LegalEthicsUpdates (Bar2009)

LEGAL ETHICS
HIGHLIGHTS AND UPDATES (2009)
RENE B. GOROSPE
Lex Bar Review (Cebu)
A. LAWYERS AND SOCIETY

1. Integrity of the Legal Profession a. Samala v. Palaa, 456 SCRA 100 (2005) A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity of the legal profession. Where he makes representations that cause material damage to another, he fails to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and lessens the confidence of the public in the honesty and integrity of the same. b. Olbes v. Deciembre, 457 SCRA 341 (2005) By taking the lawyers oath, an attorney becomes a guardian of truth and the rule of law, and an indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice. Good moral character includes at least common honesty. Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable practices that are disgraceful and dishonorable, they reveal a basic moral flaw. c. Cham v. Pizarro, 467 SCRA 1 (2005) The misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity and good demeanor to thus render him unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law confer upon him, may be sanctioned with disbarment or suspension. d. Gacias v. Balauitan, 507 SCRA 8 (2006) When the Code or the Rules speaks of conduct or misconduct, the reference is not confined to ones behavior exhibited in connection with the performance of the lawyers professional duties, but also covers any misconduct which, albeit unrelated to the actual practice of his profession, would show him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the law invest in him. A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him wanting in honesty, probity or good demeanor. e. Hernandez v. Go, 450 SCRA 1 (2005) A lawyer who takes advantage of his clients financial plight to acquire the latters properties for his own benefit is destructive of the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession. Considering the depravity of respondents offense, he deserves the ultimate penalty, that of expulsion from the esteemed brotherhood of lawyers. LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS 2. Respect for the Law a. Dizon v. Lambino, 498 SCRA 233 (2006) (Cebu)
BAR Review 2009
A lawyer is legally justified in advising against the turn over of suspects to an NBI agent where there is no basis for the latter to effect a warrantless arrest.
Atty. Dizon, then Chief of the Special Operations Group (SOG) of the NBI, by persisting in his attempt to arrest the suspected students without a warrant, violated Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides that Leadersshall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws Lawyers Ethical, a lawyers Principled
Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 2 of 44
of the land, and promote the respect for law and legal processes, and that they shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law. b. Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted on the Books of Accounts of Atty. Raquel G. Kho, Clerk of Court IV, Regional Trial Court, Oras, Eastern Samar, 521 SCRA 25 (2007) A clerk of courts failure to remit judiciary funds for over a year, an omission contrary to the mandatory provisions of OCA Circular 8A-93, is a breach of his oath to obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities, and of his duties under Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It is no accident that Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 are the first edicts laid down in the Code of Professional Responsibility for these are a lawyers foremost duties. Lawyers should always keep in mind that, although upholding the Constitution and obeying the law is an obligation imposed on every citizen, a lawyers responsibilities under Canon 1 mean more than just staying out of trouble with the law. As servants of the law and officers of the court, lawyers are required to be at the forefront of observing and maintaining the rule of law, making themselves exemplars worthy of emulation. This, in fact, is what a lawyers obligation to promote respect for law and legal processes entails. The least a lawyer can do in compliance with Canon 1 is to refrain from engaging in unlawful conduct. By definition, any act or omission contrary to law is unlawful. It does not necessarily imply the element of criminality although it is broad enough to include it. The presence of evil intent on the part of the lawyer is not essential in order to bring his act or omission within the terms of Rule 1.01.
3. Lawyers and Barangay Conciliation a. Magno v. Velasco-Jacoba, 475 SCRA 584 (2005) There can be no quibbling that laymen of goodwill can easily agree to conciliate and settle their disputes between themselves without what sometimes is the unsettling assistance of lawyers whose presence could sometimes obfuscate and confuse issues. Worse still, the participation of lawyers with their penchant to use their analytical skills and legal knowledge tend to prolong instead of expedite settlement of the case.
4. Immorality a. Macarrubo v. Macarrubo, 424 SCRA 42 (2004) The act of a lawyer of only giving intermittent support to his children with his wife after having abandoned them undermines the institutions of marriage and family, institutions that society looks to for the rearing of children, for the development of values essential to the survival and well-being of communities, and for the strengthening of the nation as a whole. As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be perceived to be of good moral character and must lead a life in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of aEVIEWSof the bar to continue as such, including that which LEX R member AND SEMINARS makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage, outrages the generally accepted moral BAR Review 2009 standards of the community. (Cebu) b. Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro, 422 SCRA 527 (2004) A lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another he is expected to be competent, honorable and reliable at all times since he who cannot apply and abide by the laws in his private affairs can hardly be expected to do so in his professional dealings nor lead others in doing so. Disbarment proceedings are warranted against a lawyer who abandons his lawful wife and maintains anLawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled illicit relationship with another woman.
c. Dantes v. Dantes, 438 SCRA 582 (2004) As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. Moral delinquency which affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such, includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community as exemplified by behavior which makes a mockery of the inviolable social institution of marriage. Members of the Bar and officers of the court are not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or keeping mistresses but must also so behave as to avoid scandalizing the public by creating the belief that they are flouting those moral standards. If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. The requirement of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning. Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain their good standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity. They may be suspended from the practice of law or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to their private activities, as long as it shows them to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. Undoubtedly, a lawyers acts of engaging in illicit relationships with two different women during the subsistence of his marriage to the complainant constitutes grossly immoral conduct warranting the imposition appropriate sanctions. Evidently, respondent had breached the high and exacting moral standards set for members of the law profession. He has made a mockery of marriage which is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity. d. Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, 438 SCRA 306 (2004) and 462 SCRA 310 (2005) The act of a lawyer of marrying another while he still has a subsisting marriage constitutes grossly immoral conduct, a ground for disbarment. The law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of standards among its members. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Thus, not only his professional activities but even his private life, insofar as the latter may reflect unfavorably upon the good name and prestige of the profession and the courts, may at any time be the subject of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities. Professional competency alone does not make a lawyer a worthy member of the Bar. Good moral character is always an indispensable requirement. A lawyer may have indeed provided well for his children but this accomplishment is not sufficient to show his moral fitness to continue being a member of the noble profession of law he must not forget that he has also duties to his wife, including the obligation to live with her, to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and to render help and support. e. Zaguirre v. Castillo, 398 SCRA 658 (2003) and 465 SCRA 520 (2005) LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS Siring a child with a woman other than his wife is a conduct way below the standards of morality BAR Review 2009 required of every lawyer. The attempt of a lawyer to renege on his notarized statement recognizing and undertaking to support his child demonstrate a certain unscrupulousness on his party which is highly (Cebu) censurable, unbecoming a member of a noble profession, tantamount to self-stultification. An applicant for admission to membership in the bar must show that he is possessed of good moral character, a requirement which is not dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar admission to the bar does not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint, into any question concerning his mental or moral fitness before he became a lawyer. Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
On Motion for Reconsideration: In view of respondents show of repentance and active service to the community, the Court deemed it just and reasonable to convert the penalty of indefinite suspension to a definite period of two years suspension. f. Vitug v. Rongcal, 501 SCRA 166 (2006) One of the conditions prior to admission to the bar is that an applicant must possess good moral character. Said requirement persists as a continuing condition for the enjoyment of the privilege of law practice, otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the revocation of such privilege. As officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. To justify suspension or disbarment the act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. While it is has been held in disbarment cases that the mere fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior, it is not so with respect to betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Even if not all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under penal law, sexual relations outside marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral as it manifests deliberate disregard of the sanctity of marriage and the marital vows protected by the Constitution and affirmed by our laws. g. Advincula v. Macabata, 517 SCRA 600 (2007) Perhaps morality in our liberal society today is a far cry from what it used to be. This permissiveness notwithstanding, lawyers, as keepers of public faith, are burdened with a high degree of social responsibility and, hence, must handle their personal affairs with greater caution. It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an inflexible standard as to what is grossly immoral conduct or to specify the moral delinquency and obliquity which render a lawyer unworthy of continuing as a member of the bar. The rule implies that what appears to be unconventional behavior to the straight-laced may not be the immoral conduct that warrants disbarment. Acts of kissing or beso-beso on the cheeks as mere gestures of friendship and camaraderie, forms of greetings, casual and customary. However, the acts of respondent, though, in turning the head of complainant towards him and kissing her on the lips are distasteful. Nevertheless, such act, even if considered offensive and undesirable, cannot be considered grossly immoral. Finally, complainants bare allegations that respondent made use and took advantage of his position as a lawyer to lure her to agree to have sexual relations with him deserves no credit complainant miserably failed to comply with the burden of proof required of her. h. St. Louis University Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) Faculty and Staff v. Dela Cruz, 499 SCRA 614 (2006) The practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess the qualifications required by law for the conferment of such privilege. Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer has the privilege and right to practice law only during good behavior, and he can be deprived of it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS court after opportunity to be heard has BAR ReviewWithout invading any constitutional privilege been afforded him. 2009 or right, an attorneys right to practice law may be resolved by a proceeding to suspend, based on conduct rendering him unfit to hold a license or to exercise the duties and responsibilities of an attorney. (Cebu) It must be understood that the purpose of suspending or disbarring him as an attorney is to remove from the profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities belonging to an office of attorney and, thus, to protect the public and those charged with the administration of justice, rather than to punish an attorney.
The law profession does not prescribe a dichotomy of standards among its members. There is no distinction as to whether the transgression is committed in the lawyers professional capacity or in his Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
private life. This is because a lawyer may not divide his personality so as to be an attorney at one time and a mere citizen at another. Thus, not only his professional activities but even his private life, insofar as the latter may reflect unfavorably upon the good name and prestige of the profession and the courts, may at any time be the subject of inquiry on the part of the proper authorities. Membership in the bar may be terminated when a lawyer ceases to have good moral conduct. i. Guevarra v. Eala, 529 SCRA 1 (2007) Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which provides the grounds for disbarment or suspension uses the phrase grossly immoral conduct, not under scandalous circumstances. In a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is not his wife, it is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly. A lawyer, in carrying on an extra-marital affair with a married woman prior to the judicial declaration that her marriage was null and void, and despite such lawyer himself being married, showed disrespect for an institution held sacred by the law he betrayed his unfitness to be a lawyer. 5. Moral Turpitude a. Orbe v. Adaza, 428 SCRA 567 (2004) A lawyers issuance of worthless checks and his contumacious refusal to comply with his just obligation for nearly eight years is appalling and hardly deserves compassion from the Court. b. Moreno v. Araneta, 457 SCRA 329 (2005) Issuance of worthless checks constitutes gross misconduct, as the effect transcends the private interests of the parties directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. The act of a lawyer in issuing a check knowing at the time of the issuance that he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment, is a manifestation of moral turpitude. c. Soriano v. Dizon, 480 SCRA 1 (2006) By conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude, a lawyer is deemed to have become unfit to uphold the administration of justice and to be no longer possessed of good moral character. Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude may relate, not to the exercise of the profession of lawyers, but certainly to their good moral character. Where their misconduct outside of their professional dealings is so gross as to show them morally unfit for their office and unworthy of the privileges conferred upon them by their license and the law, the court may be justified in suspending or removing them from that office. Respondent seriously transgressed Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility through his illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm and his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities. He has thus brazenly violated the law and disobeyed the lawful orders of the courts. Good moral character is an essentialEVIEWS AND SEMINARSto enter into the practice of law. LEX R qualification for the privilege It includes at least common honesty.BAR Review 2009 displayed dishonest and duplicitous Respondent consistently behavior. Lawyers must be ministers of truth. No moral qualification for bar membership is more important than truthfulness. The rigorous ethics of the profession places a premium on honesty and (Cebu) condemns duplicitous behavior. Hence, lawyers must not mislead the court or allow it to be misled by any artifice. In all their dealings, they are expected to act in good faith. In sum, when lawyers are convicted of frustrated homicide, the attending circumstances not the mere fact of their conviction would demonstrate their fitness to remain in the legal profession. In the present case, the appalling vindictiveness, treachery, and brazen dishonesty of respondent clearly show his unworthiness to continueLawyers Ethical, bar. as a member of the Leaders Principled
d. Gonzalez v. Alcaraz, 503 SCRA 355 (2006) A lawyers brash transgression of any, especially a penal, law is repulsive and reprehensible and cannot be countenanced by this Court. As a lawyer, respondent should know that the following three requisites must concur to justify self-defense. The alleged throwing of coins by complainant cannot be considered a sufficient unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent threat to life and limb. There was no aggression to prevent or repel. Absent this imminent threat, respondent had no legal reason to shoot in the direction of complainant. Well-established is the rule that administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. These cases are distinct from and proceed independently of civil and criminal cases. Settled is the rule that, being based on a different quantum of proof, the dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence does not necessarily foreclose the finding of guilt in an administrative proceeding. Whether in their professional or in their private capacity, lawyers may be disbarred or suspended for misconduct. This penalty is a consequence of acts showing their unworthiness as officers of the courts; as well as their lack of moral character, honesty, probity, and good demeanor. When the misconduct committed outside of their professional dealings is so gross as to show them to be morally unfit for the office and the privileges conferred upon them by their license and the law, they may be suspended or disbarred.
6. Deceitful Conduct a. Cham v. Paita-Moya, SCRA (A.C. No. 7494, 27 June 2008) A lawyer who has incurred just debts has the moral duty and legal responsibility to settle them when they become due. She should comply with just contractual obligations, and act fairly and adhere to high ethical standards to preserve the courts integrity, since she is an employee thereof. Deliberate failure to pay just debts and the issuance of worthless checks constitute gross misconduct. A lawyer-lessees act of abandoning a leased apartment unit to avoid her obligations for the rent and electricity bills constitutes deceitful conduct. And, her defense that she does not know where to find the lessor or his office is specious and does not inspire belief where she had been occupying the apartment unit and paying the rents due (except for the period complained of) for almost two years. This is only a desperate attempt to justify what is clearly an unjustifiable act. Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. Verily, lawyers must at all times faithfully perform their duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and to their clients. As part of those duties, they must promptly pay their financial obligations. b. Manaois v. Deciembre, SCRA (Adm. Case EMINARS August 2008) LEX REVIEWS AND S No. 5364, 20 [C]omplainant had supplied respondent with blank personal checks as security for the P20,000 loan she had contracted and which respondent subsequently deceitfully filled out with various amounts they (Cebu) had not agreed upon and with full knowledge that the loan had already been paid. After the filled-out checks had been dishonored upon presentment, respondent even imprudently filed multiple lawsuits against complainant. Verily, respondent is guilty of serious dishonesty and professional misconduct. He committed an act indicative of moral depravity not expected from and highly unbecoming of a member
BAR Review 2009
Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
of the Bar.1 The fact that the conduct pertained to respondents private dealings with complainant is of no moment. A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any misconduct, even if it pertains to his private activities, as long as it shows him to be wanting in moral character, honesty, probity or good demeanor. Possession of good moral character is not only a good condition precedent to the practice of law, but also a continuing qualification for all members of the Bar.]
B. LAWYERS AND THE COURTS

1. Courts, Criticism and Contempt a. Re: Letter Dated 21 February 2005 of Atty. Noel S. Sorreda, 464 SCRA 32 (2005) and 501 SCRA 36 9 (2006) Unfounded accusations or allegations or words tending to embarrass the court or to bring it into disrepute have no place in a pleading; If a pleading containing derogatory, offensive and malicious statements is submitted in the same court or judge in which the proceedings are pending, it is direct contempt, equivalent as it is to a misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or judge as to interrupt the administration of justice. A lawyer is entitled to voice his criticism within the context of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech which must be exercised responsibly every right carries with it the corresponding obligation. Freedom is not freedom from responsibility, but freedom with responsibility. While a lawyer, as a citizen and as an officer of the court, is entitled to criticize the rulings of the Supreme Court, this does not give him the unbridled license to insult and malign the Court and bring it into disrepute. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascription can hardly be justified nor can it have a place in the dignity of judicial forum. Free expression, after all, must not be used as a vehicle to satisfy ones irrational obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even destroy the Supreme Court and its magistrates. RESOLUTION OF 11 September 2006 (501 SCRA 369): Atty. Sorreda continued with his old obnoxious ways and, in a virtual repeat of what he said previously but with more venom. He has embarked on another assault against the dignity of the Supreme Court, adding that he has not the slightest intention of apologizing for his misdeeds either now or in the future. Worse still, he even dared the Court to up the penalty of suspension to disbarment. In the expectation that Atty. Sorreda would mend his ways if given another chance, the Supreme Court merely imposed a strong warning. Accompanying the warning, however, was the caveat that any further derogatory remark from him, be it embodied in a letter or pleading, shall warrant an even more severe sanction, of which there is none other than disbarment. In his present MANIFESTATION AND MOTION, he raised a step further the level of his obstinacy and defiance. In a clearly insulting tone reflecting a remorseless and boorish person, he states that he has from the start defied the suspension order meted him by the Court and has continued with his professional practice as a lawyer both in the lower courts and before this Tribunal. The Courts patience has been stretched to the limit by Atty. Sorredas arrogance and disrespect. At the minimum, members of the legal fraternity owe courts of justice respect. By taking the lawyers oath, they become guardians of the law and an indispensable instrument in the orderly and impartial LEX REVIEWS AND S the path which administration of justice. Deliberately veering away from EMINARS a lawyer ought to follow as called for by his oath and his profession cannot be tolerated by the Court as the disciplining authority. BAR Review 2009 Atty. Sorreda has proven himself to be incorrigible. By his demeanor, as demonstrated by his penchant for addressing malicious letters and pleadings to(Cebu) this Court, Atty. Sorreda is unworthy to continue as an officer of the court. b. Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, Former Senior State Prosecutor, 535 SCRA 200 (2007) Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled Olbes v. Deciembre, A.C. No. 5365, 27 April 2005, 457 SCRA 341, 353.
While lawyers are not prevented from being critical of orders and decisions that they may not agree with, they are not that free to malign the judges who issued the same. Worse, they should course their grievance through proper means and fora. So, if instead of questioning the judges acts before the higher courts, they go to the press, then they are in trouble. Here, the respondent lawyer who used to be a Senior State Prosecutor caused the holding of a press conference where he made statements against the order of the judge granting bail to an accused who was charged with murder. Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts who are empowered to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in the bar imposes upon them certain obligations. Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and [he] should insist on similar conduct by others. Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities only. Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he indirectly stated that the trial court judge was displaying judicial arrogance in an article which appeared in a local newspaper, which statements were made while the criminal case was still pending in court. Such circumstance also violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which states that a lawyer shall not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. As for a radio interview, he also violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for not resorting to the proper authorities only for redress of his grievances against the judge. He was also found of violating Canon 11 for his disrespect of the court and its officer when he stated that the judge was ignorant of the law, that as a mahjong aficionado, he was studying mahjong instead of studying the law, and that he was a liar. Further, he also violated the Lawyers Oath, as he has sworn to conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients. And just to make sure that the Court is not misunderstood in meting out penalties on disrespectful criticism, the Court added that it is not against lawyers raising grievances against erring judges but the rules clearly provide for the proper venue and procedure for doing so, precisely because respect for the institution must always be maintained.
2. Baseless Administrative Complaints a. Cruz v. Alio-Hormachuelos, 426 SCRA 573 (2004) Complainant may strongly disagree with the decisions of the respondents but unsubstantiated allegations of grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law serve no purpose other than to harass judges and cast doubt on the integrity of the entire judiciary. As a member of the bar for half a century, complainant should know better than to file an unfounded administrative complaint. Although the Supreme Court will never tolerate or condone any act, conduct or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability or diminish the peoples faith in the judiciary, neither will it hesitate to shield those under itsEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS serve to disrupt rather than L employ from unfounded suits that only promote the orderly administration ofBAR Review 2009 justice. b. Arnado v. Suarin, 467 SCRA 402 (2005) (Cebu) Although no person should be penalized for the exercise of right to litigate, this right must be exercised in good faith. A lawyer who files an unfounded complaint must be sanctioned lawyers have the responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice, and they do not discharge this duty by filing frivolous petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary.
Like the court itself, a lawyer is an instrument to advancePrincipled speedy, efficient, im partial, Lawyers Ethical, Leaders its ends the
correct and inexpensive adjudication of case and prompt satisfaction of final judgments. A lawyer should not use his knowledge of law as an instrument to harass a party nor to misuse judicial processes.
3. Abuse of Court Processes a. Foronda v. Guerrero, 436 SCRA 9 (2004) While a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client, it should not be at the expense of truth and the administration of justice. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer has the duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice, and is enjoined from unduly delaying a case by impeding execution of a judgment or by misusing court processes. Filing of multiple petitions constitutes abuse of the Courts processes and improper conduct that tends to impede, obstruct and degrade the administration of justice and will be punished as contempt of court. Needless to add, the lawyer who files such multiple or repetitious petitions (which obviously delays the execution of a final and executory judgment) subjects himself to disciplinary action for incompetence (for not knowing any better) or for willful violation of his duties as an attorney to act with all good fidelity to the courts, and to maintain only such actions as appear to him to be just and are consistent with truth and honor. Lawyers should not forget that they are, first and foremost, officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Filing multiple petitions before various courts concerning the same subject matter constitutes a violation of Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides that a lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice. He also violated Rule 12.02 and Rule 12.04 of the Code, as well as a lawyers mandate to delay no man for money or malice. b. Aguilar v. Manila Banking Corporation, 502 SCRA 354 (2006) It is an important fundamental principle in the judicial system that every litigation must come to an end. Access to the courts is guaranteed. But there must be a limit thereto. Once a litigants rights have been adjudicated in a valid and final judgment of a competent court, he should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for another try. The prevailing party should not be harassed by subsequent suits. For, if endless litigations were to be encouraged, then unscrupulous litigants will multiply to the detriment of the administration of justice. It is the duty of lawyers who, as officers of the court, must see to it that the orderly administration of justice must not be unduly impeded. It is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman on the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his clients cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his clients propensity to litigate. A lawyers oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his client; its primacy is indisputable. c. V.C. Ponce Company, Inc. v. Reyes, SCRA (G.R. No. 171469, 11 August 2008) [Delays and Counsels Responsibility * Finality of Judgment for Delivery of Titles to Buyers (1991) * Order in 2003 cancelling the mother title of petitioner for obstinate refusal to abide by judgment * A considerable length of time has passed. It is time to end this litigation and write finis to this case. Enough LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS is enough. We remind petitioners counsel,Review 2009 T. Bandong, that she is an officer of BAR Atty. Candice Marie the court who must see to it that the orderly administration of justice must never be unduly impeded, not even by her client. Her oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to her duty to her client; its primacy (Cebu) is indisputable. In this light, we are sternly warning her (or any other counsel who might take over this case) of disciplinary action for any further delay in the execution of the decision of the Pasay City RTC. That TCT No. 97084 has been subdivided into smaller lots and that derivative titles have been issued therefor are of no moment. The fact remains that, for more than 15 years, petitioner has been consistently refusing to surrender its owners duplicate originals of the derivative TCTs, contrary to lawful orders and in evident bad faith. We are therefore ordering the cancellation and nullification of TCT No. 97084 and its derivative titles. LetLawyers Ethical, Leadersissued (a) in the name of the individual new certificates of title be Principled
respondents for the lots covered by their respective fully-paid contracts to sell and (b) in the name of petitioner for those portions not covered by the claims of respondents.
4. Misleading Representations and Citations a. Maligaya v. Doronilla, Jr., 502 SCRA 1 (2006) There is a strong public interest involved in requiring lawyers who, as officers of the court, participate in the dispensation of justice, to behave at all times in a manner consistent with truth and honor. The common caricature that lawyers by and large do not feel compelled to speak the truth and to act honestly should not become a common reality. A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. b. United Overseas Bank Phils. v. Rosemoor Mining & Development Corp., 518 SCRA 123 (2007) Under Section 1, Rule 4, the venue of real actions affecting properties found in different provinces is determined by the singularity or plurality of the transactions involving said parcels of land. Where said parcels are the object of one and the same transaction, the venue is in the court of any of the provinces wherein a parcel of land is situated. While the Bank itself correctly summarized the applicable jurisprudential rule in one of the pleadings before the Court, it, resorting to deliberate misrepresentation, stated in the same pleading that the Bulacan and Nueva Ecija [p]roperties were not the subject of one single real estate mortgage contract, even as there was only one proceeding sought to be nullified and that is the extrajudicial mortgage foreclosure sale. And there is only one initial transaction which served as the basis of the foreclosure sale and that is the mortgage contract. The Bank itself has provided the noose on which it would be hung. This apparent deliberate misrepresentation cannot simply pass without action. The real estate mortgage form supplied to Rosemoor is the Banks standard pre-printed form. Yet the Bank perpetrated the misrepresentation. Blame must be placed on its doorstep. But as the Banks pleading was obviously prepared by its counsel, the latter should also share the blame. A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. Both the Banks president and counsel should be made to explain why they should not be sanctioned for contempt of court. c. Heirs of Enrique Tan, Sr. v. Pollescas, 475 SCRA 203 (2005) For making a wrong citation, the Court admonished counsel to be more careful when citing jurisprudence. He was reminded of his duty not to knowingly misquote the text of a decision or authority lest he be guilty of misleading the Court. d. Serana v. Sandiganbayan, SCRA ( SCRA (G.R. No. 162059, 22 January 2008) As a parting note, petitioners counsel, Renato G. dela Cruz, misrepresented his reference to Section 4 of P.D. No. 1606 as a quotation from Section 4 of R.A. No. 3019. A review of his motion to quash, the instant petition for certiorari and his memorandum, unveils the misquotation. We urge petitioners LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS counsel to observe Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 10.02 of the BAR Review 2009 Rules stating that a lawyer shall not misquote or misrepresent. The Court stressed the importance of this rule in Pangan v. Ramos, where Atty Dionisio D. Ramos used the name Pedro D. D. Ramos in connection with a criminal case. The Court ruled(Cebu) Ramos resorted to deception by using a name that Atty. different from that with which he was authorized. We severely reprimanded Atty. Ramos and warned that a repetition may warrant suspension or disbarment. We admonish petitioners counsel to be more careful and accurate in his citation. A lawyers conduct before the court should be characterized by candor and fairness. The administration of justice would gravely suffer if lawyers do not act with complete candor and honesty before the courts. Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
e. Nepomuceno v. City of Surigao, SCRA (G.R. No. 146091, 28 July 2008) In Silva v. Mationg, 499 SCRA 724 (2006), we find this passage: The Court notes that petitioners counsel relied on several decisions of the Court of Appeals in addition to Supreme Court cases to buttress his arguments. The Court reminds counsel that decisions of the Court of Appeals are neither controlling nor conclusive on the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Court strongly suggests that petitioners counsel be brief and straightforward in drafting pleadings. He should, as much as possible, refrain from quoting lengthily irrelevant portions of Supreme Court decisions. In this particular case of Nepomuceno, the same problem reverberates, as the Court observed: Moreover, petitioners cannot properly insist on the application of the CA decision in Spouses Mamerto Espina, Sr. and Flor Espina v. City of Ormoc. A decision of the CA does not establish judicial precedent. A ruling of the CA on any question of law is not binding on this Court. In fact, the Court may review, modify or reverse any such ruling of the CA.
5. Forgeries, Perjuries, False Testimonies and Inexistent Processes a. Ting-Dumali v. Torres, 427 SCRA 108 (2004) The Lawyers Oath, to which all lawyers have subscribed in solemn agreement to dedicate themselves to the pursuit of justice, is not a mere ceremony or formality for practicing law to be forgotten afterwards, nor is it mere words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that lawyers must uphold and keep inviolable at all times. A lawyer is the servant of the law and belongs to a profession to which society has entrusted the administration of law and the dispensation of justice he should make himself more an exemplar for others to emulate and he should not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. A lawyer, in knowingly offering in evidence a false testimony, may himself be punished as guilty of false testimony. b. Hueysuwan-Florido v. Florido, 420 SCRA 132 (2004) Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Even with due recognition then that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in the defense of a clients cause, it must never be at the expense of the truth. c. Encinas v. National Bookstore, Inc., 464 SCRA 572 (2005) It is insulting to assert a claim before the Supreme Court based on an obvious and incompetent forgery and conceived by one with so primitive a sense of what normative standards would pass judicial muster. The Court cannot accept counsels declarations of good faith and honest mistake since, as a member of the Bar and an officer of the court, he is presumed to know better. He is required to thoroughly prepare himself on the law and facts of his case and the evidence he will adduce. The minimum he could have done was to verify with the appropriate authorities the documents upon which his clients based their claims, and not have relied on his clients assertions. d. Suan v. Gonzalez, 518 SCRA 82 (2007) LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS While every litigant is expected to examine all the documents that he files in court, not every mistake BAR Review 2009 or oversight he commits should be deemed dishonest, deceitful or deliberate so as to mislead the court. A mere assertion of a false, objective fact, a falsehood, is not enough to warrant a finding of perjury (Cebu) the prosecution must prove which of two statements is false and must show the statement to be false by other evidence than the contradicting statement. It is necessary that there must be contradictory statements for perjury to exist.
Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest, undertaken for public welfare and for the purpose of preserving courts of justice from the official ministration of the persons unfit to practice them. The power to disbar must be exercised withLeaders Principledin a clear case of misconduct Lawyers Ethical, great caution and only
which seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and member of the bar. e. Asa v. Castillo, 500 SCRA 309 (2006) Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the courts. Rule 10.01 of said Canon specifically commands that a member of the bar shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Rule 10.02 of the same Canon provides that a member of the bar shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper or assert as a fact that which has not been proved. f. Mangahas v. Court of Appeals, SCRA (G.R. No. 173375, 25 September 2008) Lawyers Unbelievable? * Notarized certification by alleged Asistant Postmaster showing attesting to alleged received on 7 February 2006 for mailing but envelopes bore the notation 8 February * There is a presumption that official duties have been regularly performed. On this basis, we have ruled in previous cases that the Postmasters certification is sufficient evidence of the fact of mailing. This presumption, however, is disputable. In this case, the Affidavit/Certification of the alleged Assistant Postmaster cannot give rise to such a presumption, for not only does it attest to an irregularity in the performance of official duties (i.e., mistake in stamping the date on the registered mail), it is essentially hearsay evidence. Though notarized, we cannot give the affidavits of the Assistant Postmaster and the clerk any probative value, since they were both notarized by a lawyer belonging to the same law firm as petitioners counsel and, as such, are self-serving assertions not corroborated by any other evidence. Considering the interest of his law firm in the case, we cannot rely solely on the jurat of the notary public that the affiants/certifiers are indeed who they say they are. The affiants/certifiers herein claimed to be officers or employees of the Cabanatuan City Post Office, but this Court has no way of ensuring the veracity of such claim. It would have been different had petitioners presented an Official Receipt as evidence of payment of appropriate fees corresponding to the issuance of such certifications by the Assistant Postmaster and the clerk, who certified that the photocopy of the pertinent page of the Registry Book was a faithful reproduction of the original and that she was the one who erroneously made the notation 8 February 2006" on the envelope addressed to the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals. . . . In addition, petitioners could have easily presented the original Registry Receipt No. A-2094. It would have constituted the best evidence of the fact of mailing on 7 February 2006, even if a different date had been stamped on the envelope of the subject registered mail. . . . * Lawyers Ethical: Given the foregoing, we find no reason to reverse the assailed resolutions of the Court of Appeals and disturb its conclusions therein. Petitioners miserably failed to adduce credible and sufficient substantiation that any inadvertence was committed by the Post Office of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija. Instead of supporting their cause, the affidavits submitted by petitioners, taken together with the mere photocopy of Registry Receipt No. A-2094 without the presentation of the original thereof, actually lead this Court to doubt whether petitioners counsel has been sincere in his dealings with the courts. Needless to stress, a lawyer is bound by ethical principles in the conduct of cases before the courts at all times.]
6. Entry of Appearance a. Regalado v. Regalado, 483 SCRA 473AND SEMINARS LEX REVIEWS (2006) The lawyer here was required to explain why he should not be proceeded administratively for filing the Petition for Review on Certiorari and the Petition for Relief from Order in the lower court without (Cebu) first entering his appearance as petitioners counsel or as collaborating counsel of the counsel of record.
BAR Review 2009
7. Haphazard Pleadings a. Heirs of Antonio Bobadilla v. Castillo, 526 SCRA 107 (2007) A note on respondents Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled attitude on the present petition.
This Court observes the perfunctory manner by which respondent complied with this Courts Resolution requiring him to comment on the petition. In his terse comment incorporated in his Compliance, he pithily averred in one sweeping paragraph that the allegations contained in the petition are all rehash or reiterations of the issues and arguments already passed upon by the appellate court. With such lackadaisical outlook, respondent blinded himself with what appeared to be gross misrepresentation foisted by petitioners, which would have otherwise put him on guard. At this juncture, it is apropos to firmly remind lawyers of their duties, as officers of the court, to exercise utmost care and complete candor in the preparation of pleadings and to lay before the court the pertinent facts with methodical and meticulous attention, without any suppression, obscuration, misrepresentation or distortion thereof. b. Social Justice Society v. Atienza, Jr., SCRA (G.R. No. 156052, 13 February 2008) A four-page memorandum that clearly contains neither substance nor research is absolutely insulting to the Supreme Court. As a member of the bar and as an officer of the court, a lawyer ought to be keenly aware that the chief safeguard of the body politic is respect for the law and its magistrates. There is nothing more effective than the written word by which counsel can persuade the Court of the righteousness of his cause. For if truth were self-evident, a memorandum would be completely unnecessary and superfluous.
8. Intemperate Language a. Saberon v. Larong, 551 SCRA 359 (2008) To be sure, the adversarial nature of our legal system has tempted members of the bar to use strong language in pursuit of their duty to advance the interests of their clients. However, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive. In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyers language even in his pleadings must be dignified. The ascription of blackmail in the Answer and Rejoinder filed by respondent is not legitimately related or pertinent to the subject matters of inquiry of the proceedings. It is of no consequence that the allegedly malicious statements of respondent were made not before a court but before the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas or any other quasi-judicial body. Lawyers, though they are allowed a latitude of pertinent remark or comment in the furtherance of the causes they uphold and for the felicity of their clients, should not trench beyond the bounds of relevancy and propriety in making such remark or comment. Utterances, petitions and motions made in the course of judicial proceedings have consistently been considered as absolutely privileged, however false or malicious they may be, but only for so long as they are pertinent and relevant to the subject of inquiry. A mere Notice of Resolution dismissing the administrative complaint fails to comply with the procedural requirement that theLEXBoard of GovernorsSEMINARS state clearly and distinctly the IBP REVIEWS AND decision shall findings of facts or law on which the BAR Review 2009 requirement serves a very important same is based. The above function not just to inform the parties of the reason for the decision as would enable them on appeal to point out and object to the findings with which they are not in agreement, but also to assure the parties (Cebu) that the Board of Governors has reached the judgment through the process of legal reasoning.
C. LAWYERS AND FELLOW LAWYERS

Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled 1. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Officers, Elections and Succession)
a. Velez v. De Vera, 496 SCRA 345 (2006) It cannot be said that the position of EVP of the IBP is property within the constitutional sense especially since there is no right to security of tenure over said position as, in fact, all that is required to remove any member of the board of governors for cause is a resolution adopted by 2/3 of the remaining members of the board. Due process of law in administrative cases is not identical with judicial process for a trial in court is not always essential to due process. While a day in court is a matter of right in judicial proceedings, it is otherwise in administrative proceedings since they rest upon different principles. The due process clause guarantees no particular form of procedure and its requirements are not technical. The constitutional requirement of due process is met by a fair hearing before a regularly established administrative agency or tribunal. It is not essential that hearings be had before the making of a determination if thereafter, there is available trial and tribunal before which all objections and defenses to the making of such determination may be raised and considered. One adequate hearing is all that due process requires. What is required for hearing may differ as the functions of the administrative bodies differ. The right to cross-examine is not an indispensable aspect of due process. Nor is an actual hearing always essential especially under the factual milieu of this case where the members of the IBP Board upon whose shoulders the determination of the cause for removal of an IBP governor is placed subject to the approval of the Supreme Court all witnessed Atty. de Veras actuations in the IBP National Convention in question. Under the rules, a resolution for expulsion of an IBP Governor is done via a resolution adopted by 2/3 of the remaining members. The phrase remaining members refers to the members exclusive of the complainant member and the respondent member. The reason therefore is that such members are interested parties and are thus presumed to be unable to resolve said motion impartially. This being the case, the votes of Attys. Rivera and de Vera should be stricken-off which means that only the votes of the seven remaining members are to be counted. Indubitably, conflicts and disagreements of varying degrees of intensity, if not animosity, are inherent in the internal life of an organization, but especially of the IBP since lawyers are said to disagree before they agree. However, the effectiveness of the IBP, like any other organization, is diluted if the conflicts are brought outside its governing body for then there would be the impression that the IBP, which speaks through the Board of Governors, does not and cannot speak for its members in an authoritative fashion. It would accordingly diminish the IBPs prestige and repute with the lawyers as well as with the general public. As a means of self-preservation, internecine conflicts must thus be adjusted within the governing board itself so as to free it from the stresses that invariably arise when internal cleavages are made public. The doctrine of majority rule is almost universally used as a mechanism for adjusting and resolving conflicts and disagreements within the group after the members have been given an opportunity to be heard. While it does not efface conflicts, nonetheless, once a decision on a contentious matter is reached by a majority vote, the dissenting minority is bound thereby so that the board can speak with one voice, for those elected to the governing board are deemed to implicitly contract that the will of the majority shall govern in matters within the authority of the board. When the IBP Board is not seen by the bar and the public as a cohesive unit, it cannot REVIEWS AND SEMINARS LEX effectively perform its duty of helping the Supreme Court enforce the code of legal ethics and the standards ofReview 2009 BAR legal practice as well as improve the administration of justice. Indeed, when a member of a governing body cannot accept the voice of the majority, he should resign therefrom so that he could criticize in public the majority opinion/decision to his hearts content; (Cebu) otherwise, he subjects himself to disciplinary action by the body. While it is true that the Supreme Court has been granted an extensive power of supervision over the IBP, it is axiomatic that such power should be exercised prudently. The power of supervision of the Supreme Court over the IBP should not preclude the IBP from exercising its reasonable discretion especially in the administration of its internal affairs governed by the provisions of its By-Laws. The actions and resolutions of theLawyers Ethical,to be accorded the disputable presumption of validity, IBP Board deserve Leaders Principled
which shall continue, until and unless it is overcome by substantial evidence and actually declared invalid by the Supreme Court. There is no question that the IBP Board has the authority to remove its members as provided in Article VI, Section 44 of the IBP By-Laws. The removal of Atty. de Vera as member of the Board of Governors ipso facto meant his removal as EVP as well. Thus, to be EVP of the IBP, one must necessarily be a member of IBP Board of Governors. Atty. de Veras removal from the Board of Governors, automatically disqualified him from acting as IBP EVP. Thus there was a resultant vacancy in the position of IBP EVP. Article VI, Section 41(g) of the IBP By-Laws expressly grants to the Board the authority to fill vacancies, however arising, in the IBP positions. The election by the 2003-2005 IBP Board of Governors of a new EVP, who will assume the Presidency for the term 2005-2007, was well within the authority and prerogative granted to the Board by the IBP By-Laws, particularly Article VII, Section 47, which provides that [t]he EVP shall automatically become President for the next succeeding term. The Court cannot give credence to the argument of Atty. De Vera that, assuming his removal as IBP Governor and EVP was valid, his replacement as IBP EVP should come from Eastern Mindanao Region pursuant to the rotation rule set forth in Article VII, Section 47, of the IBP By-Laws. It is clear that it is the position of IBP EVP which is actually rotated among the nine Regional Governors. The rotation with respect to the Presidency is merely a result of the automatic succession rule of the IBP EVP to the Presidency. In the case at bar, the rotation rule was duly complied with since upon the election of Atty. De Vera as IBP EVP, each of the nine IBP regions had already produced an EVP and, thus, the rotation was completed. It is only unfortunate that the supervening event of Atty. de Veras removal as IBP Governor and EVP rendered it impossible for him to assume the IBP Presidency. The automatic succession rule affords the IBP leadership transition seamless and enables the new IBP National President to attend to pressing and urgent matters without having to expend valuable time for the usual adjustment and leadership consolidation period. The time that an IBP EVP spends assisting a sitting IBP President on matters national in scope is in fact a valuable and indispensable preparation for the eventual succession. It will also be inconsistent with the purpose and spirit of the automatic succession rule if the EVP for the term 2003-2005 will be elected exclusively by the members of the House of Delegates of the Eastern Mindanao region.
2. Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Membership Dues) a. Letter of Atty. Cecilo Y. Arevalo, Jr., Requesting Exemption from Payment of IBP Dues, 458 SCRA 209 (2005) The payment of dues is a necessary consequence of membership in the IBP, of which no one is exempt the compulsory nature of payment of dues subsists for as long as ones membership in the IBP remains, regardless of the lack of practice of, or the type of practice, the member is engaged in.
3. Relationship With Fellow Lawyers a. Torres v. Javier, 470 SCRA 408 (2005) LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS That a lawyer may have conducted himself improperly is not a justification for another lawyer BAR Review 2009 to be relieved from observing professional conduct in his relations with the former. Clients, not lawyers, are the litigants, so whatsoever may be the ill-feeling existing between clients should not be allowed to (Cebu) influence counsel in their conduct toward each other or toward suitors in the case. The spectacle presented by two members of the bar engaged in bickering and recrimination is far from edifying, and detract from dignity of the legal profession. In keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyers language must be dignified and choice of language is important in preparation of pleadings. Arguments in pleadings should be gracious to both Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
court and opposing counsel and be such of words as may be properly addressed by one gentleman to another. b. Asa v. Castillo, 500 SCRA 309 (2006) Mutual bickerings and unjustified recriminations between brother attorneys detract from the dignity of the legal profession and will not receive any sympathy from this Court. Personal colloquies between counsels which promote unseemly wrangling should thus be carefully avoided.
4. Aiding in the Unauthorized Practice of Law a. Plus Builiders, Inc. v. Revilla, Jr. , 501 SCRA 615 (2006) The significance of professional norm that a lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education and character. The permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client, and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his name to be used in aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate. And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law.
D. LAWYERS AND CLIENTS

1. Relationships with and Responsibility to the Client a. Abiero v. Juanino, 452 SCRA 1 (2005) The lawyer has the duty to exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the case entrusted to him and to exercise reasonable and ordinary care and diligence in the pursuit or defense of the case. Failure to appeal to the Court of Appeals despite instructions by the client to do so constitutes inexcusable negligence on the part of counsel. Canon 18, Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires a lawyer to keep his client informed of the status of his case and respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information. b. Canoy v. Ortiz, 453 SCRA 410 (2005) Once a lawyer agrees to take up the cause of a client, a lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever present the need for the client to be adequately and fully informed of the LEX REVIEWS AND Sas to the mode developments of the case and should not be left in the dark EMINARS and manner in which his/her interests are being defended. BAR Review 2009 That the case was dismissed without prejudice, thus allowing the complainant to refile the case, (Cebu) hardly serves to mitigate the liability of his counsel, as the failure to file the position paper is per se a violation of Rule 18.03. And, the Court is not mollified by the circumstance of respondent-lawyers election as a City Councilor, as his adoption of these additional duties does not exonerate him of his negligent behavior.
It is not enough to say that all pauper litigants should be assured of legal representation they Lawyers deserve quality representation as well. Ethical, Leaders Principled
c. Macarilay v. Seria, 458 SCRA 12 (2005) The legal profession demands vigilance and attention expected of a good father of a family lawyers should adopt the norm expected of people of good intentions. The lawyer-client relationship, being one of confidence, requires lawyers to give the client timely, adequate and truthful updates on the developments of the case. Where a client gives money to the lawyer for a specific purpose such as to file an action or to appeal an adverse judgment the latter should, upon failure to do so, immediately return it to the former. d. Reyes v. Vitan, 456 SCRA 87 (2005) The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling a clients case and subsequently failing to render such services is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility e. Espiritu v. Ulep, 458 SCRA 1 (2005) The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates every lawyer to hold in trust all money and properties of his client that may come into his possession. A lawyers failure to return upon demand the funds or property held by him on behalf of his client gives rise to the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use to the prejudice of, and in violation of the trust reposed in him by, his client. f. Reyes v. Vitan, 456 SCRA 87 (2005) The act of receiving money as acceptance fee for legal services in handling a clients case and subsequently failing to render such services is a clear violation of Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. g. Adrimisin v. Javier, 501 SCRA 192 (2006) Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates every lawyer to hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his possession. Consequently, a lawyer should account for the money received from a client. The Rule 18.03 of Canon 18 of the Code also enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. By his receipt of the amount, respondent agreed to take up complainants cause and owed fidelity to complainant and her cause, even if complainant never paid any fee. Lawyering is not a business. It is a profession in which duty to public service, not money, is the primary consideration. In failing to immediately secure the bail bond it took 8 days before the bail bond was prepared respondent clearly neglected to exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill required by the circumstances. LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS A lawyers failure to return upon demand Review 2009 on behalf of his client gives rise to BAR the funds held by him the presumption that he has appropriated the same for his own use in violation of the trust reposed in him by his client. Such act is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics. It impairs (Cebu) public confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment. Lawyers who convert the funds entrusted to them are in gross violation of professional ethics and are guilty of betrayal of public confidence in the legal profession. Those who are guilty of such infraction may be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law. h. Solatan v. Inocentes, 466 SCRA 1 (2005) Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
An attorney has no power to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without being retained to establish the professional relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney are sought and received in any manner pertinent to his profession An attorney giving advice to a party with an interest conflicting with that of his client resulting in detriment to the latter may be held guilty of disloyalty. Where the statement of a lawyer to his clients adversary is in consonance with such lawyers foremost duty to uphold the law as an officer of the court, that statement in such a context should not be construed as giving advice in conflict against the interests of his client. i. FIL-GARCIA, INC. v. HERNANDEZ, SCRA (A.C. No. 7129, 16 July 2008) {Puno, C.J.} [FIRST DIVISION] [Client Uninformed * Complaint for recovery of money (construction contract) through Atty. Ligsay * RTC judgment in favor of complainant reversed by CA * MR filed through respondent (Atty. Hernandez) * CA Denial received 8 May 2001, due 23 May * Instead of filing an appeal within the reglementary period, respondent filed three (3) successive motions for extension of time 1st one, he alleged that he was engaged as counsel by a mayoralty candidate and a senatorial candidate which required his presence in the canvassing of votes (request for 30 day extension) ... 2nd extension, alleging that he fell ill (request for 20 days) ... 3rd extension, allegation that [he] severely underestimated the time needed to complete the petition because he had to work on other equally urgent legal matters, which were unattended to during his illness. (Prayer for 10 days) * 6 August: Receipt of Courts Resolution denying 1st motion for extension for failure to show that it has not lost the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period within which to appeal in view of the lack of statement of material dates * MR re 6 August Resolution * 20 August Resolution denying 2nd and 3rd motions for extension of time * Another MR re 20 August Resolution * MR Denied, together with Petition that was already filed * DELAYED ADVICE TO CLIENT: As admitted by respondent, he received a copy of the Courts resolution dated October 1, 2001 denying complainants appeal on November 15, 2001. However, respondent forwarded a copy of the same to complainants office only on June 16, 2002. (7 months) * Complaint for Disbarment (3 extensions and wrong choice of mode of appeal), and delayed advice * Lastly, respondent admits that he failed to immediately inform complainant of the development of the case. However, the said omission was not deliberate nor prompted by malice or intent to injure the complainant but was brought about by the sudden unexpected technicalities that besieged the appeal of the case to the Supreme Court which caused him dismay and made it hard for him to inform complainant of the same. * NEGLIGENCE: Respondents conduct relative to the belated filing of complainants petition for review on certiorari falls short of his obligation to serve his client with competence and diligence under Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondents act of filing three (3) successive motions for extension of time to file the petition on the careless assumption that each motion will be granted by the Court, and without taking care of informing himself of the Courts action thereon, constitutes inexcusable negligence. Moreover, respondent knowingly referred to Rule 65 in the petition he belatedly filed as an afterthought in his desperate attempt to salvage the appeal. Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins a lawyer not to neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. Every case a lawyer accepts deserves his full attention, skill and competence, regardless of its importance and whether he accepts it for a fee or for free. He must constantly keep in mind that his actions or omissions or nonfeasance LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS would be binding upon his client. BARhe is expected to be acquainted with the rudiments of law Thus, Review 2009 and legal procedure, and a client who deals with him has the right to expect not just a good amount of professional learning and competence but also a whole-hearted fealty to the clients cause. (Cebu) While pressure of work or some other unavoidable reasons may constrain a lawyer to file a motion for extension of time to file pleadings, he should not presume that his motion for extension of time will be granted. Well-settled is the rule that motions for extension of time to file a pleading are not granted as a matter of course but lie in the sound discretion of the court. It is thus incumbent on any movant for extension to exercise due diligence to inform himself as soon as possible of the Court's action on his motion, by timely inquiry from the Clerk of Court. Should he neglect to do so, he runs the risk of time running out on him, for which he will have nobody but himself to blame. * OTHER Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
ENGAGEMENTS AND INFORMATION TO CLIENT: As noted by Commissioner San Juan, respondent alleged in his answer that he anticipated that he could not file the petition within the reglementary period due to his prior commitments for the municipal canvassing of votes of a mayoralty candidate. However, this fact was not called to the attention of the complainant. In doing so, complainant could have engaged the services of another lawyer who can file the petition in time. A lawyer who finds it impracticable to continue representing a client should inform the latter of his predicament and ask that he be allowed to withdraw from the case to enable the client to engage the services of another counsel who can study the situation and work out a solution. * To make matters worse, it took respondent seven (7) months from the time he received a copy of the Courts resolution denying complainants petition to inform complainant of the same. Under Rule 18.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, a lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information. * SUSPENDED FOR SIX (6) MONTHS] 2. Client Confidences and Privileged Communications a. Mercado v. Vitriolo, 459 SCRA 1 (2005) In engaging the services of an attorney, the client reposes on him special powers of trust and confidence, a relationship that is strictly personal and highly confidential and fiduciary. Abstinence from seeking legal advice in a good cause is an evil which is fatal to the administration of justice. It is glory of the legal profession that its fidelity to its client can be depended on, and that a man may safely go to a lawyer and converse with him upon his rights or supposed rights in any litigation with absolute assurance that the lawyers tongue is tied from ever disclosing it. Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a lawyer are protected by the rule on privileged communication even if the prospective client does not thereafter retain the lawyer or the latter declines the employment. However, the mere relation of attorney and client does not raise a presumption of confidentiality the client must intend the communication to be confidential. b. Hadjula v. Madianda, 526 SCRA 241 (2007) The moment the complainant approached the respondent lawyer to seek legal advice, a veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved between the two. Such relationship imposed upon the lawyer certain restrictions circumscribed by the ethics of the profession. Among the burdens of the relationship is that which enjoins the lawyer to keep inviolate confidential information acquired or revealed during legal consultations. The fact that one is, at the end of the day, not inclined to handle the clients case is hardly of consequence. Of little moment, too, is the fact that no formal professional engagement followed the consultation. Nor will it make any difference that no contract whatsoever was executed by the parties to memorialize the relationship. The purpose of the rule of confidentiality is actually to protect the client from possible breach of confidence as a result of a consultation with a lawyer. 3. Negligence of Counsel a. Pineda v. Macapagal, 476 SCRA 292 (2005) Public interest demands that an attorney exert his best efforts and ability to preserve his clients cause, for the unwavering loyaltyEX REVIEWS AND likewise serves the ends of justice. Failure of L displayed to his client SEMINARS a lawyer to file an appeal brief certainly constitutes inexcusable negligence on his part. Failure of a BAR Review 2009 lawyer to inform his client of the status of the cases shows failure to exercise such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and exercise in such matters of professional (Cebu) employment. While it is the duty of a lawyer to encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement, the same must be done in a manner that will not cause prejudice to the other party. In this case, respondents failure to attend several hearings on the pretext that he was exploring the possibility of amicable settlement between the contending parties, resulted in the dismissal of complainants suit. Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
b. Grand Placement and General Services Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 481 SCRA 189 (2006) It is the duty of a lawyer to pay heed to the urgency and importance of registered letter sent by the court. Until his dismissal or withdrawal is made of record in court, any judicial notice sent to a counsel of record is binding upon his client even though as between them the professional relationship may have been terminated. A notice to a lawyer who appears to have been unconscionably irresponsible cannot be considered as a notice to his client. c. Anastacio-Briones v. Zapanta, 507 SCRA 1(2006) Until a lawyers withdrawal shall have been approved, he remains counsel of record and is expected by his client as well as by the court to do what the interests of his client require. He must still appear on the date of hearing for the attorney-client relation does not terminate formally until there is a withdrawal of his appearance on record. Until his dismissal or withdrawal is made of record, any judicial notice sent to the lawyer was binding upon his client though as between them the professional relationship may have been terminated. d. Crisostomo v. Sandiganbayan, 456 SCRA 45 (2005) Where the counsels negligence is so gross, it should not prejudice the accuseds right to be heard, especially in a case where the imposable penalty may be death. e. Adecer v. Akut, 489 SCRA 1 (2006) The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. He shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation. Nor shall he neglect a legal matter entrusted to him; his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable. The Court noted that in this age of cellular phones, long distance telephone accessibility, and even overnight mail delivery, it is highly unlikely that respondent would not be able to attend to his clients needs were he so inclined. While the Court commiserated with respondent for the loss of his wife, and appreciated fully that during the period of a mans existence when the sense of mortality and loss is most closely felt more than ever, it would appear that no responsibility is more important than tending to loved ones. Nevertheless, such is the lawyers charge that no personal consideration should stand in the way of performing a legal duty. In these situations, it is only fair that a lawyer should lighten his case load lest he prejudice his clients cases. Litigants entrust their properties, liberties, and even lives, in the hands of their lawyers, who must protect these values with utmost zeal and vigilance. The lawyer should serve his client in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner and he should provide a quality of services at least equal to that which lawyers generally would expect of a competent lawyer in the like situation. By agreeing to be his clients counsel, he represents that he will exercise ordinary diligence or that reasonable degree of care and skill having reference to the character of the business he undertakes to do, to protect the clients interests and take all stepsEXdo all acts necessary therefor, and his client may reasonably expect L or REVIEWS AND SEMINARS him to discharge his obligations diligently.
BAR Review 2009
4. Pangasinan Electric Cooperative I (PANELCO I) v. Montemayor, 533 SCRA 1 (2007) (Cebu) While it is settled that the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution. Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar will disbarment be imposed as a penalty, the case of respondent lawyer however is different. He is guilty not only of his unjustified failure to file the appellants brief of his client not only once but twice. Moreover the Court notes with dismay the huge losses suffered by complainant in the total amount of sixteen million pesos (PPrincipled The respondent lawyer also Lawyers Ethical, Leaders=16,000,000).
demonstrated an utter lack of regard for the very serious charges against him and a gross disrespect for the Court when he failed to file his comment after being required to file his response to the said charges. Respondent could have presented sufficient justification for his inability to file the appellants briefs but failed to do so. In view of the forgoing circumstances, he does not deserve anymore to remain as an active member of the legal profession. The breaches of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the palpable sloth and irresponsibility he has demonstrated in handling the cases of his client undeniably reveal that he has become more of a liability than an asset to the legal profession. He cannot be entrusted anymore with the sacred duty and responsibility to protect the interests of any prospective client. If he is then allowed to resume his law practice after suspension, this will surely subvert the ends of justice, dishonor the bar, and lose the respect of society for the profession of law. The Court will not allow such affront to pass.
5. Misguided Zeal and Devotion a. Heirs of the Late Herman Rey Romero v. Reyes, Jr., 461 SCRA 1 (2005) Lawyers are indispensable instruments of justice and peace. As officers of the court, lawyers are expected to act with complete candor in all their dealings, they may not resort to the use of deception and the pretensions of wolves. While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client, full devotion to his genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, he must do so only within the bounds of the law. Deception and other forms of moral flaw will never be countenanced by the Supreme Court. b. Plus Builders, Inc. v. Revilla, Jr., 501 SCRA 615 (2006) Lawyers are officers of the court, called upon to assist in the administration of justice. They act as vanguards of our legal system, protecting and upholding truth and the rule of law. They are expected to act with honesty in all their dealings, especially with the courts. Verily, the Code of Professional Responsibility enjoins lawyers from committing or consenting to any falsehood in court or from allowing the courts to be misled by any artifice. Moreover, they are obliged to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. Good faith, fairness and candor constitute the essence of membership in the legal profession. Thus, while lawyers owe fidelity to the cause of their client, they must never abuse their right of recourse to the courts by arguing a case that has repeatedly been rejected. Neither should they use their knowledge of the law as an instrument to harass a party or to misuse judicial processes. These acts constitute serious transgression of their professional oath. In support of the cause of their clients, lawyers have the duty to present every remedy or defense within the authority of the law. This obligation, however, must never be at the expense of truth and justice. While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client, full devotion to his genuine interest, and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost learning and ability, he must do so only within the bounds of the law. He must give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and probable results of his clients case with the end in view of promoting respect LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS for the law and legal processes, and counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to BAR Review 2009 him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law. He must always remind himself of the oath he took upon admission to the Bar that he will not wittingly or (Cebu) willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same; and that he will conduct himself as a lawyer according to the best of his knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to his clients. Needless to state, the lawyers fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and the administration of justice, and it must be done within the bounds of reason and common sense. A lawyers responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client does not warrant a course of action propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions against the other party. Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
c. Sebastian v. Bajar, 532 SCRA 435 (2007) This involves a disbarment complaint against Atty. Emily A. Bajar, a lawyer of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) of the Department of Agrarian Reform for obstructing, disobeying, resisting, and impeding final decisions of Regional Trial Courts, the Court of Appeals and of the Honorable Supreme Court, and also for submitting those final decisions for the review and reversal of the DARAB, an administrative body, and for contemptuous acts and dilatory tactics. After the ejectment suit had been decided against her client, she filed a case for Specific Performance to produce conversion order. She then filed a case for Maintenance of Possession with DARAB. An administrative complaint was filed against her and the same was referred to the IBP. The Supreme Courts directive for her to file Comment and a Rejoinder went unheeded. The IBP Resolution subsequently recommended indefinite suspension, which resolution was noted by the Court, with directive to Court Administrator to circularize IBP resolution suspending Bajar. Claiming that she did not receive the Court Administrator circular, Atty. Bajar continued to practice law as a Prosecutor in Mandaluyong City despite her suspension because she believed that a notation by the Court in the 20 January 1997 Resolution did not mean an implementation of the IBPs Resolution on her indefinite suspension. As culled from the records, the Court had merely noted IBP Resolution No. XII-96-149 which recommended respondents indefinite suspension. The term noted means that the Court has merely taken cognizance of the existence of an act or declaration, without exercising a judicious deliberation or rendering a decision on the matter it does not imply agreement or approval. Hence, the penalty of indefinite suspension imposed by the IBP Board of Governors has not attained finality. Administrative proceedings against lawyers are sui generis and they belong to a class of their own. They are neither civil nor criminal actions but rather investigations by the Court into the conduct of its officer. They involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. A disciplinary action against a lawyer is intended to protect the administration of justice from the misconduct of its officers. Clear preponderant evidence is necessary to justify the imposition of the penalty in disbarment or suspension proceedings. Respondents cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the judicial institution. Respondents conduct indicates a high degree of irresponsibility. A Courts Resolution is not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively. Lawyers are called upon to obey court orders and processes and respondents deference is underscored by the fact that willful disregard thereof will subject the lawyer not only to punishment for contempt but to disciplinary sanctions as well. In fact, graver responsibility is imposed upon a lawyer than any other to uphold the integrity of the courts and to show respect to their processes. Respondents failure to comply with the Courts directive to file a Rejoinder and to file a Comment also constitutes gross misconduct. The procedural requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that only the real party-in-interest must initiate the suit does not apply in disbarment cases. In fact, the person who called the attention of the court to a lawyers misconduct is in no sense a party, and generally has no interest in the outcome. Respondents act of filing cases with identical issues inEMINARS despite the final ruling which LEX REVIEWS AND S other venues was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court is beyond the bounds of the law. To BAR Review 2009 permit lawyers to resort to unscrupulous practices for the protection of the supposed rights of their clients is to defeat one of the purposes of the state the administration of justice. Respondent abused (Cebu) her right of recourse to the courts. Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates lawyers to represent their clients with zeal but within the bounds of the law. The penalty of suspension or disbarment is meted out in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. In this case, respondent has shown her great propensity to disregard court orders. Respondents acts of wantonly disobeying her duties as an officer of the court show an utter disrespect for the Court and the legal profession. However, Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
the Court will not disbar a lawyer if it finds that a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end. Respondents acts constitute gross misconduct and willful disobedience of lawful orders of a superior court. Respondent also violated Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Her suspension is consequently warranted. d. Briones v. Jimenez, 522 SCRA 236 (2007) This arose from incidents in an Intestate Estate Proceeding. Briones was the Special Administrator while respondent Jimenez was counsel for the heirs. Briones complains about the act of the respondent in filing a criminal case against the former for allegedly resisting and seriously disobeying the RTC Order directing Briones to deliver residue of the estate to the Heirs (Art. 151, RPC). Complainant claimed that the filing of the unfounded criminal complaint was meant to obtain an improper advantage and to coerce complainant to deliver to the Heirs without any writ of execution or any pronouncement from the RTC as to the finality of the Order. On the other hand, respondent contended that when he assisted the Heirs in filing a criminal case against complainant, he was merely fulfilling his legal duty to take the necessary steps to protect the interests of his clients. [T]here is sufficient ground in support of complainants claim that respondent violated Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Records reveal that before respondent assisted the Heirs in filing the criminal complaint against herein complainant, he sent demand letters to the latter to comply with the Order of Judge Tipon to deliver the residue of the estate to the heirs of the late Luz J. Henson. Considering that complainant did not reply to the demand letters, respondent opted to file said criminal complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to obey the lawful order of the court. The Order referred to is the third part of the assailed Order dated April 3, 2002 which directs complainant to deliver the residue to the Heirs in proportion to their shares. As aptly pointed out by complainant, respondent should have first filed the proper motion with the RTC for execution of the third part of said Order instead of immediately resorting to the filing of criminal complaint against him. A mere perusal of the rest of the Order dated April 3, 2002 readily discloses that the approval of the report of complainant as Special Administrator was suspended prior to the audit of the administration of complainant. Consequently, the RTC would still have to determine and define the residue referred to in the subject Order. The filing of the criminal complaint was evidently premature. The long and short of it? Fair play demands that respondent should have filed the proper motion with the RTC to attain his goal of having the residue of the estate delivered to his clients and not subject complainant to a premature criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, [a]lthough respondent failed to live up to this expectation, there is no evidence that he acted with malice or bad faith. Consequently, it is but fit to reprimand respondent for his act of unfair dealing with complainant. e. Pena v. Aparicio, 525 SCRA 444 (2007) This is complaint for disbarment for violation of Rule 19.01 the act of a lawyer writing a demand letter the contents of which threatened complainant with the filing of criminal cases for tax evasion and falsification of documents. In short, complainant claims an act of blackmail from the respondent lawyer. Under Rule 19.01 (Employment of Fair and Honest Means for Lawful Objectives), a lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfoundedEVIEWS AND SEMINARS against the adversaries of his LEX R or baseless criminal case or cases client designed to secure a leverage to compel the adversaries to yield or withdraw their own cases BAR Review 2009 against the lawyers 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 (Cebu) 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. Blackmail is the extortion of money from a person by threats of accusation or exposure or opposition in the public prints, . . . obtaining of value from a person as a condition of refraining from making an accusation against him, or disclosing some secret calculated to operate to his prejudice. In common parlance and in Ethical, Leaders Principled Lawyers general acceptation, it is equivalent to and synonymous with
extortion, the exaction of money either for the performance of a duty, the prevention of an injury, or the exercise of an influence. Not infrequently, it is extorted by threats, or by operating on the fears or the credulity, or by promises to conceal or offers to expose the weaknesses, the follies, or the crime of the victim. But is the act of threatening the possibility of criminal prosecution blackmail? Or, when does a demand letter become blackmail? [I]t is quite obvious that respondents threat to file the cases against complainant was designed to secure some leverage to compel the latter to give in to his clients demands. It was not respondents intention to point out complainants 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. Thus, in the performance of his role as agent, the lawyer may be tasked to enforce his clients claim and to take all the steps necessary to collect it, such as writing a letter of demand requiring payment within a specified period. 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 clients 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. Further, the Court said that [t]he privileged nature of the letter was removed when respondent used it to blackmail complainant and extort from the latter compliance with the demands of his client. Nevertheless, while the writing of the letter went beyond ethical standards, we hold that disbarment is too severe a penalty to be imposed on respondent, considering that he wrote the same out of his overzealousness to protect his clients interests. Accordingly, the more appropriate penalty is reprimand. As a sidelight in this case, the Court took an this as an occasion to discuss whether there is a need for a certification against forum shopping in disbarment complaints. The Investigating Commissioner and the IBP Board of Governors took against complainant his failure to attach the certification against forum shopping to his complaint and consequently dismissed his complaint. This Court, however, disagrees and, accordingly, grants the petition. However, a remand of the case to the IBP would unduly prolong its adjudication. The Courts determination is anchored on the sui generis nature of disbarment proceedings, the reasons for the certification against forum shopping requirement, complainants subsequent compliance with the requirement, and the merit of complainants complaint against respondent. Thus, [i]n view of the nature of disbarment proceedings, the certification against forum shopping to be attached to the complaint, if one is required at all in such proceedings, must refer to another administrative case for disciplinary proceedings against the same respondent, because such other proceedings or action is one that necessarily involves the same issues as the one posed in the disbarment complaint to which the certification is supposedly to be attached. Further, [i]t would seem that the scenario sought to be avoided, i.e., the filing of multiple suits and the possibility of conflicting decisions, rarely happens in disbarment complaints considering that said proceedings are either taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. Thus, if the complainant in a disbarment LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS case fails to attach a certification against forum shopping,2009 BAR Review the pendency of another disciplinary action against the same respondent may still be ascertained with ease. (Cebu) 6. Misappropriation of or Non-Accounting for Funds and Other Properties a. Velez v. De Vera, 496 SCRA 345 (2006)
Beyond doubt, the unauthorized use by a lawyer of his clients funds is highly unethical. Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility is emphatic about this. By his admission that he used his clients money for personal Lawyers Ethical, Leaderssealed his own fate since this admission use, respondent unwittingly Principled
constitutes more than substantial evidence of malpractice. His act in holding on to his clients money without the latters acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of integrity and propriety. And, by depositing the check in his own account and using the same for his own benefit, he is guilty of deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct and unethical behavior. He caused dishonor, not only to himself but to the noble profession to which he belongs. b. Almendarez, Jr. v. Langit, 496 SCRA 402 (2006) A lawyer commits a flagrant violation of his oath where he receives the sum of money representing the monthly rentals intended for his client, without accounting for and returning such sum to its rightful owner. A lawyer is not entitled to unilaterally appropriate his clients money for himself by the mere fact that the client owes him attorneys fees. Respondents failure to turn over the money to complainant despite the latters demands gives rise to the presumption that he had converted the money for his personal use and benefit. This is a gross violation of general morality as well as of professional ethics, impairing public confidence in the legal profession. More specifically, it renders respondent liable not only for violating the Code but also for contempt (25, Rule 138). The misconduct of a lawyer is aggravated by his unjustified refusal to heed the orders of the IBP requiring him to file an answer to the complaint-affidavit and, afterwards, to appear at the mandatory conference. Indeed, he is justly charged with conduct unbecoming a lawyer, for a lawyer is expected to uphold the law and promote respect for legal processes. Further, a lawyer must observe and maintain respect not only to the courts, but also to judicial officers and other duly constituted authorities, including the IBP. Under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the Court has empowered the IBP to conduct proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys.
c. Arroyo-Posidio v. Vitan, 520 SCRA 1 (2007) Lawyers are prohibited from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and are mandated to serve their clients with competence and diligence. To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the profession. Where a client gives money to his lawyer for a specific purpose, such as to file an action, appeal an adverse judgment, consummate a settlement, or pay the purchase price of a parcel of land, the lawyer should, upon failure to take such step and spend the money for it, immediately return the money to his client. In the instant case, respondent received the amount of P100,000.00 as legal fees for filing = additional claims against the estate of Nicolasa S. de Guzman Arroyo. However, he failed to institute an action, thus it was imperative that he immediately return the amount to complainant upon demand therefor. Having received payment for services which were not rendered, respondent was unjustified in keeping complainants money. His obligation was to immediately return the said amount. His refusal to do so despite complainants repeated demands constitutes a violation of his oath where he pledges not to delay any man for money and swears to conduct himself with good fidelity to his clients. LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS Respondent must likewise be reminded that a lawyer should, at all times, comply with what the court BAR Review 2009 lawfully requires. It bears stressing that the judgment against him in a civil case to pay the complainant the amount of P100,000, as well as interest and attorneys fees, has long become final and executory yet = he has not complied. His refusal to comply with(Cebu) order constitutes a willful disobedience to the the said courts lawful orders. Needless to say, too, the act of issuing a bouncing check further compounded respondents infractions. The act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient funds to cover the same constitutes willful dishonesty and immoral conduct as to undermine the public confidence in law and lawyers. Such conduct indicates the respondents unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on him, shows such Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render him unworthy of public confidence and constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. Lawyers are particularly called upon to obey court orders and processes and are expected to stand foremost in complying with court directives being themselves officers of the court. And while respondent issued a check in the amount of P120,000.00 in favor of = complainant, purportedly to satisfy the judgment against him, the check was later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account. d. Salomon, Jr. v. Frial, SCRA (A.C. No. 7820, 12 September 2008) Lawyer of attaching creditor taking custody of two cars (Nissan Sentra and a Volvo) through his own undertaking without court knowledge and authority * Nissan seen in other places, being used by others (but not the lawyer himself) and the Volvo destroyed by fire but not reported * Defense: For safekeeping and maintenance and gassing up * Canons of Professional Ethics: Frial guilty of grave misconduct arising from his violation of Canon 11 of the Canons of Professional Ethics (Dealing with Trust Property Money of the client or collected for the client or other trust property coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly and should not under any circumstances be commingled with his own or be used by him.) * A lawyer is first and foremost an officer of the court. As such, he is expected to respect the courts order and processes. Atty. Frial miserably fell short of his duties as such officer. He trifled with the writ of attachment the court issued. * Very patently, Atty. Frial was remiss in his obligation of taking good care of the attached cars. He also allowed the use of the Nissan Sentra car by persons who had no business using it. He did not inform the court or at least the sheriff of the destruction of the Volvo car. What is worse is that he took custody of them without so much as informing the court, let alone securing, its authority. For his negligence and unauthorized possession of the cars, we find Atty. Frial guilty of infidelity in the custody of the attached cars and grave misconduct.
7. Conflict of Interests a. Hornilla v. Salunat, 405 SCRA 220 (2003) A lawyer retained by a corporation cannot represent the members of the board in a derivative suit as this would constitute conflict of interest. b. Northwestern University, Inc. v. Arquillo, 465 SCRA 513 (2005) Corollary to the duty of lawyers to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and transactions with their clients, they shall not represent conflicting interest, except with all the concerned clients written consent, given after a full disclosure of the facts. It is a hornbook doctrine grounded on public policy that a lawyers representation of both sides of an issue is highly improper. c. Solatan v. Inocentes, 466 SCRA 1 (2005) An attorney has no power to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without being retained to establish the professional relation, it is sufficient that the advice and assistance of an attorney are sought and received in any manner pertinent to hisAND SEMINARS LEX REVIEWS profession. An attorney giving advice to a party with an interest conflicting with that of his client resulting in detriment to the latter may be held guilty of disloyalty. However, where the statement of a lawyer to his (Cebu) clients adversary is in consonance with such lawyers foremost duty to uphold the law as an officer of the court, that statement in such a context should not be construed as giving advice in conflict against the interests of his client.
BAR Review 2009
d. Quiambao v. Bamba, 468 SCRA 1 (2005) Lawyers are deemed to represent conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is their duty Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
to contend for that which duty to another client requires them to oppose. In determining whether there is conflict of interest, an important criterion is probability, not certainty, of conflict. It behooves lawyers not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence, but also to avoid appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then litigants can be encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers in the course of a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer learns all the facts connected with the clients case, including the weak and strong points of the case. The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action a lawyers representation of opposing clients in two cases, though unrelated, obviously constitutes conflict of interests, or at least, invites a suspicion of double-dealing. The proscription against representation of conflicting interests finds application where the conflicting interests arise with respect to the same general matter however slight the adverse interest may be it applies even if the conflict pertains to the lawyers private activity or in the performance of a function in a non-professional capacity. The representation of conflicting interest in good faith and with honest intention on the part of the lawyer does not make the proscription inoperative. Lawyers are not obliged to act either as an adviser or advocate to every person who wish to become their client they have the right to decline such employment subject to the Code of Professional Responsibility. e. Ilusorio-Bildner v. Lokin, Jr., 477 SCRA 634 (2005) A lawyer is personally barred by the rules of ethics from representing an interest contrary to that earlier espoused by his law firm. f. Gonzales v. Cabucana, 479 SCRA 320 (2006) One test of inconsistency of interest is whether the acceptance of a new relation would prevent full discharge of a lawyers duty of undivided fidelity to the client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance of that duty. The proscription against representation of conflicting interests applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. The representation of opposing clients, though unrelated, constitutes conflict of interest or at the very least, invites suspicion of double dealing which the Court cannot allow. While there may be instances where lawyers cannot decline representation, they cannot be made to labor under the conflict of interest between a present client and a prospective one. The Court considers as mitigating circumstance the fact that the lawyer represented the other client pro bono and it was his firm and not he personally that handled the case of the adverse party. g. Lim, Jr. v. Villarosa, 490 SCRA 494 (2006) It is only upon strict compliance REVIEWS AND SEMINARS LEX with the condition of full disclosure of facts that a lawyer may appear against his client; otherwise, his representation of conflicting interests is reprehensible. The rule BAR Review 2009 on conflict of interest covers not only cases in which confidential communications have been confided but also those in which no confidence has been bestowed or will be used the rule prohibits a lawyer (Cebu) from representing new clients whose interests oppose those of a former client in any manner, whether or not they are parties in the same action or in totally unrelated cases. h. Paz v. Sanchez, 502 SCRA 209 (2006)
Rule 15.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after full disclosure of the facts. Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
Lawyers are deemed to represent conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is their duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires them to oppose. The proscription against representation of conflicting interest applies to a situation where the opposing parties are present clients in the same action or in an unrelated action. The reason for the prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client, which is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree. A lawyer becomes familiar with all the facts connected with his clients case. He learns from his client the weak points of the action as well as the strong ones. Such knowledge must be considered sacred and guarded with care. No opportunity must be given him to take advantage of the clients secrets. A lawyer must have the fullest confidence of his client. For if the confidence is abused, the profession will suffer by the loss thereof.
8. Attorneys Fees a. Dalisay v. Mauricio, Jr., 456 SCRA 508 (2005) and 479 SCRA 307 (2006) ` When a lawyer accepts the professional fee from the client, it is understood that he agrees to take up the latters case and that an attorney-client relationship between them is established. A member of the legal profession owes his client entire devotion to his genuine interest and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights verily, when a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights. While, just like any other professional, a lawyer is entitled to collect fees for his services, he should charge only a reasonable amount, however charging P56,000.00 is improper where the lawyer did not = take any step to assist his client. On Motion for Reconsideration: A party should decide early what version he is going to advance. A change of theory in the latter stage of the proceedings is objectionable, not due to the strict application of procedural rules, but because it is contrary to the rules of fair play, justice, and due process. In fact, if anything at all has been achieved by respondents inconsistent assertions, it is his dishonesty to the Court. Surely, he cannot expect to be paid for doing nothing. Canon 19 outlines the procedure in dealing with clients who perpetrated fraud in the course of a legal proceeding confront client and seek rectification, failing which terminate relationship! b. Lijauco v. Terrado, 500 SCRA 301 (2006) Acceptance of money from a client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client s cause. The canons of the legal profession require that once an attorney agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with zeal, care and utmost devotion. A fee of P70,000.00 for legal assistance in the recovery of a deposit amounting to P180,000.00 is = = unreasonable. A lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable fees. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except in certain cases. REVIEWS AND SEMINARS LEX c. Pineda v. De Jesus, 499 SCRA 608 (2006)
BAR Review 2009
(Cebu) A lawyer may enforce his right to his fees by filing the necessary petition as an incident of the main action in which his services were rendered or in an independent suit against his client. Nevertheless, suits to collect fees should be avoided and should be filed only when circumstances force lawyers to do so.
The recovery of attorneys fees on the basis of quantum meruit is permitted where there is no express agreement for the payment of attorneys fees, and it is basically a legal mechanism which prevents an unscrupulous client from running away Ethical,fruits of the legal services of counsel without paying Lawyers with the Leaders Principled
for them while avoiding unjust enrichment on the part of the lawyer himself. Demanding P50 million on top of the generous sums and perks already given to the lawyers is an act = of unconscionable greed which is shocking to this Court. Lawyers could not charge their clients a fee based on percentage absent an express agreement to that effect. The practice of law is a decent profession and not a money-making trade compensation should be but a mere incident. d. Bach v. Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit & Acorda Law Offices, 501 SCRA 419 (2006) The rule is that the issue of the reasonableness of attorneys fees based on quantum meruit is a question of fact, and well-settled is the rule that conclusions and findings of fact by the lower courts are entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be disturbed except for strong and cogent reasons. The circumstances to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a claim for attorneys fees the following: (1) the amount and character of the service rendered; (2) labor, time, and trouble involved; (3) the nature and importance of the litigation or business in which the services were rendered; (4) the responsibility imposed; (5) the amount of money or the value of the property affected by the controversy or involved in the employment; (6) the skill and experience called for in the performance of the services; (7) the professional character and social standing of the attorney; (8) the results secured; and (9) whether the fee is absolute or contingent, it being recognized that an attorney may properly charge a much larger fee when it is contingent than when it is not. And, Rule 20.1, Canon 20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility enumerates the following factors which should guide a lawyer in determining his fees. The imposition of legal interest on the amount payable to private respondent as attorneys fees is unwarranted. Even as the parties can freely stipulate on the terms of payment, still the imposition of interest in the payment of attorneys fees is not justified. Article 2209 of the Civil Code does not even justify the imposition of legal interest on the payment of attorneys fees as it is a provision of law governing ordinary obligations and contracts. Lawyeringis not a moneymaking venture and lawyers are not merchants. Law advocacy, it has been stressed, is not capital that yields profits. Its returns are simple rewards for a job done or service rendered. It is a calling that, unlike mercantile pursuits which enjoy a greater deal of freedom from governmental interference, is impressed with a public interest, for which it is subject to State regulation. A lawyers compensation for professional services rendered are subject to the supervision of the court, not just to guarantee that the fees he charges and receives remain reasonable and commensurate with the services rendered, but also to maintain the dignity and integrity of the legal profession to which he belongs. Upon taking his attorneys oath as an officer of the court, a lawyer submits himself to the authority of the courts to regulate his right to charge professional fees. The fact that an attorney plays a vital role in the administration of justice underscores the need to secure to him his honorarium lawfully earned as a means to preserve the decorum and respectability of the legal profession. A lawyer is as much entitled to judicial protection against injustice, imposition of fraud on the part of his client as the client against abuse on the part of his counsel. The duty of the court is not alone to see that a lawyer acts in a proper and lawful manner; it is also its duty to see that a lawyer is paid his just fees. With his capital consisting only of his brains and with his skill acquired at tremendous cost not only in money but in expenditure of time and energy, he is entitled to the protection of any judicial tribunal against any attempt on the part of his client to escape payment of his just compensation. It would be ironicEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS secure justice for his client, he L if after putting forth the best in him to himself would not get his due. BAR Review 2009 (Cebu) 9. Ortiz v. San Miguel Corporation, SCRA (G.R. Nos. 151983-84, 30 July 2008) Petition by lawyer alone, claiming his attorneys fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the original awards but which were reduced when his clients (the complainants) agreed to execute quitclaims for lesser amounts the attorneys fees accordingly adjusted * The lower attorneys fees were then withheld from the amounts given to the complainants and subsequently handed over to Ortiz * ATTORNEY S FEES CONCEPTS: [T]here are twoLawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled fees, the so-called ordinary commonly accepted concepts of attorneys
and extraordinary. In its ordinary concept, an attorneys fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services the former has rendered to the latter. The basis of this compensation is the fact of the attorneys employment by and his agreement with the client. In its extraordinary concept, attorneys fees are deemed indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing party in a litigation. The instances in which these may be awarded are those enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil Code, specifically paragraph 7 thereof, which pertains to actions for recovery of wages, and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless they have agreed that the award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional compensation or as part thereof. Article 111 of the Labor Code, as amended, contemplates the extraordinary concept of attorneys fees. * Article 111 is an exception to the declared policy of strict construction in the awarding of attorneys fees. Although express findings of fact and law are still necessary to prove the merit of the award, there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages. * Based on the foregoing, the attorneys fees awarded by the NLRC in its Decisions in the Aguirre and Toquero Cases pertain to the complainants, petitioners clients, as indemnity for damages; and not to petitioner as compensation for his legal services. * NO RIGHT TO OPPOSE: And since the attorneys fees pertained to the complainants as indemnity for damages, it was totally within the complainants right to waive the amount of said attorneys fees and settle for a lesser amount thereof in exchange for the immediate end to litigation. Petitioner cannot prevent complainants from compromising and/or withdrawing their complaints at any stage of the proceedings just to protect his anticipated attorneys fees. * NOT REAL PARTY : In the case at bar, it is beyond cavil that the petitioner is not the real party in interest; hence, he cannot file this Petition to recover the attorneys fees as adjudged by the NLRC . . . . Not being the party to whom the NLRC awarded the attorneys fees, neither is the petitioner the proper party to question the non-awarding of the same by the appellate court. * LAW BUSINESS ? It may do well for petitioner to remember that as a lawyer, he is a member of an honorable profession, the primary vision of which is justice. The practice of law is a decent profession and not a money-making trade. Compensation should be but a mere incident. * CLAIM AGAINST CLIENTS: If petitioner earnestly believes that the amounts he already received are grossly deficient, considering the substantial time and efforts he and his assistant lawyers invested, as well as the personal money he expended for the prosecution of complainants cases for more than seven or eight years, then petitioners remedy is not against the private respondent, but against his own clients, the complainants. * QUITCLAIMS SANS LAWYER : There is no specific provision in the Labor Code, as amended, which requires the conformity of petitioner, as the complainants counsel, to make their Deeds of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim valid. * Petition Denied
10. J-Phil Marine, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, SCRA (G.R. No. 175366, 11 August 2008) Counsel Questioning Clients Compromise Agreement * That respondent was not assisted by his counsel when he entered into the compromise does not render it null and void. * It bears noting that, as reflected earlier, the Quitclaim and Waiver was subscribed and sworn to before the Labor Arbiter. * Respondents counsel nevertheless argues that [t]he amount of Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P450,000.00) given to respondent on April 4, 2007, as full and final settlement of judgment award, is unconscionably low, and un-[C]hristian, to say the least. Only respondent, however, can impugn the consideration of the compromise as being unconscionable. The relation of attorney and client is in L the REVIEWS AND SEMINARS many respects one of agency, and EX general rules of agency apply to such relation. The acts of an agent are deemed the acts of the principalBARifReview acts within the scope of his authority. The only the agent 2009 circumstances of this case indicate that respondents counsel is acting beyond the scope of his authority in questioning the compromise agreement. That a client has undoubtedly the right to compromise a (Cebu) suit without the intervention of his lawyer cannot be gainsaid, the only qualification being that if such compromise is entered into with the intent of defrauding the lawyer of the fees justly due him, the compromise must be subject to the said fees. In the case at bar, there is no showing that respondent intended to defraud his counsel of his fees.
11. Law Firms a. Solatan v. Inocentes, 466 SCRA 1 (2005) The failure of a senior lawyer to exercise certain responsibilities over matters under the charge of his law firm is a blameworthy shortcoming. While the term command responsibility has special meaning within the circle of men in uniform in the military, the principle does not abide solely therein. Let it not be said that law firm practitioners are given a free hand to assign cases to seasoned attorneys and thereafter conveniently forget about the case to do so would be a disservice to the profession, the integrity and advancement of which the Supreme Court must jealously protect. The name practitioner of the law office is tasked with the responsibility to make reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the firm should act in conformity to the Code of Professional Responsibility. Partners and practitioners who hold supervisory capacities are legally responsible to exert ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the comings and goings of the cases handled by the persons over which they are exercising supervisory authority and in exerting necessary efforts to foreclose the occurrence of violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by persons under their charge. It does constitute indifference and neglect for a senior partner to fail to accord even a token attention to an associate lawyers conduct which could have brought an impending problem to light.
E. LAWYERS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE

1. Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Sandiganbayan, 455 SCRA 526 (2005) Rule 6.03 prohibits former government lawyers from accepting engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had intervened while in said service. How is it to be understood and applied? The Court explained that [t]he key to unlock Rule 6.03 lies in comprehending first, the meaning of matter referred to in the rule and, second, the metes and bounds of the intervention made by the former government lawyer on the matter. Then, it proceeded to discuss what is matter and what is intervention as contemplated by the Rule. The act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law are acts which do not fall within the scope of the term matter and cannot disqualify. As for intervene, there are two possible interpretations of the word intervene. Under the first interpretation, intervene includes participation in a proceeding even if the intervention is irrelevant or has no effect or little influence. Under the second interpretation, intervene only includes an act of a person who has the power to influence the subject proceedings. We hold that this second meaning is more appropriate to give to the word intervention under Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in light of its history. In other words, the intervention cannot be insubstantial and insignificant. Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility represents a commendable effort on the part of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to upgrade the ethics of lawyers in the government service. Rule 6.03 is not to be interpreted to cause a chilling effect on government recruitment of able legal talent. In interpreting Rule 6.03, the Supreme Court also cast a harsh eye on its use as a litigation tactic to harass opposing counsel as well as deprive his client of competent legal representation the danger that the rule will be misused to bludgeon anLEX REVIEWS is not aSEMINARS opposing counsel AND mere guesswork.
BAR Review 2009
2. Catu v. Rellosa, SCRA (A.C. No. 5738, 19 February 2008) (Cebu) Rule 6.03 applies only to a lawyer who has left government service and in connection with any matter in which he intervened while in said service and has no application to one who is still in the service, such as an incumbent punong barangay.
3. Yumol, Jr. v. Ferrer, Sr., 456 SCRA 475 (2005) Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
Where it has been amply established that a lawyer at CHR, who was not properly authorized to attend hearings of his private cases, has been actually attending said hearings, it is an ineluctable conclusion that he falsified his Daily Time Records (DTRs) when he certified that he was at the office on the same days and times that he was in court. 4. Lim v. Barcelona, 425 SCRA 67 (2004) If a lawyers misconduct in the discharge of his official duties as a government official is of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, he may be disciplined as a member of the Bar on such ground. Lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks have more restrictions than lawyers in private practice. Extortion by a government lawyer, an outright violation of the law, calls for the corresponding grave sanctions. Government lawyers should be more sensitive to their professional obligations as their disreputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public eye. 5. Santos v. Cacho-Calicdan, 502 SCRA 197 (2006) A lawyer may be disbarred or suspended from practice for any deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct in office, grossly immoral conduct, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, violation of the lawyers oath, willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or willful and unauthorized appearance for a party to a case, as specified in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. A deceitful act, in particular, constitutes a violation of Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Nonetheless, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution. In disbarment proceedings, the case against the respondent must be established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof, the burden of which rests upon the complainant. Only a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar will warrant disbarment. 6. Maligaya v. Doronilla, Jr., 502 SCRA 1 (2006) The suspension referred to in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court means only suspension from the practice of law. For this reason, the Court disagreed with the IBPs recommendation for Atty. Doronillas suspension from the government military service. After all, the only purpose of the administrative case is to determine Atty. Doronillas liability as a member of the legal profession, not his liability as a legal officer in the military service. Thus, it would be improper for the Court to order, as a penalty for his breach of legal ethics and the lawyers oath, his suspension from employment in the Judge Advocate Generals Service. Of course, suspension from employment as a military legal officer may well follow as a consequence of his suspension from the practice of law but that should not be reason for the Court to impose it as a penalty for his professional misconduct. The Court would be going beyond the purpose of the proceeding were we it to do so. 7. Gumaru v. Quirino State College, 525 SCRA 412 (2007) LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS [T]he Solicitor General cannot refuse to represent the government, its agencies, instrumentalities, BAR Review 2009 officials and agents without a just and valid reason. He should not desist from appearing before the Court even in those cases where his opinions may be inconsistent with the government or any of its agents he (Cebu) is expected to represent. As in the case of fiscals or prosecutors, bias or prejudice and animosity or hostility do not constitute legal and valid excuses for inhibition. Unlike a practicing lawyer who has the right to decline employment, a fiscal or prosecutor, or the Solicitor General in the case at bar, cannot refuse to perform his functions without violating his oath of office. Refusal to perform the duty is compellable by a writ of mandamus.
On the other hand, government agencies were admonished not to reject the services of the Solicitor Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
General, or otherwise fail or refuse to forward the papers of a case to the OSG for appropriate action. Actions filed in the name of the Republic that are not initiated by the OSG will be summarily dismissed. Moreover, the fee of the lawyer who rendered legal service to the government in lieu of the OSG or the OGCC is the personal liability of the government official who hired his services without the prior written conformity of the OSG or the OGCC, as the case may be.
8. Ramos v. Imbang, 530 SCRA 759 (2007) Lawyers in government service are expected to be more conscientious of their actuations as they are subject to public scrutiny. They cannot handle private cases for they are expected to devote themselves full-time to the work of their respective offices. A government lawyer is a keeper of public faith and is burdened with a high degree of social responsibility, higher than his brethren in private practice. Since the Public Attorneys Office was created for the purpose of providing free legal assistance to indigent litigants, a PAO lawyer should not accept attorneys fees from a party as this is inconsistent with the offices mission. The undertaking to uphold the law includes the observance of the prohibitions was blatantly violated by respondent when he accepted the complainants cases and received attorneys fees in consideration of his legal services. A lawyer could not be held guilt of violating Rule 16.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility where he did not hold the money for the benefit of the client but accepted it as his attorneys fees.
F. LAWYERS AND PRACTICE IN FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS

1. Disciplinary Actions in Foreign Jurisdictions a. In re: Suspension from the Practice of Law in the Territory of Guam of Atty. Leon G. Maquera, 435 SCRA 417 (2004) Disbarment or suspension of a member of the Philippine Bar in a foreign jurisdiction, where he has also been admitted as an attorney, is also a ground for his disbarment or suspension in this realm, provided the foreign courts action is by reason of an act or omission constituting deceit, malpractice or other gross misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or a violation of the lawyers oath, with the foreign judgment, resolution or order of the foreign court or disciplinary agency being prima facie evidence of the ground for disbarment or suspension. b. Vera v. De Vera, 496 SCRA 345 (2006) The recommendation of the hearing officer of the State Bar of California, standing alone, is not proof L for REVIEWS disbarment was meted of malpractice. No final judgmentEX suspension orAND SEMINARS against Atty. de Vera despite a recommendation of suspension of three years as he surrendered his license to practice law before his BAR Review 2009 case could be taken up by the Supreme Court of California. Moreover, the judgment of the foreign court merely constitutes prima facie evidence of unethical acts as lawyer. (Cebu) In herein case, considering that there is technically no foreign judgment to speak of, the recommendation by the hearing officer of the State Bar of California does not constitute prima facie evidence of unethical behavior by Atty. de Vera. Complainant must prove by substantial evidence the facts upon which the recommendation by the hearing officer was based. If he is successful in this, he must then prove that these acts are likewise unethical under Philippine law. Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
G.
LAWYERS AND NOTARIZATION

1. 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (1 August 2004) a. Baylon v. Almo, SCRA A.C. No. 6962, 25 June 2008
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document thus making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Courts, administrative agencies and the public at large must be able to rely upon the acknowledgment executed by a notary public and appended to a private instrument. For this reason, notaries public should not take for granted the solemn duties pertaining to their office. Slipshod methods in their performance of the notarial act are never to be countenanced. They are expected to exert utmost care in the performance of their duties, which are dictated by public policy and are impressed with public interest. A notary public should exercise utmost diligence in ascertaining the true identity of the person who represents himself. He should not rely on Community Tax Certificates in view of the ease with which community tax certificates are obtained these days. As a matter of fact, recognizing the established unreliability of a community tax certificate in proving the identity of a person who wishes to have his document notarized, the Supreme Court did not include it in the list of competent evidence of identity that notaries public should use in ascertaining the identity of persons appearing before them to have their documents notarized.
2. Documents, Notarization and Evidentiary Value a. Bautista v. Silva, 503 SCRA 334 (2006) When the document under scrutiny is a special power of attorney that is duly notarized, the notarial acknowledgment is prima facie evidence of the fact of its due execution. A buyer presented with such a document would have no choice between knowing and finding out whether a forger lurks beneath the signature on it. The notarial acknowledgment has removed that choice from him and replaced it with a presumption sanctioned by law that the affiant appeared before the notary public and acknowledged that he executed the document, understood its import and signed it. In reality, he is deprived of such choice not because he is incapable of knowing and finding out but because, under our notarial system, he has been given the luxury of merely relying on the presumption of regularity of a duly notarized SPA. And he cannot be faulted for that because it is precisely that fiction of regularity which holds together commercial transactions across borders and time. In sum, all things being equal, a person dealing with a seller who has possession and title to the property but whose capacity to sell is restricted, qualifies as a buyer in good faith if he proves that he inquired into the title of the seller as well as into the latters capacity to sell; and that in his inquiry, he relied on the notarial acknowledgment found in the sellers duly notarized special power of attorney. He need not prove anything more for it is already the function of the notarial acknowledgment to establish the appearance of the LEX Rto the document, its due execution and authenticity. Said rule parties EVIEWS AND SEMINARS should not apply, however, when there is anReview 2009 BAR apparent flaw afflicting the notarial acknowledgment of the special power of attorney as would cast doubt on the due execution and authenticity of the document; or when the buyer has actual notice of circumstances outside the document that would render suspect (Cebu) its genuineness.
3. Notarial Misconduct and Other Irregularities a. Santuyo v. Hidalgo, 448 SCRA 282 (2005)
A lawyer is negligent in allowing the office secretaries toPrincipled Lawyers Ethical, Leaders make the necessary entries in his notarial
registry which is supposed to be done and kept by him alone. b. Maddela v. Dallong-Galicinao, 450 SCRA 19 (2005) Where the misconduct as a notary public was committed while the respondent was not yet a lawyer, she could not be disciplinarily dealt with as a lawyer. c. Sicat v. Ariola, Jr., 456 SCRA 93 (2005) The act of a lawyer of notarizing a Special Power of Attorney knowing that the person who allegedly executed it was already dead is a serious breach of the sacred obligation imposed upon him by the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, which prohibits him from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct as a lawyer and as an officer of the court, it is his duty to serve the ends of justice, not to corrupt it. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public should not authenticate documents unless the persons who signed them are the very same persons who executed them and personally appeared before them to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routinary act it converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution. A lawyers assertion of falsehood in a public document contravenes one of the most cherished tenets of the legal profession and potentially cast suspicion on the truthfulness of every notarial act. d. Lopena v. Cabatos, 466 SCRA 419 (2005) A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents of the truth of what are stated therein the purpose being to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the partys free act of deed. e. Bautista v. Bernabe, 482 SCRA 1 (2006) It is the duty of the notary to require the personal appearance of the affiant before affixing his notarial seal and signature on the instrument. Respondents act of notarizing a joint affidavit in the absence of one of the affiants is in violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law.2 His conduct is fraught with dangerous possibilities considering the conclusiveness on the due execution of a notarized documents. He was also remiss when he allowed an individual to sign in behalf of another. The acts of the affiants cannot be delegated to anyone for what are stated therein are facts of which they have personal knowledge. They should swear to the document personally and not through any representative. Otherwise, their representatives name should appear in the said documents as the one who executed the same.
LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS And, in one of the humor of cases that one comes upon every now and then, the Supreme Court said: BAR Review 2009
Finally, it has not escaped our notice that in paragraph 2 of complainants affidavit of desistance, she alluded that Atty. (Cebu) Carlitos C. Villarin notarized her Sinumpaang Salaysay dated November 12, 2004 which was attached to the complaint filed with the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP, without requiring her to personally appear before him in violation of the Notarial Law. This allegation must likewise be investigated. * * * * * The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is DIRECTED to investigate the allegation that Atty. Carlitos C. Villarin notarized the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Victorina Bautista dated November 12, 2004, without requiring the latters personal appearance.
W ell, it just goes to show that Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled you cannot afford to splatter ink on your enemy if youre standing too close to him.
f. St. Louis University Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) Faculty and Staff v. Dela Cruz, 499 SCRA 614 (2006) It has been emphatically stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On the contrary, it is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization of a private document converts the document into a public one making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this reason, notaries public must observe with the utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be undermined. The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public must not be treated as a mere casual formality. The Court has characterized a lawyers act of notarizing documents without the requisite commission to do so as reprehensible, constituting as it does not only malpractice but also * * * the crime of falsification of public documents. The Court had occasion to state that where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action or one, performing a notarial act without such commission is a violation of the lawyers oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyers oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. By acting as a notary public without the proper commission to do so, the lawyer likewise violates Canon 7 of the same Code, which directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. g. Pantoja-Mumar v. Flores, 520 SCRA 470 (2007) Notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act it is through the act of notarization that a private document is converted into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. h. Guerrero v. Bihis, 521 SCRA 394 (2007) The acknowledgment of a notarial will coerces the testator and the instrumental witnesses to declare before an officer of the law, the notary public, that they executed and subscribed to the will as their own free act or deed. And, an acknowledgment can only be made before a competent officer, that is, a lawyer duly commissioned as a notary public. Outside the place of his commission, a notary public is bereft of power to perform any notarial act he is not a notary public. Acknowledgment taken outside the territorial limits of the officers jurisdiction is void as if the person taking it were wholly without official character. i. Aquino v. Pascua, 539 SCRA 1 (2007) LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS A lawyer is guilty of misconduct in the performance of 2009 if he fails to register in his Notarial BAR Review his duties Register the affidavits-complaints which were filed in an administrative case before the Civil Service Commission. (Cebu) j. St. Marys Farm, Inc. v. Prima Real Properties, Inc., SCRA (G.R. No. 158144, 31 July 2008) Sale of company property by virtue of a notarized board resolution subsequently claimed to have been forged. Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
Further challenging the due execution of the board resolution bearing the Secretarys Certification, petitioner wants us to consider the same as inadmissible on the ground that Atty. Agcaoili did not appear before a notary public for notarization. We do not agree, because in the past, we have already held that the non-appearance of the party before the notary public who notarized the deed does not necessarily nullify or render the parties transaction void ab initio. However, the non-appearance of the party exposes the notary public to administrative liability which warrants sanction by the Court. This fact notwithstanding, we agree with the respondent court that it is not enough to overcome the presumption of the truthfulness of the statements contained in the board resolution. To overcome the presumption, there must be sufficient, clear and convincing evidence as to exclude all reasonable controversy as to the falsity of the certificate. In the absence of such proof, the document must be upheld. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.
On the basis of this notarized board resolution, respondent had every reason to rely on Rodolfo Aganas authority to sell the subject property. Undeniably then, the respondent is an innocent purchaser for value in good faith. * * * * * It is of no moment that the checks were made payable to Rodolfo Agana and not to the company which, according to the petitioner, should have alerted the respondent to inquire further into the extent of Aganas authority to transfer the subject property. This was no longer necessary considering that respondent had every reason to rely on Rodolfo Aganas authority to sell, evidenced by the notarized Certification. As explained in the Bautista case: When the document under scrutiny is a special power of attorney that is duly notarized, we know it to be a public document where the notarial acknowledgment is prima facie evidence of the fact of its due execution. A buyer presented with such a document would have no choice between knowing and finding out whether a forger lurks beneath the signature on it. The notarial acknowledgment has removed that choice from him and replaced it with a presumption sanctioned by law that the affiant appeared before the notary public and acknowledged that he executed the document, understood its import and signed it. In reality, he is deprived of such choice not because he is incapable of knowing and finding out but because, under our notarial system, he has been given the luxury of merely relying on the presumption of regularity of a duly notarized SPA. And he cannot be faulted for that because it is precisely that fiction of regularity which holds together commercial transactions across borders and time. In sum, all things being equal, a person dealing with a seller who has [in his] possession title to the property but whose capacity to sell is restricted, qualifies as a buyer in good faith if he proves that he inquired into the title of the seller as well as into the latters capacity to sell; and that in his inquiry, he relied on the notarial acknowledgment found in the sellers duly notarized special power of attorney. He need not prove anything more for it is already the function of the notarial acknowledgment to establish the appearance of the parties to the document, its due execution and authenticity. LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS k. Abadiano v. Martir, SCRA (G.R. No. 156310, 31 July 2008) (Cebu) The trial court likewise brushed aside the apparent defect that the document presented contained the same notarial inscription as the Agreement on Partition. Indeed, the Deed of Partition and the Compra Y Venta, though executed on different days, were notarized on the same day, and both documents contained the signatures of the same witnesses and the same notarial inscription.
BAR Review 2009
This notwithstanding, the court concluded, Assuming this to be true, same could be considered an error which did not nullify, (sic) the Deed of Sale or Compra Y Venta. At most, the document would Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
be a non-registrable, but valid document. We stress that a notarial document is evidence of the facts in the clear unequivocal manner therein expressed and has in its favor the presumption of regularity. In this case, while it is true that the error in the notarial inscription would not have invalidated the sale if indeed it took place the same error would have meant that the document cannot be treated as a notarial document and thus, not entitled to the presumption of regularity. The document would be taken out of the realm of public documents whose genuineness and due execution need not be proved. Accordingly, respondents not having proven the due execution and genuineness of the purported Compra Y Venta, the weight of evidence preponderates in favor of petitioner.
l. Dela Cruz v. Dimaano, Jr., SCRA (A.C. No. 7781, 12 September 2008) It bears reiterating that notaries public should refrain from affixing their signature and notarial seal on a document unless the persons who signed it are the same individuals who executed and personally appeared before the notaries public to attest to the truth of what are stated therein, for under Section 1 of Public Act No. 2103 or the Notarial Law, an instrument or document shall be considered authentic if the acknowledgment is made in accordance its requirements. Without the appearance of the person who actually executed the document in question, notaries public would be unable to verify the genuineness of the signature of the acknowledging party and to ascertain that the document is the partys free act or deed. Furthermore, notaries public are required by the Notarial Law to certify that the party to the instrument has acknowledged and presented before the notaries public the proper residence certificate (or exemption from the residence certificate) and to enter its number, place, and date of issue as part of certification. Rule II, Sec. 12 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice now requires a party to the instrument to present competent evidence of identity. Sec. 12. Competent Evidence of Identity.The phrase competent evidence of identity refers to the identification of an individual based on (a) at least one current identification document issued by an official agency bearing the photograph and signature of the individual, or, (b) the oath or affirmation of one credible witness not privy to the instrument, document or transaction who is personally known to the notary public and who personally knows the individual, or of two credible witnesses neither of whom is privy to the instrument, document or transaction who each personally knows the individual and shows to the notary public documentary identification. One last note. Lawyers commissioned as notaries public are mandated to discharge with fidelity the duties of their offices, such duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. It must be remembered that notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a private document to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution. A notarized document is by law entitled to full credit upon its face and it is for this reason that notaries public must observe the basic requirements in notarizing documents. Otherwise, the confidence of the public on notorized documents will be eroded.
LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS BAR Review 2009

(Cebu)
H.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LAWYERS

1. Purpose a. Soriano v. Dizon, 480 SCRA 1 (2006)
Lawyers Ethical, to protect the administration of justice by requiring The purpose of a proceeding for disbarment isLeaders Principled
that those who exercise this important function be competent, honorable and reliable lawyers in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. Thus, whenever a clear case of degenerate and vile behavior disturbs that vital yet fragile confidence, the Supreme Court shall not hesitate to rid the profession of odious members. b. Gonzales v. Cabucana, 479 SCRA 320 (2006) The Courts exercise of its power to take cognizance of administrative cases against lawyers is not for the purpose of enforcing civil remedies between parties, but to protect the court and the public against an attorney guilty of unworthy practices in his profession. 2. Disbarment as Last Recourse a. Pantoja-Mumar v. Flores, 520 SCRA 470 (2007) Disbarment should not be decreed where any punishment less severe such as reprimand, suspension, or fine would accomplish the end desired. b. Salomon, Jr. v. Frial, SCRA (A.C. No. 7820, 12 September 2008) The rule is that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and moral character of a lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. With the view we take of the case, there is no compelling evidence tending to show that Atty. Frial intended to pervert the administration of justice for some dishonest purpose. Disbarment, jurisprudence teaches, should not be decreed where any punishment less severe, such as reprimand, suspension, or fine, would accomplish the end desired. This is as it should be considering the consequence of disbarment on the economic life and honor of the erring person. * SUSPENDED for ONE YEAR]
3. Proceedings Sui Generis a. Uy v. Gonzales, 426 SCRA 422 (2004) A proceeding for suspension or disbarment is not in any sense a civil action where the complainant is a plaintiff and the respondent lawyer is a defendant disciplinary proceedings involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. b. Roldan v. Panganiban, 446 SCRA 249 (2004) A claim for damages cannot be entertained in a disbarment case as it is not the proper forum disbarment proceedings belong to a class of their own, distinct from that of a civil or a criminal action. c. Zaguirre v. Castillo, 398 SCRA 658 (2003) and 465 SCRA 520 (2005) In a disbarment proceeding, it is immaterial that the complainant is in pari delicto because this is not a proceeding to grant relief to the complainant, but one to purge the law profession of unworthy members, to protect the public and the courts. LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS d. Cham v. Pizarro, 467 SCRA 1 (2005) BAR Review 2009 In a disbarment proceeding it is immaterial that the complainant is not blameless or is in pari delicto (Cebu) as this is not a proceeding to grant relief to the complainant, but one to purge the law profession of unworthy members to protect the public and the courts. It is not sound judicial policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a complaint against a lawyer may be acted upon, otherwise, the Supreme Court will be rendered helpless from vigorously applying the rules on admission to and continuing membership in the legal profession during the whole period that the criminal caseEthical, Leaders Principled the objectives of the two Lawyers is pending final disposition when
proceedings are vastly disparate. e. Bautista v. Bernabe, 482 SCRA 1 (2006) In administrative proceedings against lawyers, the complainants desistance or withdrawal of the complaint is unavailing. What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and grossly immoral conduct has been proven. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare. f. St. Louis University Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) Faculty and Staff v. Dela Cruz, 499 SCRA 614 (2006) A disbarment case is sui generis for it is neither purely civil nor purely criminal but is rather an investigation by the court into the conduct of its officers. Thus, if the acquittal of a lawyer in a criminal action is not determinative of an administrative case against him, or if an affidavit of withdrawal of a disbarment case does not affect its course, then neither will the judgment of annulment of respondents second marriage also exonerate him from a wrongdoing actually committed. So long as the quantum of proof clear preponderance of evidence in disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar is met, then liability attaches. g. Vitug v. Rongcal, 501 SCRA 166 (2006) An administrative case against a lawyer is sui generis, one that is distinct from a civil or a criminal action. It is an investigation by the Court into the fitness of a lawyer to remain in the legal profession and be allowed the privileges as such. Its primary objective is to protect the Court and the public from the misconduct of its officers with the end in view of preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper and honest administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable and reliable men and women in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. As such, it involves no private interest and affords no redress for private grievance. The complainant or the person who called the attention of the court to the lawyers alleged misconduct is in no sense a party, and has generally no interest in the outcome except as all good citizens may have in the proper administration of justice. h. Paras v. Paras, 529 SCRA 81 (2007) In this case, the administrative case against Atty. Paras resulted in his suspension for 6 months for falsifying his wifes signature in bank documents and suspension for one year for immorality and abandonment of family. Would this also translate into basis for declaration of nullity of marriage? No. Jurisprudence abounds that administrative cases against lawyers belong to a class of their own. They are distinct from and may proceed independently of civil and criminal cases. The basic premise is that criminal and civil cases are altogether different from administrative matters, such that the disposition in the first two will not inevitably govern the third and vice versa. Stated otherwise, ones unfitness as a lawyer does not automatically mean ones unfitness as a husband or vice versa. The yardsticks for such roles are simply different. This SEMINARS LEX REVIEWS AND is why the disposition in a disbarment case cannot be conclusive on an action BAR Review nullity of marriage. While Rosas charges for declaration of 2009 sufficiently proved Justos unfitness as a lawyer, however, they may not establish that he is psychologically incapacitated to perform his duties as a husband. In the disbarment case, the real (Cebu) question for determination is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such. Its purpose is to protect the court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court. On the other hand, in an action for declaration of nullity of marriage based on the ground of psychological incapacity, the question for determination is whether the guilty party suffers a grave, incurable, and pre-existing mental incapacity that renders him truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants. Its purpose is to free the innocent party from a meaningless marriage. In this case, as will be seen in the following discussion, Justos acts are not sufficient to conclude that he is psychologically Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
incapacitated, albeit such acts really fall short of what is expected from a lawyer.
4. Procedural Safeguards a. Nava v. Sorongon, 421 SCRA 1 (2004) In complaints for disbarment, a formal investigation is a mandatory requirement. b. Uytengsu III v. Baduel, 477 SCRA 621 (2005) Procedural due process demands that respondent lawyer should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him. He enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges against him until the contrary is proved. The case must be established by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof. c. Guevarra v. Eala, 529 SCRA 1 (2007) Clearly preponderant evidence i.e., that the evidence adduced by one party which is more conclusive and credible than that of the other party and, therefore, has greater weight than the other is the quantum of evidence needed in an administrative case against a lawyer.
5. Imprescriptibility a. Heck v. Santos,, 423 SCRA 329 (2004) The qualification of good moral character is a requirement which is not dispensed with upon admission to membership of the bar. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to admission to the legal profession, but its continued possession is essential to maintain ones good standing in the profession. It is a continuing requirement to the practice of law and therefore does not preclude a subsequent judicial inquiry, upon proper complaint, into any question concerning ones mental or moral fitness before he became a lawyer. This is because his admission to practice merely creates a rebuttable presumption that he has all the qualifications to become a lawyer. Possession of good moral character is not only a prerequisite to admission to the bar but also a continuing requirement to the practice of law. An administrative complaint against an erring lawyer who was thereafter appointed as a judge, albeit filed only after twenty-four years after the offending act was committed, is not barred by prescription. If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to protect the integrity of the practice of law as well as the administration of justice. No matter how much time has elapsed from the time of the commission of the act complained of and the time of the institution of the complaint, erring members of the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court. This categorical pronouncement is aimed at unscrupulous members of the bench and bar, to deter them from committing acts which violate the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyers Oath. Thus, even the lapse of considerable time, from the commission of the offending act to the institution LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS of the administrative complaint, will not erase the administrative culpability of a lawyer who notarizes BAR Review 2009 documents without the requisite authority therefor. (Cebu) b. Frias v. Bautista Lozada, 489 SCRA 345 (2006) The defense of prescription does not lie in administrative proceedings against lawyers. The Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP derives its authority to take cognizance of administrative complaints against lawyers from the Supreme Court which has the inherent power to regulate, supervise and control the practice of law in the Philippines. Hence, in the exercise of its Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
delegated power to entertain administrative complaints against lawyers, the CBD-IBP should be guided by the doctrines and principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP which provides for a prescriptive period of two years for the filing of administrative complaints against lawyers runs afoul of the settled ruling of the Court. It should therefore be struck down as void and of no legal effect for being ultra vires.
6. Miscellaneous Considerations a. Ferrer v. Tebelin, 461 SCRA 207 (2005) The act of a respondent lawyer of ignoring the notices of hearing sent to him at his address which he himself furnished, or to notify the IBP-CBD of his new address if he had moved out of his given address, betrays his lack of courtesy and irresponsibility as a lawyer. b. Espiritu v. Ulep, 458 SCRA 1 (2005) Aside from his patent lack of respect for the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline and its proceedings, a lawyers repeated and obviously deliberate failure to appear in the scheduled hearings revealed an attempt to wiggle away from having to explain and ventilate his side c. Ilusorio-Bildner v. Lokin, 477 SCRA 634 (2005) Although Rule 139-B, 12(C) of the Rules of Court makes no mention of a motion for reconsideration, nothing in its text or in its history suggests that such motion is prohibited. It may therefore be filed within 15 days from notice to a party. Indeed, the filing of such motion should be encouraged before resort is made to the Supreme Court as a matter of exhaustion of administrative remedies.
I. REINSTATEMENT AND RESUMPTION OF PRACTICE

1. Bernardo v. Mejia, 531 SCRA 639 (2007) This relates to the plea for reinstatement of a 71-year-old lawyer after 15 years of having been barred from practice. Whether the applicant shall be reinstated in the Roll of Attorneys rests to a great extent on the sound discretion of the Court. The action will depend on whether or not the Court decides that the public interest in the orderly and impartial administration of justice will continue to be preserved even with the applicants reentry as a counselor at law. The applicant must, like a candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a person of good moral character, a fit and proper person LEX REVIEWS AND applicants character and standing prior to the to practice law. The Court will take into consideration the SEMINARS disbarment, the nature and character of the charge/s for which he was disbarred, his conduct subsequent BAR Review 2009 to the disbarment, and the time that has elapsed between the disbarment and the application for reinstatement. (Cebu) The Court noted that he acknowledged his indiscretions in the law profession. Fifteen years had already elapsed since his name was dropped from the Roll of Attorneys. At the age of seventy-one, he is begging for forgiveness and pleading for reinstatement. According to him, he has long repented and he has suffered enough. Through his reinstatement, he wants to leave a legacy to his children and redeem the indignity that they have suffered due to his disbarment. It then went on to reinstate him. Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled
2. Petition for Leave to Resume Practice of Law, Benjamin M. Dacanay, 540 SCRA 424 (2007) A lawyer who has lost his citizenship cannot practice in the Philippines. Does his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship pursuant to R.A. No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003) automatically restore the privilege to practice law? Since Filipino citizenship is a requirement for admission to the bar, loss thereof terminates membership in the Philippine bar and, consequently, the privilege to engage in the practice of law. In other words, the loss of Filipino citizenship ipso jure terminates the privilege to practice law in the Philippines. The practice of law is a privilege denied to foreigners. The exception is when Filipino citizenship is lost by reason of naturalization as a citizen of another country but subsequently reacquired pursuant to RA 9225. This is because all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of [RA 9225]. Therefore, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country is deemed never to have lost his Philippine citizenship if he reacquires it in accordance with RA 9225. Nevertheless, although he is also deemed never to have terminated his membership in the Philippine bar, no automatic right to resume law practice accrues. Under RA 9225, if a person intends to practice the legal profession in the Philippines and he reacquires his Filipino citizenship pursuant to its provisions (he) shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice. Stated otherwise, before a lawyer who reacquires Filipino citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 can resume his law practice, he must first secure from this Court the authority to do so, conditioned on: (a) the updating and payment in full of the annual membership dues in the IBP; (b) the payment of professional tax; (c) the completion of at least 36 credit hours of mandatory continuing legal education; this is specially significant to refresh the applicant/petitioners knowledge of Philippine laws and update him of legal developments and (d) the retaking of the lawyers oath which will not only remind him of his duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and as an officer of the Court, but also renew his pledge to maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.
J. LAWYERS AS JUSTICES, JUDGES AND COURT EMPLOYEES

1. A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC (1 October 2002) Administrative cases against erring lower court justices and judges, and lawyers in the judiciary may be automatically treated as disbarment cases.
2. Miscellany a. Heck v. Santos, 423 SCRA 329 (2004)
LEX REVIEWS cases SEMINARS AM No. 02-9-02-SC applies to administrative AND already filed but the respondents have not yet been required to comment on the complaints.Review 2009 BAR
b. Maddela v. Dallong-Galicinao, 450(Cebu) 19 (2005) SCRA An administrative case against a court official who is a lawyer, based on grounds which are likewise grounds for the disciplinary action of members of the Bar, shall be considered as disciplinary proceedings against such official both as a court official and as a member of the Bar. c. Re: Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) of Atty. Marilyn B. Joyas, Clerk of Court V, Lawyers SCRA 28 (2007) RTC Manila, Br. 16, 529Ethical, Leaders Principled
Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, the administrative case against respondent Clerk of Court as a court personnel shall also be considered as a disciplinary proceeding against her as a member of the bar. She was dropped from the rolls and her position declared vacant, and Fined P5,000 for unprofessional = conduct as member of the Bar. d. De La Cruz v. Carretas, 532 SCRA 218 (2007) Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, the administrative case against respondent judge was also considered as a disciplinary proceeding against him as a member of the bar. Violation of the fundamental tenets of judicial conduct embodied in the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics constitutes a breach of Canons 1 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Certainly, a judge who falls short of the ethics of the judicial office tends to diminish the peoples respect for the law and legal processes. He also fails to observe and maintain the esteem due to the courts and to judicial officers. Respondent judge also transgressed Canon 8 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he humiliated, insulted or embarrassed lawyers appearing in his sala. Instead of establishing a cordial and collaborative atmosphere with lawyers, respondent judge alienated them and effectively disregarded their significant role in the administration of justice. He was found guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge, for which he was fined = P 7,500 and also adjudged guilty of violating Canons 1, 8 and 11 and Rule 8.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for which was fined another amount of =7,500. P 3. Tan v. Pacuribot, SCRA (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1982, 14 December 2007) In this case, the Court dismissed the respondent judge for sexual harassment he committed against a court stenographer and a clerk in the Parole and Probation Office. He was likewise required to show cause why he should not be disbarred as a member of the Philippine Bar.
LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS BAR Review 2009

(Cebu)

LegalEthicsUpdates (Bar2009)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LegalEthicsUpdates (Bar2009)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LEGAL ETHICS

HIGHLIGHTS AND UPDATES (2009)

A. LAWYERS AND SOCIETY

BAR Review 2009

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 2 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 3 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 4 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 5 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 6 of 44

BAR Review 2009

Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 7 of 44

B. LAWYERS AND THE COURTS

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 8 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 9 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 10 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 11 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 12 of 44

BAR Review 2009

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 13 of 44

C. LAWYERS AND FELLOW LAWYERS

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 14 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 15 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 16 of 44

D. LAWYERS AND CLIENTS

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 17 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 18 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 19 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 20 of 44

BAR Review 2009

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 21 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 22 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 23 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 24 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 25 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 26 of 44

BAR Review 2009

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 27 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 28 of 44

BAR Review 2009

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 29 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 30 of 44

Lawyers Ethical, Leaders Principled

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 31 of 44

E. LAWYERS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE

BAR Review 2009

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 32 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 33 of 44

F. LAWYERS AND PRACTICE IN FOREIGN JURISDICTIONS

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 34 of 44

LAWYERS AND NOTARIZATION

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 35 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 36 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 37 of 44

BAR Review 2009

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 38 of 44

LEX REVIEWS AND SEMINARS BAR Review 2009

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST LAWYERS

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 39 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 40 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 41 of 44

Legal Ethics Highlights and Updates (2009 Bar) Page 42 of 44

I. REINSTATEMENT AND RESUMPTION OF PRACTICE