copy of the

decision, he did not bother to file a MR or a

Notice of Appeal. Thus, complainants were

compelled to engage the services of a new

counsel. The case does not fall under any of

the grounds mentioned in rule 22.01. The

professional relation as a lawyer with his

clients is not terminated by the simple turnover

of records of the case to his clients. The

attorney-client relationship may be terminated

by the client at any time with or without cause.

In Re: Atty Briones – Rule 22.01 (good causes for

withdrawal of services); failing health

Atty Briones is the counsel of Restituto

Cabacan in a criminal case. Atty Briones was

given notice through mail to file appellant’s

brief but failed to do so. He contended that he

failed to file the brief because he never

received a copy of the resolution requiring him

to file said brief. If ever his secretary received

a copy, the latter was not able to give it to him

because he had already ceased practicing law

due to failing health.

Atty Briones did not properly withdraw his

services as counsel. The cessation of his law

practice is not an excuse for his failure to file

the required brief. Even if it were true that Atty.

Briones has stopped practicing law, he still

could not ignore the directives coming from

the Court. It does not appear from the records

of the said case that Atty. Briones has

withdrawn his appearance. Unless he has

withdrawn his appearance in the case, the

Court would still consider him as counsel for

the accused-appellant and he is expected to

comply with all its orders and directives.

Lim Jr vs Atty Villarosa (supra)

Obando vs Figueras – Rule 22.02 (duties of a lawyer

who withdraws); remember this case

Alegria Strebel Figueras together with her

stepsons, Eduardo and Francisco, filed a

petition for settlement of the intestate estate of

her deceased husband Jose Figueras. While

the settlement was pending, she died and

Eduardo assumed the administration of the

joint estates of Jose and Alegria. Petitioner

Felizardo Obando, a nephew of Dona Alegria

filed a Petition for Probate of Dona Alegria’s

Last Will and Testament. Petitoner Oband was

appointed as Eduardo’s co-administrator of

the joint estates. However, Eduardo insisted

that the alleged will was a forgery. The

document was then submitted to the NBI and

was found that the signatures were not made

by the same person. This incident led to the

indictment and conviction of Petitioner Obando

in a criminal case for estafa through

falsification of public document. Eduardo sold

the two parcels of land, left by the Figueras

couples that were located in New Manila,

Quezon City to Amigo Realty Corporation.

Petitioner Obando moved to nullify the sale.

However he was removed as co-administrator,

thus respondents filed a motion to dismiss on

the ground that petitioner lost his legal

standing to pursue the case.

Contention – Pet claim that when Atty Joaquin

Yuseco filed the Motion to Dismiss, he no

longer represented the respondents when

respondent dispensed the counsel services in

view of a Compromise Agreement with

Petitioner Obando.

Representation continues until the court

dispenses the services of the counsel.

According to Sec. 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of

Court, a counsel may be validly substituted

only if the following requisites are complied

with:

o New counsel files a written application

for Substitution.

o The client’s written consent is

obtained;



o The written consent of the lawyer to

be substituted is secure, if it can still

be; if not, then the application must

carry proof that notice of the motion

has been served on the attorney to be

substituted in the manner required by

the Rules.

Atty Canlas – 3 ways of substitution:

o Instance of the new lawyer –

i. A Motion for Substitution is

filed by new lawyer,

ii. With the conformity of the old

counsel,

iii. And with the consent of client.

o Instance of the old lawyer –

i. A Motion to Withdraw

Appearance is filed by the old

counsel,

ii. With the consent of the client.

iii. Then enter of appearance of

the new counsel.

o Instance of client – anytime; informs

the court.

Summary:

Canon 19 – Representation with Zeal

o 19.01 – Fair and Honest

o 19.02 – Rectify Client’s Fraud

o 19.03 – Control Proceedings

Canon 20 – Attorney’s Fees

o 20.01 – Fee Guide

o 20.02 – Client’s Consent of Fees

for Referral

o 20.03 – Client’s Consent of

Acceptance Fee

o 20.04 – Avoid Compensation

Controversy with Client

Canon 21 – Preserve Client’s Confidence

o 21.01 – Revelations of

Confidence and Secrets Allowed

o 21.02 – Use of Information

Received in Course of

Employment Allowed

o 21.03 – Prohibition to Giving

Information to Outside Agency

o 21.04 & 21.05 – Protection from

Disclosure

o 21.06 – Prohibition of Indiscreet

Conversation

o 21.07 – Not to Reveal that Lawyer

was Consulted

Canon 22 – Withdrawal of Services for

Good Cause

o 22.01 – Good Causes for

Withdrawal of Services

o 22.02 – Duties of Lawyer Who

Withdraws



* * * R E V I E W * * *

LAWYER’S OATH

I, _________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain

allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will

support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as

the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities

therein;

I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any

in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue

any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor

consent to the same;

I will delay no man for money or malice, and will

conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my

knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well

to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon

myself these voluntary obligations without any mental

reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Duties to Society:

CANON 1 – Promote And Respect The Law And Legal

Process

1.01 – No Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral,

Deceitful Conduct

1.02 – No Counseling to Defy Law

1.03 – Not to Encourage Lawsuit or

Proceedings o 1.04 – Encourage Client to

Avoid Controversy

CANON 2 – Provide Efficient And Convenient Legal

Services

2.01 – Not to Reject The Cause of the

Defenseless or Oppressed

2.02 – Not to Refuse to Give Legal Advice

2.03 – No Solicitation

2.04 – No Rates Lower Than Customarily

Charged

CANON 3 – Information On Legal Services That Is

True, Honest, Fair, And Dignified

3.01 – No False or Unfair Claim re:

Qualifications

3.02 – No False or Misleading Firm Name

3.03 – Partners Assuming Public Office

3.04 – Not Use Media to Attract Legal

Business

CANON 4 – Support For Legal Reforms And

Administration Of Justice

Canon 5 – Participate In Legal Education Program

CANON 6 – Canons Applies To Lawyers In

Government Service

6.01 – Primary Duty: That Justice is Done

6.02 – Not to Use Public Position for Private

Interest

6.03 – Not to Accept Employment After

Government Service

Duties to the Legal Profession:

CANON 7 – Uphold The Integrity And Dignity Of The

Legal Profession

7.01 – No False Statement

7.02 – Not to Support Unqualified Bar

Applicant

7.03 – No Conduct Adversely Affecting the

Profession

CANON 8 – Courtesy, Fairness, Candor Towards

Professional Colleagues

8.01 – No Abusive and Improper Language

8.02 – Not to Encroach on Professional

Employment

CANON 9 – Unauthorized Practice of Law

9.01 – Not to Delegate Work

9.02 – Not to Divide Legal Fees

Duties to the Court:

CANON 10 – Observe Candor, Fairness and Good

Faith

10.01 – Truthfulness Towards the Court

10.02 – Not to Misquote or Misrepresent

Contents of Paper

10.03 – Observe Rules of Procedure



CANON 11 – Respect Courts and Judicial Officers

11.01 – Proper Attire

11.02 – Punctuality

11.03 – Proper Language and Behavior

11.04 – Not to Attribute to Judge Motives

11.05 – Grievances Against Judge

CANON 12 – Assist in Speedy and Efficient

Administration of Justice

12.01 – Adequate Preparation

12.02 – Forum Shopping

12.03 – Not to Delay Case

12.04 – Not Delay or Impede the Execution of

Judgment or Misuse Court Process

12.05 – 12.07 – Proper Behavior; Lawyer

Shall Not Harass Witness

12.08 – Not to Testify on Behalf of Client

CANON 13 – Refrain from Act Giving Appearance of

Influence

13.01 – No Extraordinary Attention

13.02 – No Public Statements to Media

13.03 – Not to Invite Outside Interference

Duties to the Client:

CANON 14 – Service to the Needy

14.01 – Availability of Services Regardless of

Status

14.02 – Providing Counsel de Oficio

14.03 – Valid Ground for Refusal

14.04 – Same Standard of Conduct for Paying

and Non-Paying Clients

CANON 15 – Observe Candor, Fairness, Loyalty

15.01 – Conflict of Interest

15.02 – Privilege Communication (To

Preserve the Secrets of a Client)

15.03 – Conflict of Interest

15.04 – Mediator, Conciliator or Arbitrator

15.05 – Candid, Honest Advice

15.06 – Not State or Imply Influence

15.07 – Impress Compliance with Laws

15.08 – Dual Profession

CANON 16 – Hold in Trust Client’s Moneys and

Properties

16.01 – Account

16.02 – Keep Client’s Fund Separate

16.03 – Delivery of Funds; Lawyer’s Lien

16.04 – No Borrowing, Lending

CANON 17 – Trust and Confidence

CANON 18 – Competence and Diligence

18.01 – Client Consent with Collaborating

Counsel

18.02 – Adequate Preparation

18.03 – Not to Neglect Legal Matters

18.04 – Inform Client on Status of Case

CANON 19 – Representation with Zeal

19.01 – Fair and Honest

19.02 – Rectify Client’s Fraud

19.03 – Control Proceedings

CANON 20 – Attorney’s Fees

20.01 – Fee Guide

20.02 – Client’s Consent of Fees for Referral

20.03 – Client’s Consent of Acceptance Fee

20.04 – Avoid Compensation Controversy with

Client

CANON 21 – Preserve Client’s Confidence

21.01 – Revelations of Confidence and

Secrets Allowed

21.02 – Use of Information Received in

Course of Employment Allowed

21.03 – Prohibition to Giving Information to

Outside Agency

21.04 & 21.05 – Protection from Disclosure

21.06 – Prohibition of Indiscreet Conversation

21.07 – Not to Reveal that Lawyer was

Consulted

CANON 22 – Withdrawal of Services for Good Cause

22.01 – Good Causes for Withdrawal of

Services

22.02 – Duties of Lawyer Who Withdraws



NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

CANON 1 – I N D E P E N D E N C E

1.01 – Independent Judgment

1.02 – Independence from Colleagues

1.03 – Refrain from Influencing Outcome of

Litigation

1.04 – Not to Allow Social Relations to

Influence Judgment

1.05 – No Inappropriate Connections with

Other Branches of Government

1.06 – Independent in Relation to Parties

1.07 – Safeguards for Discharge of Judicial

Duties

CANON 2 – I N T E G R I T Y

2.01 – Conduct Above Reproach; Perception

2.02 – Reaffirm People’s Faith in Judiciary

2.03 – Initiate Disciplinary Action Against

Erring Lawyers

CANON 3 – I M PA R T I A L I T Y

3.01 – Without Fear or Favor

3.02 – Enhances Confidence of the Public

3.03 – Minimize Occasions for Disqualification

3.04 – Comments on Proceedings

3.05 – Disqualifications

3.06 – Disclosure

CANON 4 – P R O P R I E T Y

4.01 – Avoidance of Impropriety

4.02 – Dignity

4.03 – Relations with Lawyers

4.04 – Family Associated with Case

4.05 – Use of Residence

4.06 – Free Expression

4.07 – Fiduciary Interests

4.08 – Advancing Private Interests

4.09 – Confidential Information

4.10 – Other Activities

4.11 – Practice of Law

4.12 – Form Associations

4.13 – 4.15 – Gifts and Favors

CANON 5 – E Q U A L I T Y

5.01 – 5.05 – Equality of Treatment

CANON 6 – C O M P E T E N C E & D I L I G E N C E

6.01 – Precedence of Duties

6.02 – Judicial Duties

6.03 – Keeping up with Developments

6.04 – International Law

6.05 – Efficient and Prompt Delivery

6.06 – Order and Decorum

6.07 – Incompatible Conduct

(Note: To be reviewed together with the compiled

class digests)

----------------------------- END----------------------------------