Pale doctrines San Beda

8/18/2019 Pale doctrines San Beda

1/22

[SACLAYAN, KATHLEEN KAYE V. | 3B]

I. INTRODUCTION TO LEGAL ETHICS1. Director of Religious Aairs vs. Bayot— The advertisement of (law services) is a agrant violation of the ethics of

the law rofession. !ection "#$ Rule 1"% rovides$ among other things$

that &the ractice of soliciting cases at law for the urose of gain$ either

ersonally or thru aid agents or 'roers$ constitute malractice.

". *edesma vs. +limaco— ,ithdrawal as counsel de o-cio 'y an attorney on the ground of his

aointment as lection Registrar 'y the +ommission on lections is not

allowed. A high degree of -delity to duty is re/uired of one designated as

counsel de o-cio 'ecause law is a rofession dedicated to the ideal of

service and not a mere trade.

0. +ui vs. +ui— The term &titulo de a'ogado means not mere ossession of the academic

degree of Bachelor of *aws$ 'ut mem'ershi in the 'ar after dueadmission thereto$ /ualifying one for the ractice of law. ossession of the

law degree itself is not indisensa'le2 comletion of the rescri'ed

courses may 'e shown in some other way.

3. 4illegas vs. *egasi— &Aearance as counsel is a voluntary su'mission to a court5s 6urisdiction

'y a legal advocate or advising lawyer rofessionally engaged to

reresent and lead the cause of another. rearation of an answer is

included in the term &aearance as counsel.

#. nri/ue7 vs. 8imene7— The rovincial -scal is dis/uali-ed to reresent in court the municiality if

and when original 6urisdiction of the case involving the municiality is

vested in the !ureme +ourt2 when the municiality is a arty adverse to

the rovincial government or to some other municiality in the same

rovince2 and when in the case involving the municiality$ he$ or his wife$

or child$ is ecuniarily involved as heir$ legatee$ creditor or otherwise.

9nlie a racticing lawyer who has the right to decline emloyment$ a

-scal cannot refuse the erformance of his functions on grounds not

rovided for 'y law without violating his oath of o:ce$ where he swore$

among others$ &that he will well and faithfully discharge to the 'est of his

a'ility the duties of the o:ce or osition uon which he is a'out toenter;


2/22


romotes distrust in the administration of 6ustice$ and he revents

any'ody from har'ouring and encouraging discontent$ which in many

cases$ is the source of disorder$ thus undermining the foundation on which

rests the 'ulwar called 6udicial ower to which those who are aggrieved

turn for rotection and relief. >t is right and lausi'le that an attorney$ in

defending the cause and rights of his client$ should do so with fervor andenergy of which he is caa'le$ 'ut it is not$ and will never 'e so for him to

e?ercise said right 'y resorting to intimidation or roceeding without the

roriety and resect which the dignity of the courts re/uire.

%. Alawi vs. Alauya— The title &attorney is reserved to those who$ having o'tained the

necessary degree in the study of law and successfully taen the Bar

?aminations$ have 'een admitted to the >ntegrated Bar of the hiliines

and remain mem'ers thereof in good standing$ and it is they only who are

authori7ed to ractice law in this 6urisdiction.

@. angan vs. Ramos— The o:cial oath o'liges the attorney to solemnly swear that he &will do no

falsehood. *awyers who use 'efore the courts a name other than the

name inscri'ed in the Roll of Attorneys resorted to decetion and

demonstrated lac of candor in dealing with the courts.

. hiliine *awyers5 Association vs. Agrava— ractice of law in the hiliines includes such aearance 'efore the

atent :ce$ the reresentation of alicants$ oositors$ and other

ersons$ and the rosecution of their alications for atent$ their

oositions thereto or the enforcement of their rights in atent cases. Amem'er of the 'ar$ 'ecause of his legal nowledge and training should 'e

allowed to ractice 'efore the atent :ce$ without further e?amination

or other /uali-cation.

1C. 9i vs. Bonifacio— The re/uisites for admission to the ractice of law are (a) he must 'e a

citi7en of the hiliines2 (') a resident thereof2 (c) at least twenty one

("1) years of age2 (d) a erson of good moral character2 (e) he must show

that no charges against him involving moral turitude$ are -led or ending

in court2 (f) ossess the re/uired educational /uali-cations2 and (g) ass

the 'ar e?aminations. ossession of good moral character must 'econtinuous as a re/uirement to the en6oyment of the rivilege of law

ractice.

11. Deles vs. Aragona— *awyers should 'e allowed great latitude of ertinent comment in the

furtherance of the causes they uhold$ and for the felicity of their clients$

they may 'e ardoned some infelicities of language.

"


3/22


— The o'6ect of a dis'arment roceeding is not so much to unish the

individual attorney himself$ as to safeguard the administration of 6ustice

'y rotecting the court and the u'lic from the misconduct of o:cers of

the court$ and to remove from the rofession of law ersons whose

disregard for their oath of o:ce have roved them un-t to continue

discharging the trust reosed in them as mem'ers of the 'ar.1". Blan7a vs. Arcangel— A lawyer has a more dynamic and ositive role in the community than

merely comlying with the minimal technicalities of the statute. =is

conduct must 'e ar e?cellence$ esecially so when he volunteers his

rofessional services.

10. Eoreta vs. !imliciano— The ractice of law is not a right 'ut a rivilege 'estowed 'y the !tate on

those who show that they ossess$ and continue to ossess$ the

/uali-cations re/uired 'y law for the conferment of such rivilege. An

attorney may 'e dis'arred$ or susended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as attorney and counsellor$ which include statutory grounds

enumerated in section "%$ Rule 10@ of the Rules of +ourt$ all of these

'eing 'road enough to cover ractically any misconduct of a lawyer in his

rofessional or rivate caacity.

13. AF1 Ginancial !ervices$ >nc. vs. 4alerio— The deli'erate failure to ay 6ust de'ts and the issuance of worthless

checs constitute gross misconduct$ for which a lawyer may 'e sanctioned

with susension from the ractice of law.

— A lawyer5s failure to answer the comlaint against him and his failure to

aear at the investigation are evidence of his outing resistance to lawfulorders of the court and illustrate his desiciency for his oath of o:ce in

violation of section 0$ Rule 10@ of the Rules of +ourt.

1#. "CC0 Bar ?aminations Bar Hatter Io. 1"""— enalties$ such as dis'arment$ are imosed not to unish 'ut to correct

oenders. >n cases where the !ureme +ourt had deigned to lift or

commute the sureme enalty of dis'arment imosed on the lawyer$ it

had taen into account the remorse of the dis'arred lawyer and the

conduct of his u'lic life during his years outside of the 'ar.

II. ADMISSION TO PRACTICE

1. >n re *anuevo— The 6udicial function of the !ureme +ourt in admitting candidates to the

legal rofession involves e?ercise of discretion. ractice of law is not an

0


4/22


a'solute right granted to everyone who demands it 'ut a rivilege

e?tended or withheld in the e?ercise of sound discretion.

". Girst *eanto +eramics$ >nc. vs. +ourt of Aeals— !u'stantive law is that art of the law creates$ de-nes and regulates

rights$ or which regulates and duties which give rise to a cause of action$as oosed to ad6ective or remedial law$ which rescri'es the method of

enforcing rights or o'tains a redress for their invasion.

0. >n re +unanan— The admission$ susension$ dis'arment and reinstatement of attorneysFatF

law in the ractice of the rofession and their suervision have 'een

indisuta'ly a 6udicial function and resonsi'ility. +ongress may reeal$

alter and sulement the rules romulgated 'y the !ureme +ourt$ 'ut

the authority and resonsi'ility over the admission$ susension$

dis'arment and reinstatement of attorneysFatFlaw and their suervision

remain vested in the !ureme +ourt.

3. Juroda vs. Kalandoni— There is nothing in ?ecutive rder Io. t is

common in military tri'unals that counsel for the arties are usually

military ersonnel who are neither attorneys nor even ossesses legal

training.

#. mico Hining L >ndustrial +or. vs. 4alle6os— ,hen a mem'er of the Bar is elevated to the Bench of the +ourt of Girst

>nstance as a 6udge thereof$ his right to ractice law as an attorney issusended and continued to 'e susended as long as he occuied the

6udicial osition. This rohi'ition is 'ased on sound reasons of u'lic

olicy$ for there is no /uestion that the rights$ duties$ rivileges and

functions of the o:ce of an attorneyFatFlaw are so inherently incomati'le

with the high o:cial functions$ duties$ owers$ discretions and rivileges

of a 6udge of the +ourt of Girst >nstance.


5/22


— The rule dis/ualifying a municial 6udge from engaging in the ractice of

law sees to avoid the evil of ossi'le use of the ower and inuence of

his o:ce to aect the outcome of litigation where he is retained as

counsel. The ractice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court

or articiation in court roceedings 'ut also includes rearation of

leadings or aers in anticiation of litigation$ and giving of legal adviceto clients or ersons needing the same.

@. De 8u7man vs. 4isayan Raid Transit +o.— An attorney is entitled to have and receive 6ust and reasona'le

comensation for services erformed at the secial instance and re/uest

of his client. As long as he was honestly and in good faith trying to serve

and reresent the interest of the client$ he should have reasona'le

comensation for his services.

. +ayetano vs. Honsod— To engage in the ractice of law is to erform those acts which are

characteristics of the rofession. 8enerally$ to ractice law is to give

notice or render any ind of service$ which device or service re/uires the

use in any degree of legal nowledge or sill.

1C. >n re dillon— rgani7ed 'y or under the direction of the !tate via its valid e?ercise of

olice ower$ an >ntegrated Bar is an o:cial national 'ody of which all

lawyers are re/uired to 'e mem'ers. They are$ therefore$ su'6ect to all the

rules rescri'ed for the governance of the Bar$ including the re/uirementof ayment of a reasona'le annual fee for the eective discharge of the

uroses of the Bar$ and adherence to a +ode of rofessional thics or

rofessional Resonsi'ility$ the 'reach of which constitutes su:cient

reason for investigation 'y the Bar and$ uon roer cause aearing$ a

recommendation for disciline or dis'arment of the oending mem'er.

11. Te6an vs. +usi$ Kr.— The law accords to the +ourt of Aeals and the +ourt of Girst >nstance the

ower to investigate and susend mem'ers of the 'ar. The court may act

uon its own motion and thus 'e the initiator of the roceedings$ 'ecause

o'viously$ the court may investigate into the conduct of its own o:cers.

1". Alcala vs. 4era— Gailure of a lawyer to inform his clients of the decision rendered in a case

handled 'y him maes him lia'le for negligence. =owever$ when there is

no -nding of deceit$ malice or deli'erate intent to cause damage to his

clients$ and no material or ecuniary damage resulted to his clients$

dis'arment is not warranted although lawyer is negligent.

#


6/22


10. +antim'uhan vs. +ru7— !ection 03$ Rule 10@ of the Rules of +ourt rovides that in the municial

court$ a arty may conduct his litigation in erson with the aid of an agent

aointed 'y him for the urose. The ermission of the -scal is not

necessary for one to enter his aearance as rivate rosecutor al'eitunder the suervision and control of the trial -scal.

13. =ydro Resources +ontractors +or. vs. aglilauan— A lawyer$ lie any other rofessional$ may very well 'e an emloyee of the

government or a rivate cororation$ while at the same time$ also contract

with a law -rm to act as outside counsel on a retainer 'asis. The two

classes of lawyers often wor together$ 'ut one grou is made u of

emloyees while the other is not.

1#. Ramos vs. Rada— The duties of a court messenger are generally ministerial which do not

re/uire that his entire day of twenty four ("3) hours 'e at the disosal of the government. Thus$ lac of rior ermission from his suerior is a mere

technical violation and he should 'e meted no more than the minimum

imosa'le enalty$ which is rerimand.

1


7/22


— very lawyer should at all times weigh his actions according to the sworn

romises he made when he too the lawyer5s oath.

"C. +ollantes vs. Renomeron— The +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility alies to lawyers in government

service in the discharge of their o:cial tass.

"1. +amos vs. +amos— Rule %.C0 of the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility rovides that a lawyer

shall not engage in conduct that adversely reects on his -tness to

ractice law$ nor shall he$ whether in u'lic or rivate life$ 'ehave in a

scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal rofession.

III. LAWYER’S DUTIES TO SOCIETY

1. Hontecillo vs. 8ica— As an o:cer of the court$ it is a lawyer5s sworn and moral duty to hel

'uild and not destroy unnecessarily the high esteem and regard towards

the court so essential to the roer administration of 6ustice.

". >n re 8utierre7— The rule that ardon oerates to wie out the conviction and is a 'ar to

any roceeding for dis'arment of the attorney after the ardon has 'een

granted alies only where the ardon is a'solute$ 'ut not where the

ardon granted is conditional and merely remitted the une?ecuted ortion

of the enalty. >n such a case$ the attorney must 'e 6udged uon the factof his conviction for the crime he has committed.

0. ronce vs. +ourt of Aeals— 9nder the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility$ a lawyer is rohi'ited from

counselling or a'etting &activities aimed at de-ance of the law or at

lessening con-dence in the legal system. ntering a roerty without the

consent of its occuants and in contravention of the e?isting writ of

reliminary in6unction and maing utterances showing disresect for the

law and the +ourt$ are un'ecoming of a mem'er of the 'ar.

3. De Msasi vs. Iational *a'or Relations +ommission— The useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation 'ut to avoid

it whenever ossi'le 'y advising settlement or withholding suit. =e should

'e a mediator for concord and a conciliator for comromise$ rather than a

virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation.

#. a6ares vs. A'ad !antos

%


8/22


— The cooeration of litigants and their attorneys is needed so that needless

clogging of the court docets with unmeritorious cases may 'e avoided.

There must 'e faithful adherence to Rule %$ section # of the Rules of +ourt

which rovides that &the signature of an attorney constitutes a certi-cate

'y him that he has read the leading and that to the 'est of his

nowledge$ information and 'elief$ there is good ground to suort it2 andthat it is not interosed for delay and e?ressly admonishes that &for a

wilful violation of this rule an attorney may 'e su'6ected to discilinary

action.


9/22


— A rosecuting attorney$ 'y the nature of his o:ce$ is under no comulsion

to -le a articular criminal information where he is not convinced that he

has evidence to ro u the averments thereof$ or that the evidence at

hand oints to a dierent conclusion.

— >n a clash of views 'etween the 6udge who did not investigate and the

-scal who did$ or 'etween the -scal and the oended arty or thedefendant those of the -scal5s should normally revail.

11. eole vs. Hadera— A rosecutor5s no'le tas is to rosecute only the guilty and to rotect the

innocent.

1". Tan vs. 8allardo— !ince the !olicitor 8eneral alone is authori7ed to reresent the !tate or

the eole of the hiliines$ the interest of the rivate rosecutors is

su'ordinate to that of the !tate and they cannot 'e allowed to tae a

stand inconsistent with that of the !olicitor 8eneral$ for that would 'etantamount to giving the latter the direction and control of the criminal

roceedings$ contrary to the rovisions of law and the settled rules on the

matter.

10. eole vs. !endaydiego— !ection 10$ Rule 11" of the Rules of +ourt$ in allowing a +ourt of Girst

>nstance to conduct a reliminary investigation$ does not dis/ualify it from

trying the case it had found ro'a'le cause and after the -scal$ as

directed 'y the +ourt$ had -led the corresonding information. The rule

assumes that the 6udge$ who conducted the reliminary investigation$could imartially try the case on the merits.

13. Hisamin vs. !an Kuan— The serious conse/uences of dis'arment or susension should follow only

where there is a clear reonderance of evidence against the resondent.

The resumtion is that the attorney is innocent of the charges referred

and has erformed his duty as an o:cer of the court in accordance with

his oath.

1#. residential +ommission on 8ood 8overnance vs. !andigan'ayan

and Hendo7a— A lawyer should not accet emloyment as an advocate in any matter

uon the merits of which he has acted in a 6udicial caacity.

— A lawyer$ having once held u'lic o:ce or having 'een in the u'lic

emloy should not$ after his retirement$ accet emloyment in connection

with any matter he has investigated or assed uon while in such o:ce or

emloy.


10/22


IV. LAWYER’S DUTIES TO THE LEGAL

PROFESSION

1. Rivera vs. Angeles— The !ureme +ourt reeatedly stressed the imortance of integrity and

good moral character as art of a lawyer5s e/uiment in the ractice of his

rofession.

— The +ourt is not o'livious of the right of a lawyer to 'e aid for the legal

services he has e?tended to his client 'ut such right should not 'e

e?ercised whimsically 'y aroriating to himself the money intended for

his clients such that there should never 'e an instance where the victor in

litigation loses everything he won to the fees of his own lawyer.

. Ducat$ Kr. vs. 4illalon$ Kr.— +anon % of the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility mandates that &a

lawyer shall at all times uhold the integrity and dignity of the legal

rofession. Thus$ every lawyer should act and comort himself in such a

manner that would romote u'lic con-dence in the integrity of the legal

rofession.

3. Tan vs. !a'andal— A erson not yet admitted to the 'ar cannot call himself &attorney.

!. >n re ara7o— The term &interest of the !tate involves not only the interests of students

and graduates of the law schools and colleges$ and of the entire legal

rofession of the country as well as the good name and reutation of the

mem'ers of the +ommittee of Bar ?aminers$ including the emloyees of

the !ureme +ourt having charge of and connections with said

e?aminations$ 'ut also the highest Tri'unal of the land itself which

reresents one of the three coordinate and indeendent 'ranches or

deartments of the hiliine 8overnment.

". angan vs. Ramos

—A lawyer should aid in guarding the Bar against the admission to therofession of candidates un-t or un/uali-ed 'ecause de-cient in either

moral character or education.

— The standards of legal rofession are not satis-ed 'y conduct which

merely ena'les one to escae the enalties of the criminal law.

n re 8utierre7

1C


11/22


— The rule that ardon oerates to wie out the conviction and is a 'ar to

any roceeding for dis'arment of the attorney after the ardon has 'een

granted alies only where the ardon is a'solute$ 'ut not where the

ardon granted is conditional and merely remitted the une?ecuted ortion

of the enalty. >n such a case$ the attorney must 'e 6udged uon the fact

of his conviction for the crime he has committed.

%. Iarido vs. *insangan— The sectacle resented 'y two mem'ers of the 'ar engaged in 'icering

and recrimination is far from edifying$ although it is understanda'le$ if not

6usti-a'le$ that at times 7eal in the defense of one5s client may 'e carried

to the oint of undue sceticism and dou't as to the motives of oosing

counsel. !uch action detracts from the dignity of the legal rofession and

will not receive any symathy from the +ourt.

@. *aut vs. Remotigue

—,here a lawyer was dismissed 'y his client 'ecause the latter no longertrusted him$ the aearance of the second lawyer is not unrofessional$

unethical or imroer.

. +amacho vs. angulayan— A lawyer should not in any way communicate uon the su'6ect of

controversy with a arty reresented 'y counsel$ much less should he

undertae to negotiate or comromise the matter with him$ 'ut should

only deal with his counsel. >t is incum'ent uon the lawyer most

articularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a arty not

reresented 'y counsel and he should not undertae to advise him as to

law.

1C. Ro'inson vs. 4illafuerte— A nonFlawyer cannot /uestion witnesses in court notwithstanding the

resence of or suervision 'y a mem'er of the 'ar.

11. Tan Te Beng vs. David— Halractice is the ractice of soliciting cases at law for the urose of

gain$ either ersonally or through aid agents or 'roers and ordinarily

refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed 'y a lawyer.

— Io division of fees for legal services is roer$ e?cet with another lawyer$

'ased uon a division of service or resonsi'ility.

1". Director of Religious Aairs vs. Bayot— The advertisement of (law services) is a agrant violation of the ethics of

the law rofession. !ection "#$ Rule 1"% rovides$ among other things$

that &the ractice of soliciting cases at law for the urose of gain$ either

ersonally or thru aid agents or 'roers$ constitute malractice.

10.9le vs. *egal +linic$ >nc.

11


12/22


— A lawyer cannot$ without violating the ethics of his rofession$ advertise

his talents or sills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his

goods. The roscrition against advertising of legal services or solicitation

of legal 'usiness rests on the fundamental ostulate that the ractice of

law is a rofession.

13. >n re !yci— A artnershi for the ractice of law is not a legal entity 'ut a mere

relationshi or association for a articular urose2 it is not a artnershi

formed for the urose of carrying on trade or 'usiness or of holding

roerty. Thus$ the use of a nom de lume$ assumed or trade name in law

ractice is imroer.

V. LAWYER’S DUTIES TO THE COURTS

1. +ity !heri of >ligan +ity vs. Gortunado— !ection 1t is neither candid nor fair for alawyer to nowingly mae false allegations in a 6udicial leading or to

mis/uote the contents of a document$ the testimony of a witness$ the

argument of oosing counsel or the contents of a decision.

0. +have7 vs. 4iola— +ourts are entitled to e?ect only comlete candor and honesty from the

lawyers aearing and leading 'efore them while lawyers$ on the other

hand$ have the fundamental duty to satisfy that e?ectation. >t is essential

that lawyers 'ear in mind at all times that their -rst duty is not to their

clients 'ut rather to the courts$ that they are a'ove all o:cers of courtsworn to assist the courts in rendering 6ustice to all and sundry$ and only

secondarily are they advocates of the e?clusive interests of their clients.

3. +han Jian vs. Angsin— A lawyer owes truth and candor to the courts.

#. +asals vs. +usi

1"


13/22


— A lawyer has the solemn duty as counsel to emloy in the conduct of a

case such means only as are consistent with truth and honor$ and never

see to mislead the courts.

— The +ourt has$ in several instances$ susended lawyers from the ractice

of law for failure to -le aellant5s 'riefs in criminal cases desite

reeated e?tensions of time o'tained 'y them$ with the reminder that thetrust imosed on counsel in accordance with the canons of legal ethics 'ut

with the soundest traditions of the rofession would re/uire -delity on

their art.


14/22


— A lawyer has the duty to o'serve and maintain the resect due the courts

of 6ustice and 6udicial o:cers. Arguments$ written or oral$ should 'e

gracious to 'oth the court and oosing counsel and 'e of such words as

may 'e roerly addressed 'y one gentleman to another.

10. 9r'ina vs. Haceren— Kudges will not 'e held administratively lia'le for mere errors of 6udgment

in their rulings or decisions a'sent a showing of malice or gross ignorance

on their art.

13. +astaNeda vs. Ago— >t is the duty of a counsel to advise his client$ ordinarily a layman to the

intricacies and vagaries of the law$ on the merit or lac thereof of his case.

— A counsel5s assertiveness in esousing with candor and honesty his

client5s cause must is encouraged and commended2 what the +ourt

countenances is a lawyer5s insistence desite the atent futility of his

client5s osition.

1#. Austria vs. Hasa/uel— ,hile it may 'e conceded that in re/uesting the dis/uali-cation of a 6udge

'y reason of his relation with a arty or counsel there is some imlication

of the ro'a'ility of his 'eing artial to one side$ the re/uest cannot

constitute contemt of court if done honestly and in a resectful manner.

— The ower to unish for contemt$ 'eing drastic and e?traordinary in its

nature$ should not 'e resorted to unless necessary in the interest of

6ustice2 that is$ it should 'e e?ercised on the reservative and not on the

vindictive rincile.

1


15/22


a general rule$ now his adversary. =owever$ information relating to the

identity of a client may fall within the am'it of the rivilege when the

client5s name itself has an indeendent signi-cance$ such that disclosure

would then reveal client con-dences.

". >n re !yci— A artnershi for the ractice of law is not a legal entity 'ut a mere

relationshi or association for a articular urose2 it is not a artnershi

formed for the urose of carrying on trade or 'usiness or of holding

roerty. Thus$ the use of a nom de lume$ assumed or trade name in law

ractice is imroer.

0. Daroy vs. *egasi— A lawyer$ under his oath$ ledges himself not to delay any man for money

or malice and is 'ound to conduct himself with all good -delity to his

clients. =e is o'ligated to reort romtly the money of his clients that has

come into his ossession and should not commingle it with his rivateroerty or use it for his ersonal uroses without his client5s consent.

3. =ilado vs. David— >n order to constitute rofessional emloyment$ it is not essential that the

client should have emloyed the attorney rofessionally on any revious

occasion$ nor that any retainer aid$ romised$ charged$ nor that the

attorney did not undertae the case after the consultation. An attorney is

emloyed in his rofessional caacity when he is giving advice thereon$

6ust as if he were writing a leading or litigating in oen court.

#. !tone vs. Ban of +ommerce— An attorney$ in his caacity merely as such$ has no ower to mae any

agreement for his client 'efore a suit has 'een commenced$ or 'efore he

has 'een retained to commence one. Before the commencement of a suit$

or the giving of authority to commence one$ there is nothing uon which

the authority of an attorney to act for his client can 'e 'ased.


16/22


. The 8overnment of the hiliine >slands vs. ,agner— 9nder a universal ower of attorney$ counsel has the right to reresent his

client$ to deal with the latter5s roerty as if such client is ersonally

resent.

1C. r'it Transortation +o. vs. ,ormen5s +omensation

+ommission— The signature of an attorney constitutes a certi-cate 'y him that he has

read the leading and that to the 'est of his nowledge$ information and

'elief$ there is good ground to suort it$ and that it is not interosed for

delay.

11. *edesma vs. +limaco— ,ithdrawal as counsel de o-cio 'y an attorney on the ground of his

aointment as lection Registrar 'y the +ommission on lections is not

allowed. A high degree of -delity to duty is re/uired of one designated ascounsel de o-cio 'ecause law is a rofession dedicated to the ideal of

service and not a mere trade.

1". eole vs. Daeng— All courts are cautioned against the fre/uent aointment of the same

attorney as counsel de o-cio$ for two 'asic reasons (1) it is unfair to the

attorney concerned$ considering the 'urden of his regular ractice$ that he

should 'e saddled with too many de o-cio cases2 and (") the

comensation rovided for 'y section 0"$ Rule 10@ of the Rules of +ourt

might 'e considered 'y the lawyers as regular source of income$

something which the rule does not envision.

10. 8on7ales vs. +have7— ven when confronted with a situation where on government o:ce taes

an adverse osition against another government agency$ the !olicitor

8eneral should not refrain from erforming his duty as the lawyer of the

government. >t is incum'ent uon him to resent to the court what he

considers would legally uhold the 'est interest of the government

although it may run counter to a client5s osition.

13. arel vs. A'aria

—9tmost care must 'e taen to minimi7e occasions for anymisunderstanding 'etween lawyers and their clients. The relationshi

'eing one of con-dence$ there is ever resent the need for the latter 'eing

ade/uately and fully informed of the mode and manner in which their

interest is defended.

1


17/22


VII. LAWYER’S DUTIES IN HANDLING A CLIENT’S

CASE

1. !antiago vs. Go6as—

A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him$ and hisnegligence in connection therewith shall render him lia'le.

". +antiller vs. otenciano— ,hen a lawyer taes a client5s cause$ he there'y covenants that he will

e?ert all eort for its rosecution until its -nal conclusion. The failure to

e?ercise due diligence or the a'andonment of a client5s cause maes such

lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had reosed on him.

0. Hillare vs. Hontero— A lawyer shall not -le multile actions arising from the same cause. >t is

unethical for a lawyer to a'use or wrongfully use the 6udicial rocess$ liethe -ling dilatory motions$ reetitious litigation and frivolous aeals for

the sole urose of frustrating and delaying the e?ecution of a 6udgment.

3. +hoa vs. +hiongson— A mem'er of the 'ar is 'ound (1) 'y his oath$ not to$ wittingly or willingly$

romote or sue any groundless$ false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor

consent to the same2 (") 'y section "C(c)$ Rule 10@ of the Rules of +ourt$

to counsel or maintain such action or roceedings only as aear to him to

'e 6ust2 and (0) to uhold the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility. >t is

incum'ent uon him to give a candid and honest oinion on the merits

and ro'a'le results of his client5s case.

#. +osmos Goundry !ho ,orers 9nion vs. *o Bu— A lawyer should not act lie an errand 'oy at the 'ec and call of his

client$ ready and eager to do his every 'idding.


18/22


'elief$ there is good ground to suort it$ and that it is not interosed for

delay.

@. A7or vs. Beltran— A counsel5s assertiveness in esousing with candor and honesty his

client5s cause must is encouraged and commended2 what the +ourtcountenances is a lawyer5s insistence desite the atent futility of his

client5s osition.

. 4isitacion vs. Hanit— An attorney seeing to withdraw must mae an alication to the court$

for the relation does not terminate formally until there is a withdrawal of

record2 at least so far as the oosite arty is concerned$ the relation

otherwise continues until the end of the litigation.

1C.De Roy vs. +ourt of Aeals— There is no law re/uiring the u'lication of !ureme +ourt decisions in the

:cial 8a7ette 'efore they can 'e 'inding and as a condition to their

'ecoming eective. >t is the 'ounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active

law ractice to ee a'reast of decisions of the !ureme +ourt articularly

where issues have 'een clari-ed$ consistently reiterated and u'lished in

the advance reorts of !ureme +ourt decisions and in such u'lications

as the !+RA and law 6ournals.

11.+uaresma vs. Da/uis— A lawyer should 'e more careful in the rearation of his leadings so that

the least dou't as to his intellectual honesty cannot 'e entertained. very

mem'er of the 'ar should reali7e that candor in the dealings with this

+ourt is of the very essence of honoura'le mem'ershi in the rofession.

1". 4da. De Eu'iri vs. Eu'iri— The +anons of *egal thics commands that &a lawyer should not in any

way communicate uon the su'6ect of the controversy with a arty

reresented 'y counsel$ much less should he undertae to negotiate or

comromise the matter with him$ 'ut should deal only with his counsel. >t

is incum'ent uon the lawyer most articularly to avoid everything that

may tend to mislead a arty not reresented 'y counsel and he should not

undertae to advise him as to the law.

10. Deluao vs. +asteel— An order given in oen court is resumed received 'y the arties on the

very date and time of romulgation$ and amounts to a legal noti-cation for

all legal uroses. The ostonement of hearings does not deend uon

the agreement of the arties$ 'ut uon the court5s discretion.

13. =eirs of lias *orilla vs. +ourt of Aeals

1@


19/22


— The failure of counsel to serve notice on the court and the adverse arties

regarding his client5s death 'inds his clients. Kurisrudence teems with

ronouncements that a client is 'ound 'y the conduct$ negligence$ and

mistaes of his counsel.

1#. Avelino vs. alaNa— *awyers guilty of negligence in the erformance of his duties as a mem'er

of the 'ar may 'e susended from the ractice of law.

1t must 'e erformed with all the 7eal and vigor at his command to

rotect and safeguard the accused5s fundamental rights.

"C. Toacio Iueno vs. !antos— ,hen a lawyer consents to the doing of a falsehood and deceives the

court 'y having an accused lead guilty to an oense which he had not

committed$ he is in clear violation of the lawyer5s oath that he will do no

falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court.

1


20/22


VIII. LAWYER’S FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS

1. Angeles vs. 9y$ Kr.— +anon 1< of the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility rovides that &a

lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and roerties of his client that may

come into his ossession. Gurthermore$ Rule 1


21/22


that &a lawyer shall account for all money or roerty collected or

received for or from the client.

@. enticostes vs. >'aNe7— IonFremittance 'y a u'lic rosecutor for over one year of funds

entrusted to him constitutes conduct in gross violation of Rule 1.C1 of the+ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility which rovides that &a lawyer shall not

engage in unlawful$ dishonest$ immoral$ or deceitful conduct. *awyers are

'ound to romtly account for money or roerty received 'y them on

'ehalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes rofessional

misconduct.

. Daroy vs. legasi— A lawyer$ under his oath$ ledges himself not to delay any man for money

or malice and is 'ound to conduct himself with all good -delity to his

clients. =e is o'ligated to reort romtly the money of his clients that has

come into his ossession and should not commingle it with his rivateroerty or use it for his ersonal uroses without his client5s consent.

1C. !otto vs. !amson— Article 13# of the ld +ivil +ode rovides that lawyers and solicitors

cannot tae 'y urchase$ even at a u'lic or 6udicial auction$ either in

erson or through mediation of another$ any roerty rights involved in

any litigation in which they may tae art 'y virtue of their rofession and

o:ce. The urose of this rovision is to curtail any undue inuence of the

lawyer uon his client on account of their con-dential association.

11. 4da. De *aig vs. +ourt of Aeals— A lawyer may 'e held civilly lia'le for failure to o'serve honesty and good

faith in the erformance of their duties as u'lic o:cer and as a mem'er

of the 'ar (Article 1 of the Iew +ivil +ode)$ or for wilfully or negligently

causing damage to another (Article "C of the Iew +ivil +ode)$ or for

wilfully causing loss or in6ury to another in a manner that is contrary to

morals$ good customs andOor u'lic olicy (Article "1 of the Iew +ivil

+ode).

1". 8o Beltran vs. Gernande7— Article 13# of the ld +ivil +ode rovides that lawyers and solicitors

cannot tae 'y urchase$ even at a u'lic or 6udicial auction$ either inerson or through mediation of another$ any roerty rights involved in

any litigation in which they may tae art 'y virtue of their rofession and

o:ce. The urose of this rovision is to curtail any undue inuence of the

lawyer uon his client on account of their con-dential association.

"1


22/22


""

Documents

Pale doctrines San Beda