Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Go vs Abrogar
FACTS:
Petitioner failed to pay his debt in the bank, prompting the bank to file a case against him. RTC rendered
decision in favor to the bank. Atty. Javier, withdrawn his services as counsel and was formally released by the
petitioner through the Notice of Permission only on Oct. 29, 1999.
On November 5,1999. petitioner, now presented by his new counsel Atty. Caneda Jr,. filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Oct. 7,1999 decision. When the RTC denied the motion, petitioner by his counsel filed
a Notice on Appeal. RTC denied the notice on appeal, on the ground that the reglementary period had already
expired. The decision became final and executory. RTC ordered the issuance of Writ of Execution against
petitioner.
On March 6, 2000, petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court. Petitoner argues that the parties had actually intended their liabilities to be joint, that he has
evidence to prove that his liability was less than what the RTC declared him liable for. The Court of Appeals
denied the petition for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
WON counsel acted according to his sworn responsibility to the court.
HELD:
The Court dismayed the baseless attacks were assisted by counsel, who is an officer of the court. Under
Canon 11 of the Code of Professions Responsibility. A lawyer shall observe and maintain respect due to the
courts and to the judicial officer.
Atty. Caneda, Jr. should have known better that to permit irresponsible and unsupported claim against Judge
Abrogar to be included in the pleadings. Allowing such statements to be made is against the lawyers oath.
Petitioner Go and Atty. Caneda, Jr. are strictly warned not to make disrespectful statements against a judge
without basis or evidence.
FACTS:
Atty. Arcanghel then in their respective pension claims of the death of their husbands. They handed all the
documents with their signatures on blank papers. However, they noticed that respondent lost interest and no
progress was made. After 6 yrs they finally asked Atty. Arcanghel to return the said documents but the latter
refused.
Atty Arcanghel explained, that his failure to return them was due to complainant refusal to hand him money to
pay for the photostating costs which prevented him from withdrawing the documents.
ISSUE:
WON Atty. Arcanghel is guilty of professional non feasance.
HELD:
No, they admitted that Atty. Arcanghel asked them to shoulder the photostating expenses but they did not give
him any money. The documents were already returned by Atty.Arcanghel during the fiscal investigation.
Case dismissed.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the testimony of Atty. Sanset is barred by the attorney-client privilege
HELD :
The communication between an attorney and client having to do with the client's contemplated criminal acts, or
in aid are not covered of privilege ordinarily existing in reference to communications between an attorney and a
client. The falsification not having been committed yet, these communications are outside the pale of the
attorney client privilege.
Moreover, Sansaet himself was a conspirator in the commission of the falsification. For the communication to
be privileged, it must be for a lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end. The existence of an unlawful
purpose prevents the privilege from attaching.
95. DEE vs CA
FACTS:
Petitioner and his father went to the respondent Atty. Mutuc, to seek his advice regarding the problem of the
alleged indebtedness of petitioner's brother, Dewey Dee, to Caesar's Palace, a well-known gambling casino at
Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S.A.
Private respondent assured petitioner and his father that he would inquire into the matter, after which his
services were reportedly contracted for P100,000. 00, Atty. Mutuc called up Caesar's Palace and, thereafter,
several long distance telephone calls and two trips to Las Vegas by him elicited the information.
Atty. Mutuc, personally talked with the president of Caesar's Palace at Las Vegas, Nevada. Thereafter, the
account of Dewey Dee was cleared and the casino never bothered him.
Having thus settled the account of petitioner's brother, private respondent sent several demand letters to
petitioner demanding the balance of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees. Petitioner, however, ignored said letters.
Private respondent filed a complaint against petitioner, for the collection of attorney's fees and refund of
transport fare and other expenses.
Private respondent claimed that petitioner formally engaged his services for a fee of P100,000.00 and that the
services he rendered were professional services which a lawyer renders to a client. Petitioner, however, denied
the existence of any professional relationship of attorney and client between him and private respondent.
ISSUE:
WON there was a lawyer-client relationship
HELD:
YES. To established the relationship that the advice and assistance of the attorneys sought and received in
any matter pertinent to his profession. An acceptance of the relation is implied from the part of the lawyer from
acting on his behalf of his client.
A lawyer is entitled to have and receive the just and reasonable compensation for services rendered at the
special instance and request of his client and as long as he is honestly and in good faith trying to serve and
represent the interests of his client, the latter is bound to pay his just fees