CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE HIS SERVICES TO THE

NEEDY.
This rule underscores the duty of a lawyer to accept employment insofar as the needy and the
poor are concerned, refusal to accept being made the exception. There are two reasons for
the rule:
1. The poor and the needy are the persons who, when in trouble, need most the services
of a lawyer but hesitate to secure such services because they cannot afford to pay
counsel’s fees or fear they will be refused for their inability to compensate the lawyer.
2. One of the objectives of the IBP is to make legal services fully available for those who
need them and the fulfillment of this objective requires that a lawyer should not lightly
decline employment from the poor and 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.
1. It is settled that a lawyer is not obliged to act as counsel for every person who may
wish to become his client. He has the right to decline employment subject however, to
the provision of Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.1 Thus, a lawyer
cannot decline to represent a person for the SOLE reason of the latter’s (1) race, (2)
sex, (3) creed, (4) status in life, or (5) because of the lawyer’s opinion that said person
is guilty of the charge.
2. Rule 14.01 is applicable only in criminal cases. In criminal cases, a lawyer cannot
decline to represent an accused or respondent because of his opinion that the said
person is guilty of the charge or charges filed against him. In representing the accused
or respondent, the lawyer must only use means which are fair and honorable. (Rule
138, sec. 20[I], Revised Rules of Court)
Rule 14.01 is not applicable in civil cases because “(c) To counsel or maintain such
actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he
believes to be honestly debatable under the law.” (Rule 138, sec. 20[c], Revised Rules
of Court)
When the lawyer signs a complaint or answer, his signature is deemed a certification
by him “that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information,
and belief, there is good ground to support it.” (Rule 7, sec. 3, Revised Rules of Court)
For violating this rule, the lawyer may be subjected to disciplinary action.

Case: Santiago v Fojas (A.C. No. 4103, 07 September 1995)

FACTS: An expulsion case was faced by the complainants contending that they have illegally
removed from the union (FEUFA) membership Mr. Paulino Salvador. The lower court resolved
in favor of Salvador and ordered the complainants to pay, jointly and severally, Mr. Salvador.
The case was then elevated to the Court of Appeals. The complainants lost in their petition at
the Court of Appeals due to abandonment, failure to act accordingly, or serious neglect of their
counsel, Atty. Fojas to answer the civil complaint on an expulsion case. Atty. Fojas assured
them that everything was in order and he had already answered the complaint. However, the
appellants soon discovered that he never answered it after all because, according to him, he

1
Navarro v Meneses III, CBD A.C. No. 313, 30 January 1998.
was a very busy man. Atty. Fojas admitted his “mistake” in failing to file an answer for the
expulsion case, but he alleges that it was cured by his filing of a motion for reconsideration.
However, such motion for reconsideration was denied. Atty. Fojas defended his negligence
with the reason that the case was a losing cause after all. Atty. Fojas also asserts that he was
about to appeal the said decision to this Court, but his services as counsel for the complainants
and for the union were illegally and unilaterally terminated by complainant. Complainants then
filed for a disbarment case.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary
action, in failing to file for the complainants an answer
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court upheld Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and
must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. This means that his client
is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of
the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. In his motion
for reconsideration of the default order, the respondent explained his non-filing of the required
answer by impliedly invoking forgetfulness occasioned by a large volume and pressure of legal
work, while in his Comment in this case he attributes it to honest mistake and excusable
neglect due to his overzealousness to question the denial order of the trial court. Whether it
be the first or the second ground, the fact remains that the respondent did not comply with his
duty to file an answer.
Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the respondent’s inability to
exercise due diligence in the performance of his duty to file an answer. Moreover, Atty. Fojas’s
negligence is not excused by his claim that Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 was in fact a “losing
cause”. The Supreme Court held that he should have seasonably informed the complainants
thereof pursuant to Rule 15.05, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Bar Exam Questions

Q: Atty. DD’s services were engaged by Mr. BB as defense counsel in a lawsuit. In the course
of the proceedings, Atty. DD discovered that Mr. BB was an agnostic and a homosexual. By
reason thereof, Atty. DD filed a motion to withdraw as counsel without Mr. BB’s express
consent. Is Atty. DD’s motion legally tenable? Reason briefly. (2004)
A: No. Atty. DD’s motion is not legally tenable. He has no valid cause to terminate his
services. His client, Mr. BB, being an agnostic and homosexual, should not be deprived
of his counsel’s representation solely for that reason. 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 (Code of Professional
Responsibility, Canon 14, Rule 14.01).

Q: What is a lawyer’s duty if he finds that he cannot honestly put up a valid or meritorious
defense but his client insists that he litigate? Explain. (2002,
2001)
A: It depends, if it is a criminal case, he may not decline to represent the accused solely
on his opinion regarding the guilt of said person (Code of Professional Responsibility,
Rule 14.01). The Supreme Court has held that a counsel de officio has the duty to defend
his client no matter how guilty he perceives him to be (People v. Nadera, Jr., 324 SCRA
490). But if the case is a civil case, he should decline to accept the same. In a civil action,
the rules and ethics of the profession enjoin a lawyer from taking a bad case. The
Attorney’s signature in every pleading constitutes a certification that there is good cause
 to support it and that it is not interposed for delay. It is the Attorney’s duty to counsel or
maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just and such defenses
only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.

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.
1. Definition of relevant terms:
a. COUNSEL DE OFICIO – a counsel, appointed by the court from among such
members of the bar in good standing who, by reason of their experience and
ability, may adequately defend the accused.
b. AMICUS CURIAE – Literally, friend of the court. A person with strong interest
in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may
petition the court for permission to file a brief or be invited by the court,
ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent
with its own views.
2. The duty to appoint a counsel de oficio rests upon the presiding judge. If an accused
appears without counsel, it is the duty of the judge to inform him that under the
Constitution, it is his right to have an attorney represent him. The accused must be
asked before arraignment whether he desires the aid of an attorney. If he desires but
is unable to employ one, the court must assign a counsel de oficio to defend him.
However, if accused wants to defend himself without counsel, the judge may allow him
to go to trial without counsel but he cannot later claim he was not accorded due process
for lack of counsel. A counsel de oficio is appointed only for a defendant in a criminal
case.
3. An appointment as amicus curiae could either be by application to the judge or the
judge on his own initiative may invite a prominent lawyer to appear as amicus curiae
in special cases.2 The impartiality of the lawyer must be considered by the judge before
making the appointment or invitation.

Case: Ledesma v. Climaco (G.R. No. No. L-23815, 28 June 1974)

FACTS: The petitioner was appointed Election Registrar for the Municipality of Cadiz, Province
of Negros Occidental. Then and there, he commenced to discharge its duties. He is also
counsel de parte for one of the accused in a case pending in the sala of respondent Judge,
he filed a motion to withdraw as such. Not only did respondent Judge deny such motion, but
he also appointed him counsel de oficio for the two defendants. Petitioner filed an urgent
motion to be allowed to withdraw as counsel de oficio, premised on the policy of the
Commission on Elections to require full time service as well as on the volume or pressure of
work of petitioner, which could prevent him from handling adequately the defense. Respondent
Judge, denied the said motion.
ISSUE: Whether Ledesma, a member of the bar, may withdraw as counsel de oficio, due to
an appointment as Election Registrar.

2
Rule 138, Section 36 of the Rules of Court
HELD: No. The welfare of the accused could be prejudiced as stressed by Chief Justice Moran
in People v. Holgado in these words: “Even the most intelligent or educated man may have
no skill in the science of law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and; without counsel, he
may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his
innocence. And this can happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated. It is
for this reason that the right to be assisted by counsel is deemed so important that it has
become a constitutional right and it is so implemented that under rules of procedure it is not
enough for the Court to apprise an accused of his right to have an attorney, it is not enough
to ask him whether he desires the aid of an attorney, but it is essential that the court should
assign one de oficio for him if he so desires and he is poor or grant him a reasonable time to
procure an attorney of his own.”
It has to be borne in mind that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions.
It could be that for some lawyers, especially the neophytes in the profession, being appointed
counsel de oficio is an irksome chore. However, the admonition is ever timely for those
enrolled in the ranks of legal practitioners that there are times, and this is one of them, when
duty to court and to client takes precedence over the promptings of self-interest.

Bar Exam Questions

Q: May lawyer decline a request for the free legal aid to an indigent accused made by a chapter
of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)? Explain.
A: Rule 14.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that “a lawyer shall not
decline, except for serious and sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de officio for as
amicus curiae or a request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its chapter for
rendition of free legal aid.” He may, therefore, decline such as appointment for “serious and
sufficient cause.” For example, he may decline such appointment if it will involve a conflict of
interest with another client.

Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept representation of an

indigent client if:
(a) he is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or
competently;
(b)he labors under a conflict of interest between him and the
prospective client or between a present client and the
prospective client.
COVERAGE OF THE RULE: The Rule involves indigent clients who come to a lawyer for legal
services. An indigent client is one who is poor and cannot afford to pay for a lawyer.
The lawyer shall not refuse to accept his engagement by a poor client for reasons of insufficient
compensation or lack of it. The practice of law is a special privilege to which certain
responsibilities and obligations are inherently attendant, among which, is the lawyer’s social
obligation to render free legal service to the destitute of society who cannot afford to hire the
services of lawyers.
Case: Canoy v Atty. Ortiz (A.C. No. 5485, 16 March 2005)
FACTS: Elmer Canoy accused Atty. Jose Max Ortiz of misconduct and malpractice. It was
alleged that Canoy filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his former employer, Coca
Cola Bottlers Philippines. The complaint was filed with the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) and Atty. Ortiz appeared as his counsel. In 1998, the labor arbiter
hearing the complaint ordered the parties to submit their respective position papers. Canoy
submitted all the necessary documents and records to Atty. Ortiz for the preparation of the
position paper. Thereafter, he made several unfruitful visits to the office of Atty. Ortiz to follow-
up the progress of the case. After a final visit at the office of Atty. Ortiz in April of 2000, during
which Canoy was told to come back as his lawyer was not present, Canoy decided to follow-
up the case himself with the NLRC. He was shocked to learn that his complaint was actually
dismissed way back in 1998, for failure to prosecute, the parties not having submitted their
position papers.
Atty. Ortiz admitted that the period within which to file the position paper had already lapsed.
He attributes this failure to timely file the position paper to the fact that after his election as
Councilor of Bacolod City, he was preoccupied with both his functions as a local government
official and as a practicing lawyer.
ISSUE: Whether Atty. Ortiz should be suspended from the practice of law.
HELD: Yes. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client. He is expected to be mindful of
the trust and confidence reposed in him. Moreover, he is mandated by the Code of
Professional Responsibility to serve his client with competence and diligence.
Here, Atty. Ortiz already took up the cause of his client. In doing so, he impliedly imposed
upon himself the legal obligation to champion said cause until its termination with competence
and diligence. Such competence requires that he no neglect any legal matter entrusted in him.
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.
Lawyers like Atty. Ortiz who devote their professional practice in representing litigants who
could ill afford legal services deserve commendation. However, this mantle of public service
will not deliver the lawyer, no matter how well-meaning, from the consequences of negligent
acts. It is not enough to say that all pauper litigants should be assured of legal representation.
They deserve quality representation as well. Wherefore, Atty Ortiz is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for 1 month.

Bar Exam Questions

Q: When may refusal of a counsel to act as counsel de oficio be justified on grounds aside
from reasons of health, extensive travel abroad, or similar reasons of urgency? Support your
answer. (2001)
A: Other justified grounds for refusal to act as counsel de oficio are:
a. Too many de oficio cases assigned to the lawyer (People v. Daeng, 49 SCRA
222);
b. Conflict of interest (CPR, Rule 14.03);
c. Lawyer is not in a position to carry out the work effectively or competently (supra);
d. Lawyer is prohibited from practicing law by reason of his public office which
prohibits appearances in court;
 e. Lawyer is preoccupied with too many cases which will spell prejudice to the new
clients; and
f. Most compelling reasons (People v. Ferred, 406 SCRA 658)
Q: The law firm of Sale, Santiago and Aldeguer has an existing and current retainership
agreement with XYZ Corporation and ABC Company, both of which were pharmaceutical
firms. XYZ Corporation discovered that a number of its patented drugs had been duplicated
and sold in the market under ABC Company’s brand names. XYZ Corporation turned to the
law firm and asked it to bring suit against ABC Company for patent infringement on several
counts. What are the ethical considerations involved in this case and how are you going to
resolve them? (1994)
A: A lawyer may refuse to accept the representation of a client if he labors under conflict
of interests between him and the prospective client or between a present client and the
prospective client (Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 14, Rule 14.03). It is
unprofessional for a lawyer to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent
of all concerned given after full disclosure of the fact (Canons of Professional Ethics,
Canon 6). A lawyer cannot accept a case against a present client either in the same case
or in a totally unrelated case.

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.
If a lawyer accepts a case for a client and the client is unable to pay the lawyer’s professional
fees, he must still represent the client with utmost fidelity, competence and diligence. The
profession is not a money-raking trade but a noble involvement in the administration of justice.

BLANZA & PASION v. ATTY. ARCANGEL (A.C. No. 492, September 5, 1967)
FACTS: Atty. Agustin Arcangel, respondent, volunteered to help Olegaria Blanza and Maria
Passion, complainants, in their respective pension claims in connection with the deaths of their
husbands, both P.C. soldiers, and for this purpose, they handed over to him the pertinent
documents and also affixed their signatures on blank papers. But subsequently, they noticed
that since then, respondent had lost interest in the progress of their claims and refused to
surrender the papers when asked by the complainants six years later. Complainants, now,
ask the Court to take disciplinary action against respondent for professional non-feasance.
Respondent, on the other hand, admitted having received the documents from complainants
but explained that it was for photo-stating purposes only. He alleged that his failure to return
it was due to the complainants’ refusal to hand him the money to pay for the photo-stating
costs. Respondent contends that he was not obliged to follow up complainants’ pension since
there was no agreement for his compensation as their counsel.
ISSUE: Whether respondent is bound to observe the same standard of conduct governing his
relations with his paying clients when he voluntarily offered his services according to Rule
14.04 of Canon 14 of CPR.
HELD: If a lawyer volunteers his services to a client, and therefore not entitled to attorney’s
fees, nevertheless, he is bound to attend to a client’s case with all due diligence and zeal. By
volunteering his services, he has established a client-lawyer relationship. A lawyer has a more
dynamic and positive role in the community than merely complying with the minimal
technicalities of the statute. As a man of law, he is necessarily a leader of the community,
looked up to as a model citizen. His conduct must, perforce, be par excellence, especially so
when, as in this case, he volunteers his professional services. Despite the dismissal of the
charges against the respondent because complainants themselves are partly to blame for the
delay in filing their respective claims for their failure to cooperate and pay for the Photostat
services, the respondent has failed to live up to the ideal standard. It was unnecessary to have
complainants wait, and hope, for six long years on their pension claims. Upon their refusal to
co-operate, respondent should have forthwith terminated their professional relationship
instead of keeping them hanging in definitely. Accordingly, the case against respondent is
dismissed.