Rural Bank of Calape Inc. vs Atty. Florido A.C. No.

5736 June 18, 2010 FACTS: RBCI filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent for "acts constituting grave coercion and threats when he, as counsel for the minority stockholders of RBCI, led his clients in physically taking over the management and operation of the bank through force, violence and intimidation. They also forcibly evicted Cirilo A. Garay, the bank manager, destroyed the banks vault, and installed their own staff to run the bank. RBCI alleged that respondent violated his oath and Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent explained that he acted in accordance with the authority granted upon him by his clients, the Nazareno-Relampagos group, the lawfully and validly elected Board of Directors of RBCI. Respondent said he was merely effecting a lawful and valid change of management. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent violated Canon 19 of Code of Professional Responisibility? HELD: The respondent is found guilty of violating Canon 19 and Rules 1.02 and 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent knew or ought to have known that his clients could not just forcibly take over the management and premises of RBCI without a valid court order. Respondent had no legal basis to implement the takeover of RBCI and that it was a "naked power grab without any semblance of legality whatsoever. Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. For this reason, Rule 15.07 of the Code 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.8It is his duty to counsel his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods in seeking justice and refrain from doing an intentional wrong to their adversaries. Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon taking their professional oath, they become guardians of truth and the rule of law. Verily, when they appear before a tribunal, they act not merely as representatives of a party but, first and foremost, as officers of the court. Thus, their duty to protect their clients interests is secondary to their obligation to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. While they are obliged to present every available legal remedy or defense, their fidelity to their clients must always be made within the parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth, the law, and the fair administration of justice. A lawyers duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice. To that end, his clients success is wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously observant of the law and ethics. Any means, not honorable, fair and honest which is resorted to by the lawyer, even in the pursuit of his devotion to his clients cause, is condemnable and unethical.

Pena vs Atty. Aparicio A.C. No. 7298 June 25, 2007 FACTS: The respondent, Atty. Lolito Aparicio, appeared as a legal counsel for Hufana in an illegal dismissal case before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against complainant Fernando Pena. The respondent, in behalf of his client, submitted a claim for separation pay arising from her alleged illegal dismissal but Pena rejected the claim as baseless. Thereafter, respondent sent a letter to complainant reiterating his clients claim for separation pays. Through his letter, he threatened complainant that should Pena failed to pay the amounts they propose as settlement 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. ISSUE: Whether or not Aparicio violated Rule 19.01 of Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, enjoining every lawyer to represent his client with great zeal within the bounds of the law? HELD: Under Canon 19, a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the adversaries of his client designed to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases against the lawyer's client. In the case at bar, respondent did exactly what Canon 19 and its Rule proscribe. Through his letter, he threatened complainant that should the latter fail to pay the amounts they propose as settlement, 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. The threats are not only unethical for violating Canon 19, but they also amount to blackmail. It is quite obvious that respondent's threat to file the cases against complainant was designed to secure some leverage to compel the latter to give in to his client's demands. It was not respondent's intention to point out complainant's violations of the law as he so gallantly claims. Far from it, the letter even contains an implied promise to "keep silent" about the said violations if payment of the claim is made on the date indicated. Indeed, the writing of demand letters is a standard practice and tradition in this jurisdiction. It is usually done by a lawyer pursuant to the principal-agent relationship that he has with his client, the principal. However, the letter in this case contains more than just a simple demand to pay. It even contains a threat to file retaliatory charges against complainant which have nothing to do with his client's claim for separation pay. The letter was obviously designed to secure leverage to compel complainant to yield to their claims. Indeed, letters of this nature are definitely proscribed by the Code of Professional Responsibility.