Case digest

Pedro Oparel Sr. Vs Atty. Dominador Abaria

Facts:
Petitioner herein filed a complaint against the respondent, a member of the Integrated Bar
of the Philippines. He alleged that the latter have rendered a dishonest assistance to him
with regards to the recovery of the damages from his employer. He alleged that the
amount given was P500, where in fact the respondent have received a total amount of
P5000. The respondent admitted that he have received the said amount, but explained to
the petitioner that the amount that was not given to the latte was used for the payment of
his bills and support on his family. The petitioner eventually prayed for the dismissal of
the case on the grounds of misunderstanding.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent have failed to disclose all the information with regards to
the recovery of damages to the petitioner.
Ruling:
While it would appear that under the circumstances no case lies against respondent
Dominador Abaria, it is not amiss to impress on members of the Bar that the utmost care
be taken to minimize occasions for any misunderstanding between them and their clients.
The relationship being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the latter
being adequately and fully informed of the mode and manner in which their interest is
defended. They should not be left in the dark. They are entitled to the fullest disclosure of
why certain steps are taken and why certain matters are either included or excluded from
the documents they are made to sign. It is only thus that their faith in counsel may remain
unimpaired. WHEREFORE, the administrative case filed by Pedro Oparel, Sr. Against
respondent Dominador Abaria is dismissed.
Relevance to the course:
Members of the IBP should not fail on disclosing all information of the case, no matter
how small it is, to their clients in order to avoid misunderstanding between them that
might result on future filing of complaints and further expenses.

Case digest
Philippine Lawyers Association vs Celedonio Agrava
Facts:
Petitioner filed a prohibition and injunction against the respondent on the ground that the
latter have exceeded the definition of the law with regards to the admittance of an
applicant to the Patent Office, where the law only requires that a member of Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and of good standing can be admitted to the said office. But the
respondent have further requires that an applicant, in order to be admitted to the office,
should be able to pass an examination since the function of the said office, according to
him, was more than just on the application of the law, but requires more knowledge and
skills.
Issue:
Whether or not the function of the Patent Office is more than just a practice of law.
Ruling:
The practice of law includes such appearance before the Patent Office, the representation
of applicants, oppositors, and other persons, and the prosecution of their applications for
patent, their oppositions thereto, or the enforcement of their rights in patent cases. In the
first place, although the transaction of business in the Patent Office involves the use and
application of technical and scientific knowledge and training, still, all such business has
to be rendered in accordance with the Patent Law, as well as other laws, including the
Rules and Regulations promulgated by the Patent Office in accordance with law.
We hold that under the present law, members of the Philippine Bar authorized by this
Tribunal to practice law, and in good standing, may practice their profession before the
Patent Office, for the reason that much of the business in said office involves the
interpretation and determination of the scope and application of the Patent Law and other
laws applicable, as well as the presentation of evidence to establish facts involved; that
part of the functions of the Patent director are judicial or quasi-judicial, so much so that
appeals from his orders and decisions are, under the law, taken to the Supreme Court. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition for prohibition is granted and the respondent Director
is hereby prohibited from requiring members of the Philippine Bar to submit to an
examination or tests and pass the same before being permitted to appear and practice
before the Patent Office.
Relevance to the course:
That on the exercise of legal profession, or other functions which requires the application
of the law, it is enough that those to be admitted are members of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines since they have been fully prepared for the practice of law.