LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
C. DUTIES TO THE COURT
CANON 12 A lawyer shall exert every effort and
consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice.
Rule 12.01 A lawyer shall not appear for trial
unless he has adequately prepared himself on
the law and the facts of his case, the evidence
he will adduce and the order of its proferrence.
He should also be ready with the original
documents for comparison with the copies.
Rule 12.02 A lawyer shall not file multiple
actions arising from the same cause.
Rule 12.03 A lawyer shall not, after
obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse
without submitting the same or offering an
explanation for his failure to do so.
Rule 12.04 A lawyer shall not unduly delay a
case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse Court processes.
Rule 12.05 A lawyer shall refrain from
talking to his witness during a break or recess
in the trial, while the witness is still under
examination.
Rule 12.06 A lawyer shall not knowingly
assist a witness to misrepresent himself or to
impersonate another.
Rule 12.07 A lawyer shall not abuse,
browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly
inconvenience him.
Rule 12.08 A lawyer shall avoid testifying in
behalf of his client, except:
o on formal matters, such as the mailing,
authentication or custody of an
instrument, and the like; or
o on substantial matters, in cases where
his testimony is essential to the ends
of justice, in which event he must,
during his testimony, entrust the trial
of the case to another counsel.
CASES:
Atty. Vaflor-Fabroa vs Atty Paguinto Rule 12.03
(Not to delay cause)
Respondent prepared and notarized a joint
affidavit-complaint which was the basis of the
Information for Estafa filed against Petitioner.
25
Respondent also filed 6 other criminal
complaints for violation of the Corporation
Code of the Philippines. Petitioner, who was
the Chairperson of the General Mariano
Alvarez Services Cooperative (GEMASCO),
was sent a Notice of General Assembly for her
removal. The Notice was signed by
respondent. Thereafter, Respondent and his
group took over the GEMASCO office and its
premises.
By conniving with the other members in taking
over the Board of Directors and the
GEMASCO facilities, Respondent violated the
provisions of the Cooperative Code of the
Philippines, the GEMASCO By-laws, as well
as the Lawyers Oath, which provides that a
lawyer shall support the Constitution and obey
the laws.
He also violated the Oath, that a lawyer shall
not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid
or consent to the same, when respondent
caused the filing of baseless criminal
complaints against Petitioner.
He violated Rule 12.03 when after obtaining
an extension of time to file comment on the
complaint he failed to file any and ignored this
Courts subsequent show cause order.
A Courts Resolution is not to be construed as
a mere request, nor should it be complied with
partially, inadequately, or selectively.
Mattus vs Atty Villaseca Rule 12.03 (Not to delay
cause)
Complainant engaged the services of
Respondent to represent her in a case for
Estafa filed against her. However,
Complainant alleged that Respondent was
often absent during court hearings but still
collected appearance fees, frequently sought
postponement of trial when he was present,
failed to file a demurrer to evidence, failed to
present evidence and only filed a
memorandum, and that Respondent was
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
negligent in handling the case resulted in her
and her husbands conviction.
A lawyer is expected to exert his best efforts
and ability to preserve his clients cause, for
the unwavering loyalty displayed to his client
likewise serves the ends of justice.
Respondent violated Rule 12.03 when he
failed to submit a demurrer for evidence,
without offering any explanation why he failed
to do so. As a result, its as if he is deemed to
have waived his right to file the said pleading.
His omission constitutes inexcusable
negligence since 9 months had elapsed from
the time the trial court granted Respondent 20
days to file the demurrer.
The moment Atty. Villaseca agreed to handle
the complainants criminal case he became
duty-bound to serve his clients with
competence and diligence, and to champion
their cause with whole-hearted fidelity. By
failing to afford his clients every remedy and
defense that is authorized by the law, Atty.
Villaseca fell short of what is expected of him
as an officer of the Court. The duty of a lawyer
is to uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession by faithfully performing his
duties to society, to the bar, to the courts and
to his clients.
Also violated Rule 18.03 (Not to neglect legal
matters) and Canon 17 (Trust and confidence).
Bugaring and RBBI vs Hon Espanol Rule 12.04
(Not delay or impede the execution of judgment or
misuse court process)
A lawyer should not be carried away in
espousing his clients cause. He should not
forget that he is an officer of the court, bound
to exert every effort and placed under duty, to
assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. He should not,
therefore, misuse the rules of procedure to
defeat the ends of justice per Rule 10.03 or
unduly delay a case, impede the execution of
a judgment or misuse court processes, in
accordance with Rule 12.04.
26
Lawyers should be reminded that their primary
duty is to assist the courts in the
administration of justice. Any conduct which
tends to delay, impede or obstruct the
administration of justice contravenes such
lawyers duty.
Manila Pest Control vs WCC Rule 12.04 (Not delay
or impede the execution of judgment or misuse court
process)
A complaint for compensation was filed
against Manila Pest Control, and was
submitted for decision in favor of Mario Abitria,
the complainant in the case. The counsel for
Manila Pest Control failed to appear at the
hearing. The decision of the WCC was sent to
Atty Camacho but care of petitioners counsel,
Atty Corpuz. MPC contends that the one
officially furnished with a copy of such
decision was not its counsel, who was without
any connection with Atty. Camacho. Therefore,
it had not received a copy of a decision which
could not thereafter reach the stage of finality.
Such contention does not have merit. As
stated in the affidavit of one of WCCs
employees, Gerardo Guzman, he went to the
office of Atty Corpuz to deliver a copy of the
decision, but Atty Corpuz refused to receive
the said decision alleging that he was no
longer handling the case. Atty Corpuz instead
instructed Mr Guzman to deliver it to Atty
Camacho since it was allegedly Atty Camacho
handling the case.
Such conduct where out of excess of zeal and
out of a desire to rely on every conceivable
defense that could delay if not defeat the
satisfaction of an obligation incumbent on
ones client, a counsel would put on the most
favorable light on a course of conduct which
certainly cannot be given the stamp of
approval.
Malonzo vs Principe Rule 12.04 (Not delay or
impede the execution of judgment or misuse court
process)
NAPOCOR instituted expropriation
proceedings against several lot owners in
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
Bulacan including Complainant in this case.
Complainant is a member of SANDAMA, an
organization of lot owners affected by the
expropriation proceedings. SANDAMA
engaged the services of Respondents law
firm. A complaint for disbarment was filed
before the IBP, where complainant claimed
that respondent, without authority entered his
appearance as the formers counsel in the
expropriation proceedings. And after illegally
representing him, Respondent claimed 40% of
the selling price of his land by way of
attorneys fees. However, Respondent
contends that Complainant is a member of
SANDAMA, which through its President,
Danilo Elfa, engaged the services of
Respondents law office. And that
Complainant executed an SPA in favor of Elfa
to act in behalf of complainant.
In relation to Rule 12.04 - The Court cannot
hold respondent guilty of censurable conduct
or practice justifying the penalty recommended.
While filing the claim for attorneys fees
against the individual members may not be the
proper remedy for respondent, the Court
believes that he instituted the same out of his
honest belief that it was the best way to
protect his interests. After all, SANDAMA
procured his firms services and was led to
believe that he would be paid for the same.
There is evidence which tend to show that
respondent and his firm rendered legal and
even extra-legal services in order to assist the
landowners get a favorable valuation of their
properties. They facilitated the incorporation
of the landowners to expedite the negotiations
between the owners, the appraisers, and
NAPOCOR. They sought the in their
bargaining with NAPOCOR. Suddenly, just
after concluding the compromise price with
NAPOCOR and before the presentation of the
compromise agreement for the courts
approval, SANDAMA disengaged the services
of respondents law firm.
27
Sambajon et al vs Atty Suing Rule 12.05, 12.06,
12.07 (Proper behavior; Lawyer shall not harass
witness)
Respondent is the counsel for Complainants in
a case for illegal dismissal filed against
Microplast Inc. The labor arbiter dismissed the
case based on the Individual Release Waiver
and Quitclaims purportedly signed and sworn
to by the 7 complainants. 4 of the 7 denied
having signed and sworn to before the labor
arbiter the documents or having received the
considerations therefor.
Respondent is guilty to manipulating 4 of the
alleged Release Waiver and Quitclaim.
As an officer of the court, a lawyer is called
upon to assist in the administration of justice.
He is an instrument to advance its cause. Any
act on his part that tends to obstruct, perverts
or impedes the administration of justice
constitutes misconduct.
Respondent violated CPR with his behavior of
deceiving the NLRC with the
misrepresentation in the execution of the
Release Waiver and Quitclaims. He also tried
to coach his client or influence him to answer
questions in an apparent attempt not to
incriminate Respondent.
PNB vs Uy Teng Piao Rule 12.08 (Not to testify on
behalf of client)
Uy Teng Piao was sued by PNB for non-
payment of obligations.
With respect to the testimony of the banks
attorney, although the law does not forbid an
attorney to be a witness and at the same time
an attorney in a cause, the Courts prefer that
counsel should not testify as a witness unless
it is necessary, and that they should withdraw
from the active management of the case.
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS 28

NOTES: of his family in order to prevent such person from

appearing in the investigation of, or official
PD 1829 (Penalizing Obstruction Of proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a condition,
Apprehension And Prosecution Of Criminal whether lawful or unlawful, in order to prevent a
Offenders) person from appearing in the investigation of or in
official proceedings in, criminal cases;
Acts:
(i) giving of false or fabricated information to
(a) preventing witnesses from testifying in any
mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from
criminal proceeding or from reporting the commission
apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or
of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by
property of the victim; or fabricating information from
means of bribery, misrepresentation, deceit,
the data gathered in confidence by investigating
intimidation, force or threats;
authorities for purposes of background information and
(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing not for publication and publishing or disseminating the
any paper, record, document, or object, with intent to same to mislead the investigator or to the court.
impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or
Rule 3, Sec. 16, Rules of Court:
admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or
official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in Death of party; duty of counsel. Whenever a
the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not
cases; thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of his counsel
to inform the court within thirty (30) days after such
(c) harboring or concealing, or facilitating the
death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and
escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable
address of his legal representative or representatives.
ground to believe or suspect, has committed any
Failure of counsel to comply with his duty shall be a
offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent
ground for disciplinary action.
his arrest prosecution and conviction;
The heirs of the deceased may be allowed to be
(d) publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose
substituted for the deceased, without requiring the
of concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the
appointment of an executor or administrator and the
execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name
court may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor
and other personal circumstances for the same
heirs.
purpose or purposes;
The court shall forthwith order said legal
(e) delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by
representative or representatives to appear and be
obstructing the service of process or court orders or
substituted within a period of thirty (30) days from
disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, in
notice.
Tanodbayan, or in the courts;
If no legal representative is named by the counsel
(f) making, presenting or using any record,
for the deceased party, or if the one so named shall
document, paper or object with knowledge of its falsity
fail to appear within the specified period, the court may
and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the
order the opposing party, within a specified time to
investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal
procure the appointment of an executor or
cases;
administrator for the estate of the deceased and the
(g) soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any latter shall immediately appear for and on behalf of the
benefit in consideration of abstaining from, discounting, deceased. The court charges in procuring such
or impeding the prosecution of a criminal offender; appointment, if defrayed by the opposing party, may
be recovered as costs.
(h) threatening directly or indirectly another with
the infliction of any wrong upon his person, honor or
property or that of any immediate member or members

AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS

LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
CANON 13 A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his
cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to
influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the
court..
Rule 13.01 A lawyer shall not extend
extraordinary attention or hospitality to, nor
seek opportunity for cultivating familiarity with
Judges.
Rule 13.02 A lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending
case tending to arouse public opinion for or
against a party.
Rule 13.03 A lawyer shall not brook or invite
interference by another branch or agency of
the government in the normal course of
judicial proceedings.
CASES:
Nestle Phil vs. Sanchez Canon 13 (Refrain from act
giving appearance of influence)
From July 8-10, union members of Union of
Filipro Employees or the Kimberly
Independent Labor Union, who filed a case in
court intensified their pickets that they had
been conducting since June 17 in front of the
Padre Faura gate of the SC
Despite of the warning given by the court to
their leaders and counsel, the picketing
continued
The union members are obstructing the
access to and egress from the courts
premises. They have also constructed
provisional shelters along the sidewalks, set
up kitchens and littered the place. they took
turns haranguing the court all day long with
the use of loudspeakers
The Counsel of the union members
apologized to the court and promised that the
incident will not be repeated again.
The picketing was actually done by the
members of the PAMANTIK (Pagkakaisa ng
MAnggagawa sa Timog Katalugan), an
unregistered loose allegiance of about 75
unions in the Southern Tagalog and not by
29
either the Union of Filipro Employees or the
Kimberly Independent Labor Union.
But the court will not hesitate in future similar
incidents to apply the full force of the law and
punish for contempt those who attempt to
pressure the court to acting one way or the
other in any case pending before it.
The court is entitled to proceed to the
disposition of its business in an orderly
manner, free from outside interference
obstructive of its functions and tending to
embarrass the administration of justice.
Any attempt to pressure or influence courts of
justice through the exercise of either right
amounts to an abuse thereof and is no longer
within the ambit of constitutional protection,
and that any such efforts to influence the court
constitute contempt of court.
In re De Vera Canon 13 (Refrain from act giving
appearance of influence)
Atty De Vera made some snide remarks
regarding the possibility that the Supreme
Court might rule favorably on the
Constitutionality of Plunder Law.
The remarks were far from being constructive
criticisms and served no other purpose other
than to debase the incumbent justices.
His statements are not fair criticisms of any
decision of the Court, but are threats made
against it to force the Court to decide the issue
in a particular manner, or risk earning the ire
of the public. It tends to promote distrust an
undermines public confidence in the judiciary,
by creating the impression that the Court
cannot be trusted to resolve cases impartially,
uninfluenced by public clamor and other
extraneous influences.
Cruz vs Salva Rule 13.02 (No public statements to
Media) Trial by publicity
Fiscal conducted an investigation but the
investigation was conducted in a rather
unusual manner by inviting people, especially
the media, in the Municipal Hall and even
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
gave them the opportunity or prerogative to
direct their questions to Cruz
Salva should have done investigation privately
in his office and not publicly in the session hall
of Municipal Court of Pasay where
microphones were installed and media people
were present. He should also not have made
the media people ask questions. SC was
disturbed and annoyed by such publicity
Martelino vs Alejandro Rule 13.02; Corregidor
massacre
Petitioners contend that they can no longer be
given a fair trial because of the wide publicity
given to their case and that same will render
the judges deciding the case biased as what
they read in the newspaper will necessarily
affect their decision.
the spate of publicity in this case before us did
not focus on the guilt of the petitioners but
rather on the responsibility of the Government
for what was claimed to be a "massacre" of
Muslim trainees. If there was a "trial by
newspaper" at all, it was not of the petitioners
but of the Government.
Also, the Court Martial actually postponed the
trial to a later date to remove any doubt to the
fairness of the judges decision.
In re Request Radio TV Coverage Rule 13.02; the
request to hold a live coverage of Estradas trial before
the Court was denied for the reason that doing the
same could affect the actuations of the judges. No
matter how impartial a judge is, if he knows that hes
being watched by the public, his demeanor will surely
be affected; hell be very reserved and inhibited in
making remarks that may earn him the ire of the public.
Guidelines were laid down by the Supreme Court
regarding live coverage of trials in this case.
An audio-visual recording of the Maguindanao
massacre cases may be made both for
documentary purposes and for transmittal to
live radio and television broadcasting.
Media entities must file with the trial court a
letter of application, manifesting that they
intend to broadcast the audio-visual recording
30
of the proceedings and that they have the
necessary technological equipment and
technical plan to carry out the same, with an
undertaking that they will faithfully comply with
the guidelines and regulations and cover the
entire remaining proceedings until
promulgation of judgment.
No selective or partial coverage shall be
allowed. No media entity shall be allowed to
broadcast the proceedings without an
application duly approved by the trial court.
A single fixed compact camera shall be
installed inconspicuously inside the courtroom
to provide a single wide-angle full-view of the
sala of the trial court. No panning and zooming
shall be allowed to avoid unduly highlighting or
downplaying incidents in the proceedings. The
camera and the necessary equipment shall be
operated and controlled only by a duly
designated official or employee of the
Supreme Court. The camera equipment
should not produce or beam any distracting
sound or light rays. Signal lights or signs
showing the equipment is operating should not
be visible. A limited number of microphones
and the least installation of wiring, if not
wireless technology, must be unobtrusively
located in places indicated by the trial court.
The public Information Office and the Office of
the Court Administrator shall coordinate and
assist the trial court on the physical set-up of
the camera and equipment.
The transmittal of the audio-visual recording
from inside the courtroom to the media entities
shall be conducted in such a way that the least
physical disturbance shall be ensured in
keeping with the dignity and solemnity of the
proceedings and the exclusivity of the access
to the media entities.
The hardware for establishing an
interconnection or link with the camera
equipment monitoring the proceedings shall
be for the account of the media entities, which
should employ technology that can (i) avoid
the cumbersome snaking cables inside the
courtroom, (ii) minimize the unnecessary
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
ingress or egress of technicians, and (iii)
preclude undue commotion in case of
technical glitches.
If the premises outside the courtroom lack
space for the set-up of the media entities
facilities, the media entities shall access the
audio-visual recording either via wireless
technology accessible even from outside the
court premises or from one common web
broadcasting platform from which streaming
can be accessed or derived to feed the
images and sounds.
At all times, exclusive access by the media
entities to the real-time audio-visual recording
should be protected or encrypted.
The broadcasting of the proceedings for a
particular day must be continuous and in its
entirety, excepting such portions thereof
where Sec. 21 of Rule 119 of the Rules of
Court applies, and where the trial court
excludes, upon motion, prospective witnesses
from the courtroom, in instances where, inter
alia, there are unresolved identification issues
or there are issues which involve the security
of the witnesses and the integrity of their
testimony (e.g., the dovetailing of
corroborative testimonies is material, minority
of the witness).
The trial court may, with the consent of the
parties, order only the pixelization of the image
of the witness or mute the audio output, or
both.
To provide a faithful and complete broadcast
of the proceedings, no commercial break or
any other gap shall be allowed until the days
proceedings are adjourned, except during the
period of recess called by the trial court and
during portions of the proceedings wherein the
public is ordered excluded.
To avoid overriding or superimposing the
audio output from the on-going proceedings,
the proceedings shall be broadcast without
any voice-overs, except brief annotations of
scenes depicted therein as may be necessary
to explain them at the start or at the end of the
31
scene. Any commentary shall observe the sub
judice rule and be subject to the contempt
power of the court;
No repeat airing of the audio-visual recording
shall be allowed until after the finality of
judgment, except brief footages and still
images derived from or cartographic sketches
of scenes based on the recording, only for
news purposes, which shall likewise observe
the sub judice rule and be subject to the
contempt power of the court;
The original audio-recording shall be
deposited in the National Museum and the
Records Management and Archives Office for
preservation and exhibition in accordance with
law.
The audio-visual recording of the proceedings
shall be made under the supervision and
control of the trial court which may issue
supplementary directives, as the exigency
requires, including the suspension or
revocation of the grant of application by the
media entities.
The Court shall create a special committee
which shall forthwith study, design and
recommend appropriate arrangements,
implementing regulations, and administrative
matters referred to it by the Court concerning
the live broadcast of the proceedings pro hac
vice, in accordance with the above-outlined
guidelines. The Special Committee shall also
report and recommend on the feasibility,
availability and affordability of the latest
technology that would meet the herein
requirements. It may conduct consultations
with resource persons and experts in the field
of information and communication technology.
All other present directives in the conduct of
the proceedings of the trial court (i.e.,
prohibition on recording devices such as still
cameras, tape recorders; and allowable
number of media practitioners inside the
courtroom) shall be observed in addition to
these guidelines.
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
Foodsphere Inc. vs Atty Mauricio Jr. Rule 13.02;
Batas Mauricio; Livespread with UOD
Batas Mauricio Maurico being the radio
host.
Used his position as a radio host to blackmail
Foodsphere by threatening the latter that hed
make derogatory statements regarding its
Food products.
He violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which mandates:
A lawyer shall not make public statements in
the media regarding a pending case tending to
arouse public opinion for or against a party.
For despite the pendency of the civil case
against him and the issuance of a status quo
order restraining/enjoining further publishing,
televising and broadcasting of any matter
relative to the complaint of CDO, respondent
continued with his attacks against complainant
and its products
Maglasang vs People Rule 13.03 (Not to invite
outside interference)
Castellano, acting as counsel for Maglasang,
accused all the 5 justices of the Courts 2
nd
division of biases and/or ignorance of the law
or knowingly rendering unjust judgments or
resolution.
Atty. Castellano sought to pass the blame on
his deficiencies to the judges in hope of
salvaging his reputation to his client.
It was Atty Castellanos fault that the legal fees
were not properly paid which caused the
dismissal of Maglasang v People case.
32
Summary:
Canon 12 Assist in Speedy and Efficient
Administration of Justice
o 12.01 Adequate Preparation
o 12.02 Forum Shopping
o 12.03 Not to Delay Case
o 12.04 Not Delay or Impede the
Execution of Judgment or Misuse
Court Process
o 12.05 12.07 Proper Behavior;
Lawyer Shall Not Harass Witness
o 12.08 Not to Testify on Behalf of
Client
Canon 13 Refrain from Act Giving
Appearance of Influence
o 13.01 No Extraordinary
Attention
o 13.02 No Public Statements to
Media
o 13.03 Not to Invite Outside
Interference
D. DUTIES TO THE CLIENT
CANON 14 A lawyer shall not refuse his services to
the needy.
Rule 14.01 A lawyer shall not decline to
represent a person solely on account of the
latter's race, sex. creed or status of life, or
because of his own opinion regarding the guilt
of said person.
Rule 14.02 A lawyer shall not decline,
except for serious and sufficient cause, an
appointment as counsel de officio or
as amicus curiae, or a request from the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of its
chapters for rendition of free legal aid.
Rule 14.03 A lawyer may not refuse to
accept representation of an indigent client if:
o he is not in a position to carry out the
work effectively or competently;
o he labors under a conflict of interest
between him and the prospective
client or between a present client and
the prospective client.
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
Rule 14.04 A lawyer who accepts the cause
of a person unable to pay his professional fees
shall observe the same standard of conduct
governing his relations with paying clients.
CASES:
Francisco vs Atty Portugal Rule 14.01 (Availability
of services regardless of status)
Respondent withdrew as counsel for the
petitioner for the reason of lack of financial
consideration and case load.
Respondent has a higher duty to be
circumspect in defending the accused for their
life and liberty is on the line. It is the strict
sense of fidelity of a lawyer to his client that
distinguishes him from any other profession in
society. As to the respondents conduct in
dealing with complainants, he definitely fell
short of the high standard of assiduousness
that a counsel must perform to safeguard the
rights of his clients. Respondent had not been
candid in his dealings with the complainants;
the prudent step was at least to inform the
clients of the adverse situation since they
called him to check the status of the case
Once he agrees to take up the cause of the
client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause
and must always be mindful of the trust
reposed in him. After agreeing to take up the
cause of the client, a lawyer owes fidelity to
his cause and client, even if the client never
paid any fee for the attorney-client relationship
Also, no notice of withdrawal was submitted by
the lawyer. As a lawyer, he is presumably
steeped to the procedures and practices in
court.
In re Atty Adriano Rule 14.02 (Providing Counsel
de Oficio), 14.04 (Same standard of conduct for paying
and non-paying clients)
Atty Adriano was assigned counsel de oficio
by the Court and was required to prepare and
file a brief within 30 days from notice. He
sought several special extensions but still
failed to file his brief.
33
By specific authority, this Court may assign an
attorney to render professional aid to a
destitute appellant in a criminal case who is
unable to employ an attorney.
Correspondingly, a duty is imposed upon the
lawyer so assigned "to render the required
service."
A lawyer so appointed "as counsel for an
indigent prisoner", our Canons of Professional
Ethics demand," should always exert his best
efforts" in the indigent's behalf. No excuse at
all has been offered for non-presentation of
appellant's brief. And yet when he received
notice of his appointment, and when the last
show cause order was issued by this Court,
more than sufficient time was afforded counsel
to prepare and file his brief de oficio.
Perez vs Atty Dela Torre Rule 14.03 (Valid ground
for refusal Conflicting interest)
Atty Dela Torre went to the Municipal bldg
with prepared extra judicial confessions.
He made representations that he could
secure their freedom if they sign the
confessions. Unknown to the accused,
Atty Danilo was representing the heirs of
the murder victim.
Under Rule 15.03 of the CPR, a lawyer
shall not represent conflicting interests
except by writtenconsent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts.
Respondent is therefore duty bound to
refrain from representing two parties
having conflicting interests in a
controversy. The prohibition against
representing conflicting interest is founded
on principles of public policy and good
taste. In 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. It
behooves lawyers not only to keep
inviolate the clients confidence, but also
to avoid the appearance of impropriety
and double-dealing for only then can
litigants be encouraged to entrust their
secrets to their lawyers which is of
paramount importance in the
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
administration of justice. His
representation of opposing clients in the
murder case invites suspicion of double-
dealing and infidelity to his clients. What is
unsettling is that respondent assisted in
the execution by the two accused of
their confessions whereby they admitted
their participation in various serious
criminal offenses knowing full well that he
was retained previously by the heirs of
one of the victims. Respondent, who
presumably knows the intricacies of the
law, should have exercised his
better judgment before conceding to
accuseds choice of counsel.
Canoy vs Atty Ortiz Rule 14.03 (Valid ground for
refusal); Atty turned councilor.
Atty Ortiz was the lawyer of Canoy in a
case before NLRC. Without the knowledge
of Canoy, the case had already been
dismissed by the NLRC because of Atty
Canoys fault.
Canoys defense: He was elected as
councilor tight schedule.
Being elected to a public office is not
enough cause to leave ones client in the
dark. Such act does not only erode the
publics confidence in the lawyer, in
particular, but also in the judiciary, in
general.
NOTES:
Nature of Lawyer-Client relationship
o Relation as strictly personal
o Relation as fiduciary and confidential
o Rules protective of relation
The Concept of Retainer or Employment
o Concept of Retainer and its Necessity
(Rule 138, Sec. 21, Rules of Court)
o Employment of a Law Firm
Rule 138, Sec. 20 (h), Rules of Court
Duty of a lawyer:
(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal
to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed;
34
Rule 138, Sec. 31, Rules of Court
Attorneys for destitute litigants. A court may
assign an attorney to render professional aid free of
charge to any party in a case, if upon investigation it
appears that the party is destitute and unable to
employ an attorney, and that the services of counsel
are necessary to secure the ends of justice and to
protect the rights of the party. It shall be the duty of the
attorney so assigned to render the required service,
unless he is excused therefrom by the court for
sufficient cause shown.
Rule 116, Sec. 6, Rules of Court
Duty of court to inform accused of his right to
counsel. Before arraignment, the court shall inform
the accused of his right to counsel and ask him if he
desires to have one. Unless the accused is allowed to
defend himself in person or has employed a counsel of
his choice, the court must assign a counsel de oficio to
defend him. (6a)
Rule 116, Sec. 7, Rules of Court
Appointment of counsel de oficio. The court,
considering the gravity of the offense and the difficulty
of the questions that may arise, shall appoint as
counsel de oficio only such members of the bar in
good standing who, by reason of their experience and
ability, can competently defend the accused. But in
localities where such members of the bar are not
available, the court may appoint any person, resident
of the province and of good repute for probity and
ability, to defend the accused. (7a)
Rule 116, Sec. 8, Rules of Court
Time for counsel de oficio to prepare for
arraignment. Whenever a counsel de oficio is
appointed by the court to defend the accused at the
arraignment, he shall be given a reasonable time to
consult with the accused as to his plea before
proceeding with the arraignment. (8)
Rule 124, Sec. 2, Rules of Court
Appointment of counsel de oficio for the accused.
If it appears from the record of the case as
transmitted that (a) the accused is confined in prison,
(b) is without counsel de parte on appeal, or (c) has
signed the notice of appeal himself, the clerk of court
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
of the Court of Appeals shall designate a counsel de
oficio.
PD 543 (Authorizing The Designation Of
Municipal Judges And Lawyers In Any Branch
Of The Government Service To Act As
Counsel De Oficio For The Accused Who Are
Indigent In Places Where There Are No
Available Practicing Attorneys)
Section 1. Designation of Municipal Judges and
lawyers in any branch of the government service, as
counsel de oficio. In places where there are no
available practicing lawyers, the District Judge or
Circuit Criminal Court Judge shall designate a
municipal judge or a lawyer employed in any branch,
subdivision or instrumentality of the government within
the province, as counsel de oficio for an indigent
person who is facing a criminal charge before his court,
and the services of such counsel de oficio shall be
duly compensated by the Government in accordance
with Section thirty-two, Rule One Hundred Thirty Eight
of the Rules of Court.
If the criminal case wherein the services of a counsel
de oficio are needed is pending before a City or
municipal court, the city or municipal judge concerned
shall immediately recommend to the nearest District
Judge the appointment of a counsel de oficio, and the
District Judge shall forthwith appoint one in
accordance with the preceding paragraph.
For purposes of this Decree an indigent person is
anyone who has no visible means of support or whose
income does not exceed P300 per month or whose
income even in excess of P300 is insufficient for the
subsistence of his family, which fact shall be
determined by the Judge in whose court the case is
pending, taking into account the number of the
members of his family dependent upon him for
subsistence.
35
CANON 15 a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness,
and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his
clients.
Rule 15.01 A lawyer, in conferring with a
prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as
practicable whether the matter would involve a
conflict with another client or his own interest,
and if so, shall forthwith inform the prospective
client.
Rule 15.02 A lawyer shall be bound by the
rule on privilege communication in respect of
matters disclosed to him by a prospective
client.
Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
the facts.
Rule 15.04 A lawyer may, with the written
consent of all concerned, act as mediator,
conciliator or arbitrator in settling disputes.
Rule 15.05 A lawyer when advising his client,
shall give a candid and honest opinion on the
merits and probable results of the client's case,
neither overstating nor understating the
prospects of the case.
Rule 15.06 A lawyer shall not state or imply
that he is able to influence any public official,
tribunal or legislative body.
Rule 15.07 A lawyer shall impress upon his
client compliance with the laws and the
principles of fairness.
Rule 15.08 A lawyer who is engaged in
another profession or occupation concurrently
with the practice of law shall make clear to his
client whether he is acting as a lawyer or in
another capacity.
CASES:
Aromin vs Boncavil Canon 15 (Observe candor,
fairness, loyalty)
Despite the adverse decision to the petitioner,
Atty Boncavil did not inform the petitioner nor
filed either a motion for reconsideration or a
notice of appeal to prevent the decision from
becoming final. No offer of written evidence
was submitted by Boncavil despite the RTCs
order.
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
Once a lawyer agrees take up the cause of a
client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause
and must always be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. He must serve the
client with competence and diligence and
champion the clients cause with wholehearted
fidelity, care and devotion. Het he owes entire
devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal
in the maintenance and defense of his clients
rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning
and ability to the end that nothing be taken or
withheld from his client.
Jardin vs Villar Canon 15 (Observe candor,
fairness, loyalty)
Atty. Villar was the counsel of Jardin in a
collection of sum of money before RTC.
Despite several extensions given to Atty. Villar,
he failed to file his formal offer of exhibits
which eventually led to the dismissal of the
case.
The act of Villar was in violation of CPR.
Canon 15 provides that a lawyer shall observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings
and transactions with his client. From the
foregoing facts, it is clear that the failure of
Atty. Villar Jr. to file the formal offer of
documentary exhibits led the dismissal of the
collection of sum of money case. He failed to
offer any explanation for his failure to file the
formal offer of Exhibits within the several
extensions of time given him by the trial court
to do so. There is no doubt that it was part of
Atty. Villar Jr as Redentor Jardins counsel to
file said Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits,
and his dereliction of this duty has prejudiced
the interest of his clients interest. His
disregard of the resolution of the court
directing him to file his comment on the
complaint and the attitude he exhibited when
he failed to file his answer when he was
required by the Commission on Bar Discipline
shows imprudence and lack of respect for the
authority of the Court.
Atty Jalandoni vs Atty Villarosa Rule 15.01, 15.03
(Conflict of Interest), 15.04 (Mediator, Conciliator or
Arbitrator)
36
Atty Villarosa represented both Jalandoni and
his son in law. He was the counsel of
Jalandonis son in law in a case filed with the
RTC by the PRC against the former. Jalandoni
was holding about 82 percent of the PRCs
shares of stocks. A day prior to the trial
Villarosa filed a motion to withdraw as counsel
to Atty. Jalandoni alleging that he was the
retained counsel of Jalandonis son in law.
However, despite being fully aware that the
interest of his client Jalandoni [holding an
equivalent of Eighty-two (82%) percent of
PRCs shares of stocks] and the interest of
PRC are one and the same, notwithstanding
the fact that Jalandoni was still his client in
Civil Case No. 97-9862, respondent opted to
represent opposing clients at the same time.
Note: Before representing Jalandoni, the
respondent was already representing
Jalandonis son in law.
IMPORTANT ( HOW TO DETERMINE CONFLICT OF
INTEREST )!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rule 15.03 A lawyer shall not represent
conflicting interests except by written consent
of all concerned given after a full disclosure of
the facts.
It is only upon strict compliance with the
condition of full disclosure of facts that a
lawyer may appear against his client;
otherwise, his representation of conflicting
interests is reprehensible. Conflict of interest
may be determined in this manner:
There is representation of conflicting interests
if the acceptance of the new retainer will
require the attorney to do anything which will
injuriously affect his first client in any matter in
which he represents him and also whether he
will be called upon in his new relation, to use
against his first client any knowledge acquired
through their connection.
The rule on conflict of interests 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.
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
Another test of the inconsistency of interests is
whether the acceptance of a new relation will
prevent an attorney from the full discharge of
his duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his
client or invite suspicion of unfaithfulness or
double-dealing in the performance thereof,
and also whether he will be called upon in his
new relation to use against his first client any
knowledge acquire in the previous
employment. The first part of the rule refers to
cases in which the opposing parties are
present clients either in the same action or in a
totally unrelated case; the second part
pertains to those in which the adverse party
against whom the attorney appears is his
former client in a matter which is related,
directly or indirectly, to the present controversy.
The rule prohibits a lawyer 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. The cases here directly or
indirectly involved the parties connection to
PRC, even if neither PRC nor Lumot A.
Jalandoni was specifically named as party-
litigant in some of the cases mentioned.
Hornilla vs Atty Salunat Rule 15.01, 15.03 (Conflict
of Interest)
Whatever dealings or transactions with
whomever client the law firm wishes to enter
into, the individual members thereof are
deemed part of the same. Consequently, such
members cant represent parties who have an
adverse claim to the law firms clients under
the guise that such representation is not in
behalf of the law firm but one which is
personal.
Gonzales vs Atty Cabucana Rule 15.01, 15.03
(Conflict of Interest)
Whether the service is pro bono in nature is
not an excuse to represent conflicting interests.
37
San Jose Homeowners vs Romanillo Rule 15.01,
15.03 (Conflict of Interest)
Respondent represented the inconsistent
interests of SJHAI, DCI as substituted by
Lydia Durano-Rodriguez and the
Montealegres. Respondent was admonished
yet he continued to represent Durano-
Rodriguez against SJHAI. It is inconsequential
that petitioner never questioned the propriety
of respondents continued representation of
Lydia Durano-Rodriguez. The lack of
opposition does not mean tacit consent. As
long as the lawyer represents inconsistent
interests of two (2) or more opposing clients,
he is guilty of violating his oath.
Diana Ramos vs Atty Imbang (supra) Rule 15.02
(Privilege communication to preserve the secrets of
a client)
Ma. Luisa Hadjula vs Atty Madianda Rule 15.02
(Privilege communication to preserve the secrets of
a client)
Petitioner went to Atty. Madianda to seek legal
advice and brought with her several
documents (Marriage certificate) Relationship
between the 2 soured and respondent used
the knowledge she acquired from petitioner
during her consultation with the former.
The moment complainant approached the
then receptive respondent to seek legal advice,
a veritable lawyer-client relationship evolved
between the two. Such relationship imposes
upon the lawyer certain restrictions
circumscribed by the ethics of the profession.
Among the burdens of the relationship is that
which enjoins the lawyer, respondent in this
instance, 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 follows the
consultation. Nor will it make any difference
that no contract whatsoever was executed by
the parties to memorialize the relationship.
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
Rollon vs Atty Naraval Rule 15.05 (Candid, honest
advice), 18.01 (Client consent with collaborating
counsel)
Despite the knowledge that the decision had
long become final, respondent still took the
petitioners case.
Respondent should have given her a candid,
honest opinion on the merits and the status of
the case. Apparently, the civil suit between
Rosita Julaton and complainant had been
decided against the latter. In fact, the
judgment had long become final and
executory. But he withheld such vital
information from complainant. Instead, he
demanded P8,000 as filing and service fee
and thereby gave her hope that her case
would be acted upon.
Yu vs Bondal Rule 15.05 (Candid, Honest advice)
This case involved 5 cases, 4 of which were
duly attended by the respondent attorney.
However, because of neglect attributable to
the petitioner some of the cases were
dismissed.
No violation of Rule 15 as again, the fault is on
the part of petitioner not the respondent lawyer.
Reddi vs Atty Sebrio Jr. Rule 15.06 (Not state or
imply influence)
Rule 15.06 - "A lawyer shall not state or imply
that he is able to influence any public official,
tribunal or legislative body.
Atty. Sebrio represented, to secure title to the
lot, settle the mortgage obligation, relocate
squatters on the lot, and bribe a judge to
"close the transaction. He convinced
complainant to pay bribe money to our judges
since, he claims, that it is a common practice
in the Philippines.
Rural Bank of Capale, Inc vs Atty Florido Rule
15.07 (Impress compliance with laws)
Atty. Florido and his clients, Nazareno-
Relampagos group, through force or
38
intimidation, with the use of armed men,
forcibly took over the management and the
premises of RBCI. They also forcibly evicted
Cirilo A. Garay, the bank manager, destroyed
the banks vault, and installed their own staff.
It is the lawyers duty to promote or respect
the law and legal processes and to abstain
from activities aimed at defiance of law or
lessening the confidence of the legal system.
15.07 of the CPR requires a lawyer to impress
upon his client compliance with the law and
principles of fairness. A lawyer must employ
only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client. It is his duty to counsel
his clients to use peaceful and lawful methods
in seeking justice and refrain an intentional
wrong to their adversaries. Their duty to
protect their clients must always be made
within the parameters of the law and ethics,
never at the expense of truth, the law, and the
fair administration of justice.
Dr. Gamilla et al vs Atty Marino Jr. 15.08 (Dual
Profession)
Marino was both the president of the Union
and the lawyer of it.
The courts said that this was not even a
question of accountability and transparency it
was a question of a conflict of interests. It was
found out that he only disclosed the said
accounts upon filing a disbarment case
against him by the complainants when is
should be before the settlement of labor case
against the management of UST. The 7m
which he acquired from the compromise
agreement and the attorneys fees from the
1990 labor case and him being the President
of the UST faculty union shows that there is a
conflict of interest under Rule 15.08.
NOTES:
Rule 138, Sec. 3, Rules of Court
Oath regarding duty to client
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
CANON 16 A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that may come into his
profession.
Rule 16.01 A lawyer shall account for all
money or property collected or received for or
from the client.
Rule 16.02 A lawyer shall keep the funds of
each client separate and apart from his own
and those of others kept by him.
Rule 16.03 A lawyer shall deliver the funds
and property of his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have a lien over
the funds and may apply so much thereof as
may be necessary to satisfy his lawful fees
and disbursements, giving notice promptly
thereafter to his client. He shall also have a
lien to the same extent on all judgments and
executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.
Rule 16.04 A lawyer shall not borrow money
from his client unless the client's interest are
fully protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer
lend money to a client except, when in the
interest of justice, he has to advance
necessary expenses in a legal matter he is
handling for the client.
CASES:
Atty Salomon Jr. vs Atty Frial Rule 16.01
(Account); Unauthorized use of Volvo and Nissan Car
When should a lawyer make an account of
money or properties? PROMTLY! As soon
as practicable
Volvo was destroyed in a fire ; Nissans value
deteriorated because of respondents fault
( Both properties were attached )
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.
The Court said that a lawyer is first and
foremost an officer of the court. As such, he is
39
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. 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.
Future property even if not yet property of
his client, if in case he wins, it would be used
to satisfy judgment.
Almandarez vs Atty Langit Rule 16.01 (Account);
also Sec. 25, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
Atty. Langit withdrew the amount deposited to
the court by the defendant which rightfully
belonged to his client.
Respondent committed a flagrant violation of
his oath when he received the sum of money
representing the monthly rentals intended for
his client, without accounting for and returning
such sum to its rightful owner. Respondent
received the money in his capacity as counsel
for complainant. Therefore, respondent held
the money in trust for complainant.
Respondent should have immediately notified
complainant of the trial court's approval of the
motion to withdraw the deposited rentals.
Upon release of the funds to him, respondent
could have collected any lien, which he had
over them in connection with his legal services,
provided he gave prompt notice to
complainant. A lawyer is not entitled to
unilaterally appropriate his client's money for
himself by the mere fact that the client owes
him attorney's fees. In this case, respondent
did not even seek to prove the existence of
any lien, or any other right that he had to
retain the money.
Respondent's failure to turn over the money to
complainant despite the latter's demands
gives rise to the presumption that he had
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
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.
Chua and Hsia vs Atty Mesina Rule 16.01
(Account)
Atty. Mesina obtained the title of a parcel of
land from the petitioners under the
representation that she would return the same
after 4 months and that, after the lapse of 4
months the title had not been returned.
Failure to account
Lawyer and client not barred from business
dealings but should be with utmost honest and
good faith. Why? Because the court
recognized unequal relationship between the
lawyer and the client, wherein the lawyer
might abuse his position.
Viray vs Atty Sanicas Rule 16.01 (Account); lawyer
got 95k/180k lawyers fee, did not inform client.
Viray won in a labor case against the spouses
Lopez. The spouses were ordered by the labor
arbiter to pay the amount of 190k to Viray.
Without the knowledge of Viray, Atty Sanicas
had been receiving partial payments from the
spouses.
The CPR demands the utmost degree of
fidelity and good faith in dealing with the
moneys entrusted to lawyers because of their
fiduciary relationship.
Respondent had been receiving payment on
behalf of complainant for 3 months, but he
didnt even inform the latter of such fact nor
rendered an accounting. It was only when an
Alias Writ of Execution was issued that
complainant discovered that the spouses
already gave respondent the total amount of
P95,000 as partial payment for the award
granted by the tribunal. He was not even
authorized to receive payment and even
refused to deliver the said amount after
demand of the complainant from him.
40
Even if Sanicas was authorized to receive
payment it is still incumbent upon him to
promptly inform his client of the amounts
received.
Note ( IMPORTANT!!!!) The fact that a lawyer
has a lien for his attorney's fees on the money
in his hands collected for his client does not
relieve him from the obligation to make a
prompt accounting. A lawyer has no right to
unilaterally appropriate his client's money for
himself by the mere fact alone that the client
owes him attorney's fees.
Hernandez vs Go Rule 16.02 (Keep Clients Fund
Separate); lawyer kept the properties instead of selling
them.
Atty Go advised her to give him her three land
titles (Lots 848-A, 849-Q, and 849-P; all
situated in Zamboanga City) so he could sell
them to enable her to pay her creditors. He
also persuaded her to execute deeds of sale
in his favor without any monetary
consideration.
Later on, Go bought the properties himself and
used the same to pay the petitioners creditors.
Under Rule 16.02, CPR: A lawyer shall keep
the funds of each client separate and apart
from his own and those of others kept by him.
Respondent abused this trust and confidence
when he did not sell the properties and instead
used his own money to pay the obligations
and kept the properties for himself. Clearly, he
did not adhere faithfully and honestly in his
duty as her counsel. His actions were deceitful,
dishonest, unlawful, and grossly immoral, far
below the moral bar demanded by Court in
upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession.
Tarog vs Atty Ricafort Rule 16.02 (Keep Clients
Fund Separate)
Money was given to Ricafort which was to be
consigned in the Court. However, when the
petitioners inquired as to the status of
consignation, the respondent informed them
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS 41

that the same was deposited in his account, demanded he may be punished for contempt
and that he promised to return the same to the as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved
petitioners. in his official transactions;

Rule 16.02, imposes on an attorney the Quilban vs Robinol Rule 16.03 (Delivery of Funds;
obligation to keep all funds of his client Lawyers Lien)
separate and apart from his own and from
Atty. Robinol had no right to unilaterally
those of others kept by him.
appropriate his clients money not only
because he is bound by a written agreement,
Atty Ricaforts act of depositing the amount of
but also because, under the circumstances, it
P65,000 in his personal account without the
was highly unjust for him to have done so.
consent of the Tarogs and not return it upon
demand, and for him to fail to file the
Also, he is bereft of any legal right to retain his
memorandum and yet not return the amount of
clients funds intended for a specific purpose
P15,000 upon demand constituted a serious
the purchase of land. He stands obliged to
breach of his duties as a lawyer.
return the money immediately to their rightful
Businos vs Ricafort Rule 16.03 (Delivery of Funds; owners.
Lawyers Lien)
Barnachea vs Quicho Rule 16.04 (No Borrowing,
30 thousand was entrusted to the respondent Lending)
for deposit in the bank of petitioners husband.
Respondents services were engaged to
transfer title of property from petitioners sister
2 thousand represented the amount which the
to the petitioner for which 2 checks were
respondent demanded from petitioner
issued in favor of Quicho to pay for the legal
supposedly for a bond in a civil case even if
fees.
there really was no such bond.

After the lapse of 2 months, no such transfer

There is no doubt that respondent is guilty of
was effected. Respondent failed to return the
having used the money of his clients without
same to the petitioner.
their consent. Money collected by a lawyer in
pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients
A lawyer is obliged to hold in trust money or
is held in trust and must be immediately turned
property of his client that may come to his
over to them.
possession. He is a trustee to said funds and
property. He is to keep the funds of his client
Respondent, by converting the money of his
separate and apart from his own and those of
clients to his own personal use without their
others kept by him.
consent, and by deceiving the complainant
into giving him the amount of P2,000.00
The lawyers failure to return the money of his
purportedly to be used as a bond which was
client upon demand gave rise to a
not required, is, undoubtedly, guilty of deceit,
presumption that he has misappropriated said
malpractice and gross misconduct. By so
money in violation of the trust reposed on him.
doing, he betrays the confidence reposed in
him by his clients. Not only has he degraded Rubias vs Batiller Rule 16.04 (No Borrowing,
himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he has Lending); IMPORTANT!!! Purchase of property
besmirched the fair name of an honorable under litigation by lawyer is void.
profession.
The purchase by a lawyer of the property in
When an attorney unjustly retains in his litigation from his client is categorically
hands money of his client after it has been prohibited by Article 1491 paragraph (5) of the

AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS

LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
Philippine Civil Code, and that consequently,
plaintiff's purchase of the property in litigation
from his client (assuming that his client could
sell the same since as already shown above,
his client's claim to the property was defeated
and rejected) was void and could produce no
legal effect, by virtue of Article 1409,
paragraph (7) of our Civil Code which provides
that contracts "expressly prohibited or
declared void by law' are "inexistent and that
"(T)hese contracts cannot be ratified. Neither
can the right to set up the defense of illegality
be waived."
Article 1491 of our Civil Code (like Article 1459
of the Spanish Civil Code) prohibits in its six
paragraphs certain persons, by reason of the
relation of trust or their peculiar control over
the property, from acquiring such property in
their trust or control either directly or indirectly
and "even at a public or judicial auction," as
follows: (1) guardians; (2) agents; (3)
administrators; (4) public officers and
employees; judicial officers and employees,
prosecuting attorneys, and lawyers; and (6)
others especially disqualified by law.
New Civil Code recognizes absolute nullity of
contracts "whose cause, object, or purpose is
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy" or which are "expressly
prohibited or declared void by law" and
declares such contracts "inexistent and void
from the beginning."
Nullity of such prohibited contracts is definite
and permanent and cannot be cured by
ratification. The public interest and public
policy remain paramount and do not permit of
compromise or ratification. In his aspect, the
permanent disqualification of public and
judicial officers and lawyers grounded on
public policy differs from the first three cases
of guardians, agents and administrators
(Article 1491, Civil Code), as to whose
transactions it had been opined that they may
be "ratified" by means of and in "the form of a
new contact, in which cases its validity shall
be determined only by the circumstances at
the time the execution of such new contract.
42
The causes of nullity which have ceased to
exist cannot impair the validity of the new
contract. Thus, the object which was illegal at
the time of the first contract, may have already
become lawful at the time of the ratification or
second contract; or the service which was
impossible may have become possible; or the
intention which could not be ascertained may
have been clarified by the parties. The
ratification or second contract would then be
valid from its execution; however, it does not
retroact to the date of the first contract."
As applied to the case at bar, the lower court
therefore properly acted upon defendant-
appellant's motion to dismiss, on the ground of
nullity of plaintiff's alleged purchase of the land,
since its juridical effects and plaintiff's alleged
cause of action founded thereon were being
asserted against defendant-appellant.
NOTES:
Art. 1491, Civil Code
The following persons cannot acquire by purchase,
even at a public or judicial auction, either in person or
through the mediation of another:
(1) The guardian, the property of the person or
persons who may be under his guardianship;
(2) Agents, the property whose administration or
sale may have been entrusted to them, unless the
consent of the principal has been given;
(3) Executors and administrators, the property of
the estate under administration;
(4) Public officers and employees, the property of
the State or of any subdivision thereof, or of any
government-owned or controlled corporation, or
institution, the administration of which has been
intrusted to them; this provision shall apply to judges
and government experts who, in any manner
whatsoever, take part in the sale;
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks
of superior and inferior courts, and other officers and
employees connected with the administration of justice,
the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
execution before the court within whose jurisdiction or
territory they exercise their respective functions; this
prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment
and shall apply to lawyers, with respect to the property
and rights which may be the object of any litigation in
which they may take part by virtue of their profession.
(6) Any others specially disqualified by law.
(1459a)
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
When does the money come to the possession of
lawyer?
Demand letter
Settlement
Criminal case ( accused dies )
Release of bond
CANON 17 a lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and he shall be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
CASES:
Zabaljauregui Pticher vs Atty Gagate Acts of
Respondent which proved to be inimical to the interest
of petitioner
Atty. Gagate, without the consent of Bantegui,
changed the lock of the Consulting Edge office
door, this prompted Bantegui to file before the
Prosecutors Office.
Cristina was prevailed upon by Atty. Gagate to
put a paper seal on the door of the said
premises, assuring her that the same was
legal. On the scheduled meeting, Bantegui
expressed disappointment over the actions of
complainant and respondent, which impelled
her to just leave the matter for the court to
settle. She then asked them to leave, locked
the office and refused to give them a duplicate
key.
Violation of Canon 17 - Respondent remained
unmindful of his clients trust in him in
43
particular, her trust that respondent would only
provide her with the proper legal advice in
pursuing her interests thereby violating
Canon 17 of the Code.
Records definitively bear out that respondent
completely abandoned complainant during the
pendency of the grave coercion case against
them; this notwithstanding petitioners efforts
to reach him as well as his receipt of the
P150,000.00 acceptance fee.
A lawyers duty of competence and diligence
includes not merely reviewing the cases
entrusted to his care or giving sound legal
advice, but also consists of properly
representing the client before any court or
tribunal, attending scheduled hearings or
conferences, preparing and filing the required
pleadings, prosecuting the handled cases with
reasonable dispatch, and urging their
termination even without prodding from the
client or the court.
Cantiller vs Potenciano Atty Hemorroid; The
petitions submitted by Potenciano were poorly
prepared.
Libertad was made to sign by respondent what
she described as a hastily prepared, poorly
conceived, and haphazardly composed
petition for annulment of judgment. Libertad
alleges that Atty. Potenciano promised her
that the necessary restraining order would be
secured if only because the judge who would
hear the matter was his "katsukaran" (close
friend).
At the hearing of the preliminary injunction Atty.
Potenciano withdrew his appearance as
counsel for complainant. Thus, no restraining
order or preliminary injunction was obtained.
The Court agrees that the 2 petitions appear
to be poorly prepared and written. Libertad
reposed full faith in Atty. Potenciano. His first
duty was to file the best pleading within his
capability. Apparently respondent was more
interested in getting the most out of the
complainant who was in a hopeless situation.
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
He bragged about his closeness to the judge
concerned in one case and talked about the
need to "buy" the restraining order in the other.
Worse still he got P 10,000.00 as alleged
deposit in court which he never deposited.
Instead he pocketed the same
The Court also emphasized that when a
lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby
covenants that he will exert all effort for its
prosecution until its final conclusion. The
failure to exercise due diligence or the
abandonment of a client's cause makes such
lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client
had reposed on him. The acts of respondent in
this case violate the most elementary
principles of professional ethics.
Alisbo vs Jalandon
The surrounding circumstances leads with no
other conclusion than that Attorney Jalandoon,
betrayed his client Ramon Alisbo's trust and
did not champion his cause with that
wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion that a
lawyer is obligated to give to every case that
he accepts from a client. There is more than
simple negligence resulting in the
extinguishment and loss of his client's right of
action; there is a hint of duplicity and lack of
candor in his dealings with his client, which
call for the exercise of this Court's disciplinary
power.
The impression we gather from the facts is
that Attorney Jalandoon used his position as
Alisbo's counsel precisely to favor his other
client, Carlito Sales, by delaying Alisbo's
action to revive the judgment in his favor and
thereby deprive him of the fruits of his
judgment which Attorney Jalandoon, as Sales'
counsel, had vigorously opposed. Thus,
although Atty. Jalandoon prepared Alisbo's
complaint for revival of judgment on April 18,
1970, he delayed its filing until September 12,
1970. He postponed filing the action by asking
the Court instead to resolve pending incidents
in said Civil Case No. 4963. By doing that, he
frittered away what little time was left before
the action would prescribe. The original
44
complaint which he filed in the names of
Ramon Alisbo and his brothers was only
partially defective because of Ramon's
incompetence. By dropping the other plaintiffs,
leaving alone the incompetent Ramon to
prosecute the action, respondent made the
second complaint wholly defective and
ineffectual to stop the running of the
prescriptive period.
Ngayan vs Tugade Discarded affidavit was
furnished by the respondents to the adverse parties.
In the case at bar, complainants claim that
respondent furnished the adverse parties in a
certain criminal case with a copy of their
discarded affidavit, thus enabling them to use
it as evidence against complainants. This
actuation constitutes betrayal of trust and
confidence of his former clients in violation of
paragraph (e), Section 20, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court. Inasmuch as respondent failed
to answer the complaint filed against him and
despite due notice on four occasions, he
consistently did not appear on the scheduled
hearing set by the Office of the Solicitor
General, this claim remained uncontroverted.
Respondent's act of executing and submitting
an affidavit as exhibit for Robert Leonido and
Rowena Soriano advancing facts prejudicial to
the case of his former clients such as the fact
that the crime charged in complainants'
affidavit had prescribed and that he was asked
to prepare an affidavit to make the offense
more grave so as to prevent the offense from
prescribing demonstrates clearly an act of
offensive personality against complainants,
violative of the first part of paragraph (f),
Section 20, Rule 138, Rules of Court. Likewise,
respondent's act of joining the adverse parties
in celebrating their victory over the dismissal
of the case against them shows not only his
bias against the complainants but also
constitutes a degrading act on the part of a
lawyer. It was meant only to titillate the anger
of complainants.
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
In re: Suspension of Atty Maquera Suspension in
Guam
The Superior Court of Guam found that
Maquera acquired his client's property by
exercising the right of redemption previously
assigned to him by the client in payment of his
legal services. Such transaction falls squarely
under Article 1492 in relation to Article 1491,
paragraph 5 of the Civil Code, which prohibits
the lawyer's acquisition by assignment of the
client's property which is the subject of the
litigation handled by the lawyer. Under Article
1492 the prohibition extends to sales in legal
redemption.
This is also a valid ground for his suspension
from the practice of law here as it is violative
of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
specifically, Canon 17 which states that "[a]
lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his
client and shall be mindful the trust and
confidence reposed in him;" and Rule 1.01
which prohibits lawyers from engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. However, it bears stressing that the
Guam Superior Court's judgment ordering
Maquera's suspension from the practice of law
in Guam does not automatically result in his
suspension or disbarment in the Philippines.
Under Section 27,Rule 138 of the Revised
Rules of Court, the acts which led to his
suspension in Guam are mere grounds for
disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction,
at that only if the basis of the foreign court's
action includes any of the grounds for
disbarment or suspension in this jurisdiction
( i.e. an act or omission con or other gross
misconduct, grossly immoral conduct, or a
violation of the lawyer's oath) Likewise, the
judgment of the Superior Court of Guam only
constitutes prima facie evidence of Maquera's
unethical acts as a lawyer. More
fundamentally, due process demands that he
be given the opportunity to defend himself and
to present evidence.
45
NOTES:
If a lawyer decides to take a case, he must be
mindful of the fidelity to the cause of his client
and the trust and confidence imposed by the
latter.
You can abandon your client:
o Client, instead of complying, insists on
violating the law.
o Failure to pay attorneys fees
o Health reasons (but not all)
CANON 18 a lawyer shall serve his client with
competence and diligence.
Rule 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a
legal service which he knows or should know
that he is not qualified to render. However, he
may render such service if, with the consent of
his client, he can obtain as collaborating
counsel a lawyer who is competent on the
matter.
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any
legal matter without adequate preparation.
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of his case and shall
respond within a reasonable time to the
client's request for information.
CASES:
Parinas vs Atty. Paguinto implied warranty of
competence, diligence and legal proficiency
Complainant Parinas engaged the services of
respondent to annul her marriage to Danilo
Soriano. Respondent told complainant that the
subsequent hearings for the case was due to
the judge being sick or out of town. However,
complainant found out that there was no such
case filed in court.
Respondent contends that he has other cases
to handle and attend to that were far more
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
important. In the end, complainant withdrew
the complaint as she was no longer interested
in pursuing the case.
A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client
and must be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him. He shall serve his
client with competence and diligence, and his
duty to safeguard the clients interests
commences from his retainer until his effective
release from the case.
Rule 18.02 is clear that a lawyer shall not
handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation. He has the duty to prepare for
trial with diligence and deliberate speed.
Rule 18.03 also provides that a lawyer shall
not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and
his negligence shall render him liable.
A compromise or withdrawal of charges does
not terminate an administrative case against a
lawyer. A proceeding for suspension or
disbarment is not the same as a civil action
where the complainant is a plaintiff and the
respondent lawyer is a defendant. A
Disciplinary proceeding does not involve a
private interest and afford no redress for
private grievance. They are solely for the
public welfare. The lawyer is called upon to
answer to the court for his conduct as an
officer of the court.
De Juan vs Atty Baria III Rule 18.01 clients
consent is needed when lawyer is in need of a
collaborating counsel
Complainant filed for illegal dismissal against
her company. Respondent represented
complainant for contingency fee agreement.
The labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor
complainant. However the NLRC reversed the
decision. When complainant came to know of
the reversal, she asked the respondent what
to do, to which the latter answered, Paano
niyan iha, hindi ako marunong gumawa ng
Motion for Reconsideration. [ay rugo]
46
Once a lawyer agrees to take up a cause of a
client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause
and must be mindful of the trust and
confidence reposed in him.
Filing a motion for reconsideration is not even
a complicated legal task. It was incumbent
upon the lawyer to return to his books and re-
familiarize himself with the procedural rules.
Or he should have referred or collaborated
with another counsel with the consent of his
client.
Rollon vs Atty Naraval (supra) Rule 15.05, 18.01
Fernandez vs Atty Novero Jr. Rule 18.02
(adequate preparation)
Respondent is the counsel for complainant in
a civil case filed against the Bacolod City
Water District.
The dismissal of the case was because of the
respondents following acts:
o He did not attend the scheduled
hearing, nor seek for a postponement
thereof, thus he was considered to
have waived further presentation of
his evidence and formal offer of his
exhibits.
o The motion for recon had been filed
out of time.
o He shifted the blame to complainant
claiming that the latter was insisting to
present his sister as their last witness,
when in fact, the sister had already
testified and there was no more
witness to present.
The respondents failure to file his formal offer
of exhibits constitutes inexcusable negligence
as it proved fatal to the cause of his client.
Further, his inefficiency in filing the motion for
reconsideration on time resulted to the order
issued by the trial court dismissing the case
became final.
A counsel must constantly keep in mind that
his actions or omissions, even malfeasance or
nonfeasance would be binding on his client.
Lawyers are expected to be acquainted with
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
the rudiments of the law and legal procedure,
and anyone who deals with them has the right
to expect not just a good amount of
professional competence, but also a whole-
hearted fealty to the clients cause. Also, it is
not a defense that he could not control his
client is not a defense, a lawyer should not
dictate the course of the case.
Barbuco vs Atty Beltran Rule 18.03 (not to neglect
legal matters)
Complainant engaged the services of
respondent for the purpose of filing an appeal
before the Court of Appeals. However, such
appeal was dismissed due to the failure of
respondent to file Appellants Brief (it was filed
43 days late).
Respondent contends that he was involved in
a vehicular accident and suffered physical
injuries, thus making him to lose track of
deadlines for the filing of pleadings.
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter
entrusted to him, and his negligence shall
render him liable. The contention of
respondent cannot serve to excuse him from
filing his pleadings on time considering that he
was a member of a law firm composed of not
just one lawyer. He could have asked any of
his partners to file the Brief for him, or at least,
to file a motion for extension of time to file the
pleading
Endaya vs Atty. Oca Rule 18.03 (not to neglect
legal matters)
Respondent was a PAO lawyer assigned to
handle the case of unlawful detainer filed
against complainant spouses. However,
respondent failed to submit the required
affidavits and position paper. The trial court
dismissed the unlawful detainer case but on
appeal, it ordered the complainant to vacate
the property. Thus complainant filed the
administrative complaint against respondent
due to the latters inaction, losing the
opportunity for the complainant to present their
cause and the case.
47
Respondents failure to file the affidavits and
position paper at the lower court did not
actually prejudice his clients, for the court
nevertheless rendered a decision favorable to
them. However, the failure to file is still a
violation of rule 18.03. Respondent failed to
file appeal memorandum before the RTC
which resulted to their loss in the unlawful
detainer case, this denied the spouses the
chance of putting up a fair fight in the dispute.
Dalisay vs Mauricio Batas Mauricio; Rule 18.03
(not to neglect legal matters)
Dalisay engaged the services of Atty Mauricio
for a civil case. Complainant had paid
respondent attorneys fee of P56,000 and
gave him the documents needed for the civil
case. However respondent never rendered
legal services for her. Respondent contends
the following: a.) that complainant did not
engaged his services as counsel in a civil case,
but instead hired him for the purpose of filing a
petition of nullity of title and a petition for
review of a decree and that on the day he was
engaged as counsel, the civil case was
already submitted for decision; b.) that
respondent refused to provide him the
documents related to the case which
prevented him from doing the job; c.) and that
complainant offered tampered evidence in the
civil case and that prompted him to file
falsification cases against complainant.
A.) Rule 18.03 provides that a lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted upon him, and
his negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable. Atty. Mauricio assumed
obligations when he received the amount of
P56,000 to handle the civil case. His
contention came too late because he already
stated in his comment that complainant
engaged his services for the civil case and
was referred by Atty Lozano, who originally
handled the said case. Thus, Atty Mauricio
was neglectful in the performance of his duties
as counsel for complainant.
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
B.) Rule 18.02 provides that a lawyer shall not
handle any legal matter without adequate
preparation. When a lawyer accepts a case,
his acceptance is an implied representation
that he possesses the requisite academic
learning, skill and ability to handle the case.
As a lawyer, he knows where to obtain copies
of the certificates of title. His contention cannot
bear merit since he admitted himself that his
office managed to verify the authenticity of the
titles. However, despite of that, he did not take
any action on the case despite having been
paid for his services. This amounts to
abandonment of his duties and taking undue
advantage of his client.
C.) It was shown in the pleadings that he
learned of the alleged falsification long after
complainant had terminated their attorney-
client relationship. And admitted that he
verified the authenticity of the title only after
the news of his suspension spread in the legal
community. Assuming that complainant indeed
offered falsified evidence, Rule 19.02 provides
that he should have confronted her and asked
her to rectify the fraudulent representation.
And if she refuses, respondent can terminate
his relationship with her under Rule 22.01.
Ruiz vs Santos Rule 18.04 (inform client on the
status of the case)
Atty Ang was the counsel for petitioners Ruiz
against respondent Santos for a case
involving the non-payment of brokers fee. The
trial court rendered a decision in favor of
respondent Santos, and the appeal was
denied due to the failure to pay the appeal fee
within the reglementary period, making the
decision final and executory. Petitioners Ruiz
alleged they were prevented from awaiting
themselves of an appeal due to the mistake
and negligence of Atty Ang.
The failure of Atty Ang to pay the appellate
docket fees on time constitutes negligence.
Despite the express desire of the petitioner to
file an appeal, Atty Ang paid only 9 days after
the last day of appeal.
48
If there is an adverse decision, the proper
remedy is to file a Motion for Reconsideration
to appeal. In this case, Atty Ang instead filed a
petition of a relief from judgment. He also
failed to advice the client of what he failed to
do.
A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the
status of the case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the clients request for
information.
Sps. Soriano vs Atty Reyes Rule 18.04 (inform
client on status of case)
Complainant engaged the services of
st
respondent in a civil case (1 case) for
declaration of nullity with injunction and/or
restraining order. While the case of pending,
respondent reassured complainant that he
was diligently attending to the case and will
inform them of the status. Complainants again
engaged the services of respondent for the
nd
same cause (2 case) against the Technology
st
and Livelihood Resource Center. The 1 case
was dismissed for failure of the respondent to
nd
file a pre-trial brief; likewise, the 2 case was
dismissed for failure to prosecute. Respondent
kept the real status of the cases were kept
from the complainant.
The court stressed that the attorney-client
relationship is highly fiduciary. There is always
a need for the client to receive from the lawyer
periodic and full updates on developments
affecting the case. In failing to inform his
clients of the status of their cases, respondent
failed to exercise such skill, care, and
diligence as men of the legal profession
commonly possess and exercise in such
manners of professional employment.
Somosot vs Atty Lara Rule 18.04 (inform client on
status of case); Contributory negligence (torts)
Respondent is the counsel of complainant in a
collection case filed against the latter by
Golden Collection Marketing Corporation.
After filing the Answer to the Complaint, the
respondent failed to fully inform her of further
developments in the case and that she only
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS 49

heard about the case when there was already NOTES:

a decision against her. Complainant also
learned that respondent wanted to withdraw REMEMBER!!:
as counsel without her knowledge and
A lawyer must know the facts of his case, the
consent. Respondent also failed to oppose
law and jurisprudence applicable to it, as well
Motion for Judgment on the pleadings, where
as the complete knowledge and control of the
the consequence of this is that there will be no
evidences (testamentary and documentary).
trial and the court can render judgment based
A lawyer should inform his client on the status
on the pleadings.
of his case within practicable time if upon
request of client or as soon as practicable.
While the respondent did not completely
abandon the case, there was poor handling of
the complainants defense. The complainant
was never informed of the development of the
case and the omission eventually led t the
grant of the plaintiffs motion for judgment on
the pleadings, which in turn led to the decision
against the defendants.

A lawyer may withdraw from a case upon a

good cause such as when a.) the client
deliberately fails to pay the fees; b.) failure to
comply with the terms of the retainer
agreement; c.) or when the lawyer is elected
or appointed to public office. In this case
however, respondent did not cite these
reasons before the trial court. Instead he
merely filed a Notice of Withdrawal of
Appearance citing only his clients unknown
location and failure to communicate as
reasons for his clients lack of express consent
to his withdrawal.

The court in this case applied the doctrine of

contributory negligence (Torts), where the
conduct of complainant falls short of the
standard of conduct to which he should
conform for his own protection and cooperates
with the negligence of defendant in bringing
about the plaintiffs harm. He may recover
damages but the court shall mitigate the
damages to be awarded. Complainant was
neglectful in not contacting her lawyer to know
the status of her case.

AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS

LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
Summary:
Canon 14 Service to the Needy
o 14.01 Availability of Services
Regardless of Status
o 14.02 Providing Counsel de
Oficio
o 14.03 Valid Ground for Refusal
o 14.04 Same Standard of
Conduct for Paying and Non-
Paying Clients
Canon 15 Observe Candor, Fairness,
Loyalty
o 15.01 Conflict of Interest
o 15.02 Privilege Communication
(To Preserve the Secrets of a
Client)
o 15.03 Conflict of Interest
o 15.04 Mediator, Conciliator or
Arbitrator
o 15.05 Candid, Honest Advice
o 15.06 Not State or Imply
Influence
o 15.07 Impress Compliance with
Laws
o 15.08 Dual Profession
Canon 16 Hold in Trust Clients Moneys
and Properties
o 16.01 Account
o 16.02 Keep Clients Fund
Separate
o 16.03 Delivery of Funds;
Lawyers Lien
o 16.04 No Borrowing, Lending
Canon 17 Trust and Confidence
Canon 18 Competence and Diligence
o 18.01 Client Consent with
Collaborating Counsel
o 18.02 Adequate Preparation
o 18.03 Not to Neglect Legal
Matters
o 18.04 Inform Client on Status of
Case
CANON 19 A Lawyer shall represent his client with
zeal within the bounds of the law.
Rule 19.01 A lawyer shall employ only fair
and honest means to attain the lawful
50
objectives of his client and shall not present,
participate in presenting or threaten to present
unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
Rule 19.02 A lawyer who has received
information that his client has, in the course of
the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a
person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the
client to rectify the same, and failing which he
shall terminate the relationship with such client
in accordance with the Rules of Court.
Rule 19.03 A lawyer shall not allow his client
to dictate the procedure in handling the case.
CASES:
Sambajon et al vs Atty Suing (supra) also in Rule
12.05 12.07
Pena vs Atty Aparicio Rule 19.01 (fair and honest);
blackmail case
Respondent is the counsel for Grace Hufana
in an illegal dismissal case. Complainant sent
notices to Grace Hufana to explain her
absences and to return to work, to which
respondent wrote a reply stating that his
clients claim for separation pay, and that 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.
A lawyer shall represent his client with zeal
within the bounds of the law. Rule 19.01
provides that a lawyer shall employ only fair
and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client and shall not present,
participate in presenting, or threaten to
present unfounded criminal charges to obtain
an improper advantage in any case or
proceeding.
The threats in the letter were not only
unethical for violating Canon 19, but also
amounts to blackmail. The letter was obviously
designed to secure leverage to compel
complainant to yield to their claims. It is more
than a simple demand to pay.
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
Que vs Atty Revilla Jr (supra) Canon 8, Rule 19.01
Pena vs Atty Aparicio (supra) Rule 19.01, 19.02
Dalisay vs Atty Mauricio Jr (supra) Rule 18.03,
19.02
Donton vs Dr Tansingco (supra) Rule 1.02, 19.02
Atty Solidon vs Atty Macalalad Rule 19.03
(Control proceedings)
Respondent is the Chief of the Legal Division
of DENR in Tacloban City. Although he is in
public service, the DENR Secretary gave him
the authority to engage in the practice of law.
Complainant asked respondent to handle the
judicial titling of a parcel of land owned by the
relatives of complainant. After paying the initial
legal fees, complainant tried to contact
respondent to follow-up on the status of the
case. However, he did not receive any
response from respondent.
Respondent on the other hand contended that
it was his client that failed to communicate
with him. That he had already prepared the
draft of the petition, and he simply failed to file
it because he still lacks the needed
documentary evidence that his clients should
have furnished.
Rule 18.03 states that a lawyer shall not
neglect a legal matter entrusted to him and his
negligence in connection therewith shall
render him liable.
The mere failure of the lawyer to perform the
obligations due to the client is considered per
se a violation. The lawyer bears the duty to
serve his client with competence, diligence
and to exert his best efforts, within the bounds
of the law, the interest of his client.
Competence not only in the knowledge of the
law but also in the management of cases by
giving appropriate attention and due
preparation.
In relation to rule 19.03, it is not his clients
who should contact him and dictate the
51
proceedings of the case, but rather him as
their counsel, should be the one.
NOTES:
Rule 138, Sec. 20 (d)
(d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining the
causes confided to him, such means only as are
consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to
mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice
or false statement of fact or law;
CANON 20 A Lawyer shall charge only fair and
reasonable fees.
Rule 20.01 A lawyer shall be guided by the
following factors in determining his fees:
o The time spent and the extent of the
service rendered or required;
o The novelty and difficulty of the
questions involved;
o The importance of the subject matter;
o The skill demanded;
o The probability of losing other
employment as a result of acceptance
of the proffered case;
o The customary charges for similar
services and the schedule of fees of
the IBP chapter to which he belongs;
o The amount involved in the
controversy and the benefits resulting
to the client from the service;
o The contingency or certainty of
compensation;
o The character of the employment,
whether occasional or established;
o The professional standing of the
lawyer.
Rule 20.02 A lawyer shall, in case of referral,
with the consent of the client, be entitled to a
division of fees in proportion to the work
performed and responsibility assumed.
Rule 20.03 A lawyer shall not, without the
full knowledge and consent of the client,
accept any fee, reward, costs, commission,
interest, rebate or forwarding allowance or
other compensation whatsoever related to his
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
professional employment from anyone other
than the client.
Rule 20.04 A lawyer shall avoid
controversies with clients concerning his
compensation and shall resort to judicial
action only to prevent imposition, injustice or
fraud.
CASES:
Urban Bank vs Pena quantum meruit
Respondent was a stockholder, director and
corporate secretary of ISCI. He was given
authority to take over the Pasay property,
which was owned by ISCI, against the tenants
upon the expiration of the lease. On the day
the lease was about to expire, ISCI and
Petitioner Urban Bank executed a Deed of
Sale over the Pasay property. The lessee
surrendered possession of the Pasay property
to ISCI but the unauthorized sub-tenants
refused to vacate the premises. Pursuant to
the authority given by ISCI to him, respondent
had the gates closed and posted security
guards at the property. He later learned that
the property had been transferred from ISCI to
Urban Bank. He informed the Senior VP of
Petitioner Bank about the situation. The VP
then told respondent that they would be
retaining his services in guarding the Pasay
property. The same safeguard was also given
by the President of petitioner bank, and that
after the turn-over he would be given 10%
compensation and attorneys fees. After
respondent successfully cleared the property
of the tenants, he made several attempts to
contact respondent bank in order to collect his
dues. Petitioner bank refused to pay
respondent since, as they contended, that it is
ISCI and not them that had originally engaged
the services of respondent in securing the
premises, thus they could not be held liable.
The trial court granted that respondent should
be payed P28,500 (10% of the market value of
the property), while the CA reversed the
decision stating that since there was no
contract of agency created between petitioner
and respondent, he is entitled P3,000 for his
expenses.
52
The Court in this case ruled that respondent
should be compensated for his services
rendered based on the principle of unjust
enrichment and quantum meruit. He is entitled
to P3,000 as correctly ruled by CA.
There was no written agreement that petitioner
agreed to pay respondent a specific amount or
percentage for his services. However, it
cannot be denied that respondent indeed
rendered his services.
REMEMBER GR: A stipulation on a lawyers
compensation in a written contract controls the
amount of fees that the contracting lawyer
may be allowed to collect. XPN: In the
absence of a written agreement, the attorneys
fees are fixed on the basis of quantum meruit
or as much as he deserves.
In fixing a reasonable compensation for the
services rendered by a lawyer on the basis of
quantum meruit, the following should be
considered (Rule 20.1, CPR):
o The time spent and extend of services
rendered;
o Novelty and difficulty of the questions
involved;
o Importance of the subject matter;
o Skill demanded;
o Probability of losing other employment
as a result of acceptance of the
proffered case;
o Customary charges for similar
services;
o Amount involved in the controversy
and the resulting benefits for the
client;
o Certainty of compensation;
o Character of employment; and
o Professional standing of the lawyer.
No extra-ordinary skills employing advanced
legal training or sophisticated legal
maneuvering were required to be employed in
ejecting the sub-tenants. Lawyering is not a
business; it is a profession in which duty to
public service, not money, is the primary
consideration. Therefore, in this case, the
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
court granted him P3,000 for the expenses
incurred and additional P1,500 for the services
performed in securing the rights of petitioner
as owner of the property.
Masmud vs NLRC ordinary vs extraordinary
concept of legal fees
Alexander Masmud (deceased; substituted by
his wife) engaged the services of Atty Go as
his counsel in a complaint filed against First
Victory Shipping Services for non-payment of
permanent disability benefits, medical
expenses, etc. Alexander agreed to pay
attorneys fees on a contingent basis, as
follows: a.) 20% of the total monetary claims
as settled or paid; and b.) additional 10% in
case of appeal. Also, any award of attorneys
fees shall pertain to respondents law firm as
compensation. The monetary claims of
Alexander were granted except his claim for
medical expenses. Several appeals were
made by First Victory, however both were
dismissed. The decision of the NLRC became
final and executory, thus Evangelina (wife)
received the amount of P3,454,079.20. She
then paid Atty Go P680,000. Atty Go avers
that the P680,000 is only equivalent to 20% of
the awards, thus leaving the balance of 10%,
plus the award pertaining to the counsel as
attorneys fees. Evangelina contends that the
claim for attorneys fees of 40% of the total
monetary award was null and void based on
Art 111 of the Labor Code.
Ordinary attorneys fees pertain to the
reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by
his client for the legal services rendered to the
latter.
Extraordinary attorneys fees, on the other
hand, are attorneys fees awarded by the court
as indemnity for damages to be paid by the
losing party to the prevailing party, such that,
in any of the cases provided by law where
such award can be made, e.g., those
authorized in Article 2208 of the Civil Code,
the amount is payable not to the lawyer but to
the client, unless they have agreed that the
53
award shall pertain to the lawyer as additional
compensation or as part thereof.
In this case, the court applies the ordinary
concept of attorneys fees, or the
compensation that Atty Go is entitled to
receive for representing Evangelina, in
substitution of her husband, before the labor
tribunals and before the court.
Art 111 of the Labor Code provides: (a) In
cases of unlawful withholding of wages the
culpable party may be assessed attorney's
fees equivalent to ten percent of the amount of
the wages recovered.
Art 111 of the Labor Code deals with the
extraordinary concept of attorneys fees. It
regulates the amount recoverable as
attorneys fees in the nature of damages
sustained by and awarded to the prevailing
party. It may not be used as the standard in
fixing the amount payable to the lawyer by his
client for the legal services he rendered.
In determining Atty Gos compensation, Sec
24, Rule 138 of the Rule of Court should be
observed.
The retainer contract between Atty. Go and
Evangelina provides for a contingent fee. The
contract shall control in the determination of
the amount to be paid, unless found by the
court to be unconscionable or unreasonable.
Attorney's fees are unconscionable if they
affront one's sense of justice, decency or
reasonableness. The decree of
unconscionability or unreasonableness of a
stipulated amount in a contingent fee contract
will not preclude recovery. It merely justifies
the fixing by the court of a reasonable
compensation for the lawyer's services.
The Court finds nothing illegal in the
contingent fee contract between Atty Go and
Evangelinas husband. Considering that Atty
Go represented his client successfully, it is
only proper that he should receive adequate
compensation for his efforts. A lawyer is as
much entitled to judicial protection against
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
injustice or imposition of fraud on the part of
his client as the client is against abuse on the
part of his counsel. The fact that a lawyer
plays a vital role in the administration of justice
emphasizes the need to secure to him his
honorarium lawfully earned as a means to
preserve the decorum and respectability of the
legal profession.
Atty Orocio vs Angulan et al contingency fee,
quantum meruit
The National Power Corporation Welfare Fund
was created for the purpose of granting
monthly welfare allowance to all NAPOCOR
employees. Congress enacted EPIRA (Electric
Power Industry Reform Act), which directed
the restructuring of the power industry which
includes the reorganization of NAPOCOR.
Thus, the NAPOCOR Welfare Fund was
abolished. Consequently, some of the
employees in the Welfare Fund resigned,
retired, or separated from service. Thereafter,
the NAPOCOR Welfare Fund Board of
Trustees authorized the release of P184
million for distribution to the Welfare Fund
members who resigned, retired, or separated
upon the effectivity of EPIRA. This prompted
the non-EPIRA separated members (those
who have resigned, retired, or separated prior
to the effectivity of the EPIRA), to demand
their equal share in the remaining assets of
the Welfare Fund. They engaged the services
of petitioner Atty Orocio. Under their legal
retainer agreement, petitioner was entitled to a
Contingency Fee of 15% of whatever amounts
are recovered. NAPOCOR and the non-EPIRA
separated members executed a Compromise
Agreement, which contained a stipulation that
15% Attorneys Fees shall be deducted from
the earnings of those non-EPIRA separated
members. Petitioner Orocio then filed a motion
for approval of charging attorneys lien for the
amount equivalent to 15% of the monies due
the non-EPIRA separated members as his
Attorneys Fees, which was opposed by
respondents (officers of NAPOCOR and
defendants in the mandamus case).
54
In a Contingency Fee Contract, the client and
his lawyer enters into a written contract
whereby the latter would be paid attorneys
fees only if the suit or litigation ends favorably
to the client.
However, in cases where contingent fees are
sanctioned by law, the same should be
reasonable, and should always be subject to
the supervision of a court, such that Canon 20
of CPR, a lawyer is tasked to charge only fair
and reasonable fees.
Attorneys Fees are unconscionable if they
affront ones sense of justice, decency or
reasonableness, or if they are so
disproportionate to the value of the services
rendered.
In this case, due to petitioners dedication and
persistence, respondents finally agreed to
settle amicably with the non-EPIRA separated
members. Hence, it is fair to conclude that
petitioner was entitled to a reasonable high
compensation.
However, petitioners attorneys fees in the
amount of P17,794,572.70 or equivalent to
15% of the P 119,196,000.00 corrected
earnings differential of the non-EPIRA
separated members should be equitably
reduced. Under Section 24, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court, a written contract for services
shall control the amount to be paid therefor
unless found by the court to be
unconscionable or unreasonable. The
amounts which petitioners may recover are
essentially the same awards which we grant to
illegally dismissed employees in the private
sector. In such cases, our Labor Code
explicitly limits attorneys fees to a maximum
of 10% of the recovered amount.
As such, petitioner is entitled to collect only, as
attorneys fees, an amount equivalent to 10%
of the P119,196,000.00 or P11,919,600.00.
But since petitioner admitted having already
received an amount of P3,512,007.32 as his
attorneys fees, he is only entitled to remaining
P8,407,592.68.
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
Quirante vs IAC case itself or separate case
because the court already has the knowledge of the
extent of the services rendered
Dr. Casasola, father of respondents, had a
contract with a building contractor named
Norman Guerrero. The PHILAMGEN
Insurance acted as bondsman for Guerrero. In
view of Guerrero's failure to perform his part of
the contract within the period specified, Dr.
Casasola, thru his counsel, Atty. John
Quirante, sued both Guerrero and
PHILAMGEN before the Court of first Instance
of Manila for damages. TC ruled in favor of Dr.
Casasola. Thereafer, he died leaving his wife
and children. Petitioner filed a motion for the
confirmation of his attorneys fees. He avers
that there was an oral agreement between him
and Dr. Casasola, which was allegedly
confirmed in writing by the widow and two
daughters of the deceased. Pursuant to the
agreement, petitioner is entitled to the
following: a.) In case of recovery of the
P120,000 surety bond, the attorneys fees
shall be P30,000; b.) In case the Court awards
damages in excess of the P120,000 bond, it
shall be divided eqully between the heirs of
Casasola, Atty Quirante, and Atty Cruz.
Petitioner lawyer is not entitled to attorneys
fees since the main case from which he claims
for their fees may arise has not yet become
final. An attorneys fee cannot be determined
until after the main litigation has been decided
and the subject of recovery is at the
disposition of the court. The issue over
attorneys fee only arises when something has
been recovered from which the fee is to be
paid.
In the determination of attorneys fees, it can
be filed a separate case or under the same
case since the Court already has the
knowledge of the extent of the services
rendered.
55
Metrobank vs CA Sec 37, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court
Private respondents were the lawyers of
petitioner Metrobank in a civil case filed
against it involving parcels of land. There were
two instances where private respondents
asked for the fixing of attorneys fees: a.)
During the pendency of the case, when
Metrobank transferred said parcels of land to
Service Leasing Corportaito, private
respondents charging lien, pursuant to Sec 37,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, equivalent to
25% of the actual and current market values of
the litigated properties as its attorneys fees;
b.) Based upon subsequent dismissal of the
case, private respondent filed a motion to fix
its attorneys fees based on quantum meruit.
Petitioner avers that they have paid services
of its lawyers in full but private respondent
contend that partial amounts forwarded to
them did not consist of payment.
Private respondent is not entitled to the
enforcement of its charging lien for payment of
its attorneys fees. Respondent cannot charge
a lien due to the dismissal of the civil case.
Such enforceability is only applicable to
money claims and only to dismissed
judgments if there is an applicable law or pre-
existing agreement between the parties.
Sec 37, Rule 138 states that . . . He shall also
have a lien to the same extent upon all
judgments for the payment of money, and
executions issued in pursuance of such
judgments, which he has secured in a litigation
of his client.
Not knowingly by the party of Atty Alafritz, the
property already belongs to Metrobank, his
client. Therefore, no litigation took place. The
dismissal order neither provided for any
money judgment nor made any monetary
award to any litigant.
A separate civil action is not necessary for the
enforcement of such lien, since it is within the
jurisdiction of the court trying the main case
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
and this jurisdiction subsists until the lien is
settled.
In fixing the compensation based on quantum
meruit, there are three elements:
o The importance of the subject matter
in the controversy;
o The extent of the services rendered;
and
o The professional standing of the
lawyer.
The Court reiterates that the legal profession
is for the public service instead of capital gain.
Its aim is to uphold public interest and not
profiteering.
Research Services vs CA retainer fee, contingency
fee, quantum meruit
Petitioner engaged the services of Atty
Fonacier for the action to rescind the Joint
Venture Agreement filed by Jose Fidel and
Atonia Carreon against petitioner. While the
case was pending, petitioner, without the
knowledge of Atty Fonacier, entered into a
MoA with Filstream International, where the
former assigned its rights and obligations
under the Joint Venture Agreement in favor of
Filstream for P28 million. Thereafter, petitioner
terminated the services of Atty Fonacier. Atty
Fonacier filed a motion to direct payment of
attorneys fees in the sum of 7,000,000 (10%
of the payment made by Filstream to his
client). Trial Court ruled on the basis of
quantum meruit Petitioner pays 600,000. CA
affirmed based on the retainer contract
governing between the parties, where there is
a minimal amount of P800 per month plus
contingent fees on collection cases aside from
the attorneys fee recovered from any law suit.
Petitioner argued that Atty. Fonacier was not
entitled to attorneys fees under the retainer
contract. Atty Fonacier contends that
Research Services assured him that non-
collection cases were included in the
contingent fee arrangement specified in the
retainer contract.
56
The retainer contract shows that it was a
general retainer, since its primary purpose
was to secure beforehand the services of Atty
Fonacier for any legal problem which might
afterward arise. The fixed retaining fee was
P800/month.
In absence of an agreement to the contrary,
the retaining fee is neither made nor received
in consideration of the services contemplated;
it is apart from what the client has agreed to
pay for the services which he has retained him
to perform. In the retainer contract in question,
there was no intention to make the retaining
fee as the attorneys fees for the services
contemplated.
While there was no mention of non-collection
cases in the contract, nevertheless, it also did
not show that Atty Fonacier agreed to render
professional service gratuitously. Unless
expressly stipulated, rendition of professional
services by a lawyer is for a fee or
compensation and is not gratuitous.
However, Atty Fonacier cannot collect
attorneys fees on contingent basis because
the civil case is still unresolved, and such fee
would become due and demandable only if
and when the petitioner obtains judgment in
his favor. If at all, he could only be entitled to
attorneys fees on the basis of quantum meruit.
Ramos vs Atty Ngaseo Rule 20.04 (avoid
compensation controversy with client except when
there is imposition of fraud)
Complainant filed a complaint for suspension
against respondent for violation of CPR and
Art. 1491 of the Civil Code for the demand of a
1,000 sq m of land, a litigated property, as
payment for the latters appearance fees.
Respondent contends that he can collect the
unpaid appearance even without a written
contract on the basis of quantum meruit. And
that his acceptance and appearance fees
were reasonable because a Makati-based
legal practitioner would not handle a case for
an acceptance fee of only P20,000 and
P1,000 per court appearance. Furthermore,
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
that he did not violate Art 1491 of the Civil
Code because when he demanded the
delivery of the 1000 sq. m. of land which was
offered and promised to him in lieu of the
appearance fees, the case has been
terminated, when the appellate court ordered
the return of the 2-hectare parcel of land to the
family of the complainant.
Under Art. 1491(5) of the Civil Code, lawyers
are prohibited from acquiring either by
purchase or assignment the property or rights
involved which are the objects of the litigation
in which they intervene by virtue of their
profession. Public policy disallows the
transactions in view of the fiduciary
relationship involve, where the relation of trust
and confidence and the peculiar control
exercised by these persons. An attorney may
easily take advantage of the credulity and
ignorance of his client and unduly enrich
himself at the expense of his client.
GR: Prohibition applies if the sale or
assignment of the property takes place during
the pendency of the litigation involving the
clients property.
XPN: No violation of Art. 1491(5), if
the property is acquired after the termination
of the case.
For there to be a violation of Art. 1491, the
illegal transaction must be consummated by
the actual transfer of the litigated property
either by purchase or assignment in favor of
the prohibited individual. In this case, there
was no actual acquisition of the litigated
property since the respondent only made a
written demand for its delivery. Mere demand
for the delivery of the litigated property does
not cause the transfer of ownership.
Hence, respondent is only found guilty of
conduct unbecoming a member of the legal
profession in violation of Rule 20.04 of Canon
20 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
where a lawyer shall avoid controversies with
clients concerning his compensation and shall
57
resort to judicial action only to prevent
imposition, injustice or fraud.
NOTES:
RA 5185, Sec. 6 (An Act Granting Further
Autonomous Powers To Local Governments)
Section 6. Prohibition Against Practice. A member
of the Provincial Board or City or Municipal Council
shall not appear as counsel before any court in any
civil case wherein the province, city or municipality, as
the case may be, is the adverse party: Provided,
however, That no member of the Provincial Board
shall so appear except in behalf of his province in any
civil case wherein any city in the province is the
adverse party whose voters are en-franchised to vote
for provincial officials, nor shall such member of the
Provincial Board or City or Municipal Council appear
as counsel for the accused in any criminal case
wherein an officer or employee of said province, city or
municipality is accused of an offense committed in
relation to the latter's office, nor shall he collect any
fee for his appearance in any administrative
proceedings before provincial, city or municipal
agencies of the province, city or municipality, as the
case may be, of which he is an elected official.
The provisions of this Section shall likewise apply to
provincial governors and city and municipal mayors.
Rule 138, Sec. 24, Rules of Court
Compensation of attorneys; agreement as to fees.
An attorney shall be entitled to have and recover
from his client no more than a reasonable
compensation for his services, with a view to the
importance of the subject matter of the controversy,
the extent of the services rendered, and the
professional standing of the attorney. No court shall be
bound by the opinion of attorneys as expert witnesses
as to the proper compensation, but may disregard
such testimony and base its conclusion on its own
professional knowledge. A written contract for services
shall control the amount to be paid therefor unless
found by the court to be unconscionable or
unreasonable.
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
Rule 138, Sec. 32, Rules of Court
Compensation for attorneys de oficio. Subject
to availability of funds as may be provided by the law
the court may, in its discretion, order an attorney
employed as counsel de oficio to be compensates in
such sum as the court may fix in accordance with
section 24 of this rule. Whenever such compensation
is allowed, it shall be not less than thirty pesos (P30) in
any case, nor more than the following amounts: (1)
Fifty pesos (P50) in light felonies; (2) One hundred
pesos (P100) in less grave felonies; (3) Two hundred
pesos (P200) in grave felonies other than capital
offenses; (4) Five Hundred pesos (P500) in capital
offenses.
Rule 138, Sec. 20 (e), Rules of Court
Duties of Attorneys:
(e) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at
every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his
client, and to accept no compensation in connection
with his client's business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval;
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
Attorneys Fees (awarded by court)
actually paid to the party not to his actual
counsel.
Attorneys Lien attorneys claim on a
clients property until compensation is duly
made.
Retainers Fee preliminary fee paid to
ensure and secure a lawyers future services,
to remunerate him from being deprived, by
being retained by one party, of the opportunity
of rendering services to the other party and of
receiving pay from him.
Contingency Fee lawyer gets paid
depending on the success of the case.
Quantum Meruit as much as he deserves.
58
CANON 21 A Lawyer shall preserve the confidence
and secrets of his client even after the attorney-client
relation is terminated.
Rule 21.01 A lawyer shall not reveal the
confidences or secrets of his client except;
o When authorized by the client after
acquainting him of the consequences
of the disclosure;
o When required by law;
o When necessary to collect his fees or
to defend himself, his employees or
associates or by judicial action.
Rule 21.02 A lawyer shall not, to the
disadvantage of his client, use information
acquired in the course of employment, nor
shall he use the same to his own advantage or
that of a third person, unless the client with full
knowledge of the circumstances consents
thereto.
Rule 21.03 A lawyer shall not, without the
written consent of his client, give information
from his files to an outside agency seeking
such information for auditing, statistical,
bookkeeping, accounting, data processing, or
any similar purpose.
Rule 21.04 A lawyer may disclose the affairs
of a client of the firm to partners or associates
thereof unless prohibited by the client.
Rule 21.05 A lawyer shall adopt such
measures as may be required to prevent those
whose services are utilized by him, from
disclosing or using confidences or secrets of
the clients.
Rule 21.06 A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet
conversation about a client's affairs even with
members of his family.
Rule 21.07 A lawyer shall not reveal that he
has been consulted about a particular case
except to avoid possible conflict of interest.
CASES:
Hilado vs David conflict of representation
Petitioner Blandina Gamboa Hilado brought an
action against Selim Jacob Assad to annul the
sale of several houses and lot executed during
the Japanese occupation by Mrs. Hilados
deceased husband. Atty Dizon, one of the
counsels of Petitioner, wrote to Atty Francisco,
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
counsel of respondents, urging him to
discontinue representing the respondents
because Petitioner Hilado had consulted to
Atty Francisco about her case, where on one
occasion she turned over the papers to Atty
Francisco, and the latter sent her a written
opinion.
WON there is a breach of the trust and
confidence reposed upon the lawyer by his
client; WON there is conflict of representation.
Hilado had the purpose of securing Atty
Franciscos professional services, and
submitted documents which was the basis of
the written opinion on the merits of the case
mailed by the firm of Atty Francisco. Thus, an
attorney-client relationship can be said to have
ensued between the two of them. The letter,
which his firm sent to Hilado, binds and estops
him in the same manner and degree as if he
wrote it personally. Information obtained from
a client by a member or assistant of the firm is
information imparted to the firm.
Bun Siong Yao vs Atty Aurelio obligation to
preserve the confidences and secrets of a client
survives even until the death of the client
Respondent Atty Aurelio is a stockholder and
the retained counsel of Solar Farms &
Livelihood Corporation and Solar Textile
Finishing Corp since 1987, of which
Complainant Bun Siong Yao is a major
stockholder. Respondent is also the brother-
in-law of complainants wife.
Complainant purchased several parcels of
land using his personal funds but was
registered in the name of the corporations
upon the advice of respondent. When
complainants wife and respondent had a
disagreement, respondent demanded the
return of his investment in the corporations but
when complainant refused to pay, he filed 8
charges of estafa and falsification of
commercial documents against complainant
and his wife and other officers of the
corporation. Complainant alleged that the
series of suits filed against him and his wife is
59
a form of harassment and constitutes an
abuse of the confidential information which
respondent obtained by virtue of his
employment as counsel.
Contention since 1999 he was no longer the
counsel for complainant or Solar Textile
Finishing Corp. And that he never used any
confidential information in pursuing the
criminal cases he filed but only used
information which he obtained by virtue of his
being a stockholder.
The obligation to preserve the confidences
and secrets of a client arises at the inception
of their relationship. The protection given to
the client is perpetual and does not cease with
the termination of the litigation, nor is it
affected by the party's ceasing to employ the
attorney and retaining another, or by any other
change of relation between them. It even
survives the death of the client.
Gento vs Silapan information arising from A-C
relationship
Respondent is a lessee of complainant and he
also handles the cases of the latter. He
borrowed P200,000 from complainant to
purchase a new car. In return, he issued a
postdated check to answer for the 6 months
interest on the loan and mortgaged his house
and lot. When complainant tried to encash the
postdated check, it was dishonored as the
account of respondent was already closed.
Despite repeated demands, respondent still
failed to make, payment prompting
complainant to file a criminal case for violation
of BP 22 and a civil case for judicial
foreclosure of real estate mortgage.
Respondent violated Canon 21 when he
disclosed that complainant was engaged in
illegal business practices and his intention to
bribe government officials.
The privilege against disclosure of confidential
communications or information is limited only
to communications which are legitimately and
properly within the scope of a lawful
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
employment of a lawyer. However, the matters
he disclosed were not indispensable to protect
his rights and they were not pertinent to the
foreclosure case.
Junio vs Atty Grupo kailangan ng pera dahil
nagfifinals na ang mga anak niya case
Complainant engaged the services of
respondent for the redemption of a parcel of
land registered in the name of her parents.
She gave respondent P25,000 to be used in
the redemption of the said property. However,
respondent did not redeem the property.
Instead, he allegedly used the money to help
with his childrens educational expenses.
A lawyer is bound to observe candor, fairness,
and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions
with his client.
5 years had passed since respondent retained
the cash for his own personal use. Whats
worse is that the passage of time he somehow
forgot about the obligation. This clearly shows
his blatant disregard of his obligations which
reflects on his honesty and candor.
Uy vs Atty Gonzales information obtained outside
of A-C rel (contrast with Genato vs Silapan)
Complainant engaged the services of
respondent to prepare and file a petition for
the issuance of a new certificate of title. When
the petition was about to be filed, respondent
went to complainants office demanding a
certain amount other than what was previously
agreed upon. Instead of filing the petition,
respondent filed a letter-complaint against him
for Falsification of Public Documents.
No violation of Rule 21.02 because the
information used in the Estafa through
Falsification of Public Documents case were
obtained by respondent due to his personal
dealings with complainant. It was not obtained
in his professional capacity, but as a
redemptioner of a property originally owned by
his deceased son and therefore, the facts he
alleged in his complaint for estafa was not in
any way violation of Canon 21. There is no
60
way we can equate the filing of the complaint
against complainant to a misconduct that is
wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity
and good demeanor or that renders him
unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.
To hold otherwise would be precluding any
lawyer from instituting a case against anyone
to protect his personal or proprietary interests.
NOTES:
Rule 138, sec 20 (e), Rules of Court
To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at
every peril to himself, to preserve the secrets of his
client, and to accept no compensation in connection
with his client's business except from him or with his
knowledge and approval;
Rule 130, Sec 24 (b), Rules of Court
Section 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged
communication. The following persons cannot
testify as to matters learned in confidence in the
following cases:
(b) An attorney cannot, without the consent of his
client, be examined as to any communication made by
the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the
course of, or with a view to, professional employment,
nor can an attorney's secretary, stenographer, or clerk
be examined, without the consent of the client and his
employer, concerning any fact the knowledge of which
has been acquired in such capacity;
Art. 208, Revised Penal Code
Art. 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and
tolerance. The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum period and suspension shall be imposed
upon any public officer, or officer of the law, who, in
dereliction of the duties of his office, shall maliciously
refrain from instituting prosecution for the punishment
of violators of the law, or shall tolerate the commission
of offenses.
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
Rule 21.01 GR: Not to reveal confidence
and secrets
XPN:
o Authorized by client
o Required by law
o Necessary to collect fees
Rule 21.02 Can use information received in
course of employment provided that there is
consent given by the client.
Rule 21.03 GR: No giving of information to
outside agency
XPN: use for
o Auditing
o Bookkeeping
o Accounting
o Statistical
o Data processing
o Any similar purpose
Rule 21.04 & 21.05 GR: Law office may
share information
XPN:
o when prohibited by client
Rule 21.06 Cannot give information not only
to family members but also to friends
Rule 21.07 GR: Not to reveal that lawyer
was consulted
XPN:
o In order to avoid possible conflict of
interest
CANON 22 A Lawyer shall withdraw his services
only for good cause and upon notice appropriate in the
circumstances.
Rule 22.01 A lawyer may withdraw his
services in any of the following case:
o When the client pursues an illegal or
immoral course of conduct in
connection with the matter he is
handling;
o When the client insists that the lawyer
pursue conduct violative of these
canons and rules;
o When his inability to work with co-
counsel will not promote the best
interest of the client;
61
o When the mental or physical condition
of the lawyer renders it difficult for him
to carry out the employment
effectively;
o When the client deliberately fails to
pay the fees for the services or fails to
comply with the retainer agreement;
o When the lawyer is elected or
appointed to public office; and
o Other similar cases.
Rule 22.02 A lawyer who withdraws or is
discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien,
immediately turn over all papers and property
to which the client is entitled, and shall
cooperative with his successor in the orderly
transfer of the matter, including all information
necessary for the proper handling of the
matter.
CASES:
Domingo vs Aquino Rule 22.01 (good causes for
withdrawal of services)
Asuncion Domingo Sta. Maria and Atty. Luis
Domingo, Jr. were appointed co-special
administrators of the estate of Luis Domingo,
Sr. Pedro Aquino filed a money claim on the
estate. CFI approved the money claim of
Aquino. Both parties appealed to the CA. CA
affirmed CFI judgment with modifications in
favor of Aquino (allowed compounded interest).
The estate's counsel in the CA, Atty. Jose A.
Unson, did not receive the notice and copy of
the judgment sent to him by registered mail;
but the estate's attorneys in the intestate
proceedings pending in the lower court, Attys.
Primicias, Del Castillo and Macaraeg, were
verbally informed by respondent's counsel of
the judgment. Consuelo Domingo de Lopez
filed on March 9, 1967, with the CA an
"Appearance with Motions for Substitution and
to be served with a copy of the Judgment,"
stating that Asuncion Domingo Sta. Maria had
long resigned as special administratrix with the
permission of the intestate court, that Atty.
Luis Domingo, Jr. (who had caused the
prosecution of the appeal) was removed from
his trust by the intestate court, for having
squandered cash funds of the estate, that, as
a consequence, she was appointed judicial
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
administratrix and has since been
administering the estate alone; that as judicial
administratrix, she wished to file a motion for
reconsideration and that the clerk of court be
directed to serve copy of said judgment on her
counsel instead of on Atty. Unson and praying
that as present judicial administratrix, she be
substituted in lieu of the former joint
administrators and that her counsel be served
with copy of the CAs decision.
Records show that ATTY UNSON was the
counsel of record of the ESTATE OF
DOMINGO in the appellate court and never
filed any withdrawal as such counsel. Even
after the removal of ATTY DOMINGO as
administrator of the estate, ATTYUNSON filed
in the appellate court his memorandum for the
estate. Moreover, while it may be true that
ATTY UNSON ceased as counsel for the
estate and for the former administrator when
the intestate court granted his motion to
withdraw as counsel by virtue of his
appointment to and assumption of public office
of Assistant Administrator of the Sugar Quota
Administration, this was true only as far as the
intestate court was concerned. He continued
on record in the appellate court and did not file
any withdrawal as counsel. In addition to that,
no appearance of new counsel for the estate
was ever filed. It follows that since notice and
copy of the appellate courts decision were
served by registered mail on the estates
counsel of record ATTY UNSON and the latter
failed to claim his mail on the 5th day after the
first notice of the post master, such service
was deemed completed and effected and
binding upon the client, in this case the Estate
of Domingo. As to the contention that removal
of ATTY DOMINGO as administratrix means
removal of ATTY UNSON as the estates
counsel because ATTY DOMINGO was the
one who engaged the services of ATTY
UNSON, the fact that ATTY UNSONS
services were engaged by ATTY DOMINGO in
his official capacity as administrator, did not
make ATTY UNSON his personal counsel.
ATTY UNSON continued to be authorized to
represent the estate as its counsel until the
new administrator DOMINGO DE LOPEZ
62
should terminate his services which she never
did.
Montano vs IBP and Atty Juan Dealca Rule 22.01
(good causes for withdrawal of services); you lawyer
for yourself case
Complainant hired the services of Respondent
lawyer as his counsel in collaboration with one
Atty Gerona in a case pending before the CA.
They agreed upon an attorneys fees of
P15,000. Respondent demanded another
P4,000 and the remaining balance of P3,500
prior to the filing of Montanos brief. When
complainant was unable to pay, respondent
withdrew his appearance as counsel. When he
returned the case folder, he attached a note
stating Pepe and Del Monte, for breaking
your promise, since you do not want to fulfill
your end of the bargain, heres your reward:
Henceforth, you lawyer for yourselves. Here
are you papers.
Under Canon 22 of the CPR, a lawyer shall
withdraw his services only for good cause and
upon notice appropriate in the circumstances.
Rule 22.01 provides for valid causes of
withdrawal of services.
In the present case there was no proper
withdrawal as complainant did not deliberately
fail to pay him the attorneys fees.
Elisa Venterez vs Atty Cosme Rule 22.01 (good
causes for withdrawal of services)
Complainant engaged the services of
respondent for a civil case for declaration of
ownership with damages. The ruling was
against them. Complainant directed
respondent to file a Motion for
Reconsideration or a Notice of Appeal, but the
latter failed or refused to do so. He then asked
another lawyer to prepare a MR. 2 month after
respondent received the adverse decision,
respondent filed for a Notice of Retirement of
counsel. He contends the son of one of the
complainants informed him that he was
withdrawing the case from respondent
because they already contacted another
lawyer to create the MR for them.
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
Once a lawyer takes up the cause of the client,
he owes fidelity to such cause and must be
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him. A lawyer is not at liberty to abandon his
client and withdraw his services without
reasonable cause and only upon notice
appropriate in the circumstances. In this case,
when respondent received the copy of the
decision, he did not bother to file a MR or a
Notice of Appeal. Thus, complainants were
compelled to engage the services of a new
counsel. The case does not fall under any of
the grounds mentioned in rule 22.01. The
professional relation as a lawyer with his
clients is not terminated by the simple turnover
of records of the case to his clients. The
attorney-client relationship may be terminated
by the client at any time with or without cause.
In Re: Atty Briones Rule 22.01 (good causes for
withdrawal of services); failing health
Atty Briones is the counsel of Restituto
Cabacan in a criminal case. Atty Briones was
given notice through mail to file appellants
brief but failed to do so. He contended that he
failed to file the brief because he never
received a copy of the resolution requiring him
to file said brief. If ever his secretary received
a copy, the latter was not able to give it to him
because he had already ceased practicing law
due to failing health.
Atty Briones did not properly withdraw his
services as counsel. The cessation of his law
practice is not an excuse for his failure to file
the required brief. Even if it were true that Atty.
Briones has stopped practicing law, he still
could not ignore the directives coming from
the Court. It does not appear from the records
of the said case that Atty. Briones has
withdrawn his appearance. Unless he has
withdrawn his appearance in the case, the
Court would still consider him as counsel for
the accused-appellant and he is expected to
comply with all its orders and directives.
Lim Jr vs Atty Villarosa (supra)
63
Obando vs Figueras Rule 22.02 (duties of a lawyer
who withdraws); remember this case
Alegria Strebel Figueras together with her
stepsons, Eduardo and Francisco, filed a
petition for settlement of the intestate estate of
her deceased husband Jose Figueras. While
the settlement was pending, she died and
Eduardo assumed the administration of the
joint estates of Jose and Alegria. Petitioner
Felizardo Obando, a nephew of Dona Alegria
filed a Petition for Probate of Dona Alegrias
Last Will and Testament. Petitoner Oband was
appointed as Eduardos co-administrator of
the joint estates. However, Eduardo insisted
that the alleged will was a forgery. The
document was then submitted to the NBI and
was found that the signatures were not made
by the same person. This incident led to the
indictment and conviction of Petitioner Obando
in a criminal case for estafa through
falsification of public document. Eduardo sold
the two parcels of land, left by the Figueras
couples that were located in New Manila,
Quezon City to Amigo Realty Corporation.
Petitioner Obando moved to nullify the sale.
However he was removed as co-administrator,
thus respondents filed a motion to dismiss on
the ground that petitioner lost his legal
standing to pursue the case.
Contention Pet claim that when Atty Joaquin
Yuseco filed the Motion to Dismiss, he no
longer represented the respondents when
respondent dispensed the counsel services in
view of a Compromise Agreement with
Petitioner Obando.
Representation continues until the court
dispenses the services of the counsel.
According to Sec. 26, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court, a counsel may be validly substituted
only if the following requisites are complied
with:
o New counsel files a written application
for Substitution.
o The clients written consent is
obtained;
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
o The written consent of the lawyer to
be substituted is secure, if it can still
be; if not, then the application must
carry proof that notice of the motion
has been served on the attorney to be
substituted in the manner required by
the Rules.
Atty Canlas 3 ways of substitution:
o Instance of the new lawyer
i. A Motion for Substitution is
filed by new lawyer,
ii. With the conformity of the old
counsel,
iii. And with the consent of client.
o Instance of the old lawyer
i. A Motion to Withdraw
Appearance is filed by the old
counsel,
ii. With the consent of the client.
iii. Then enter of appearance of
the new counsel.
o Instance of client anytime; informs
the court.
64
Summary:
Canon 19 Representation with Zeal
o 19.01 Fair and Honest
o 19.02 Rectify Clients Fraud
o 19.03 Control Proceedings
Canon 20 Attorneys Fees
o 20.01 Fee Guide
o 20.02 Clients Consent of Fees
for Referral
o 20.03 Clients Consent of
Acceptance Fee
o 20.04 Avoid Compensation
Controversy with Client
Canon 21 Preserve Clients Confidence
o 21.01 Revelations of
Confidence and Secrets Allowed
o 21.02 Use of Information
Received in Course of
Employment Allowed
o 21.03 Prohibition to Giving
Information to Outside Agency
o 21.04 & 21.05 Protection from
Disclosure
o 21.06 Prohibition of Indiscreet
Conversation
o 21.07 Not to Reveal that Lawyer
was Consulted
Canon 22 Withdrawal of Services for
Good Cause
o 22.01 Good Causes for
Withdrawal of Services
o 22.02 Duties of Lawyer Who
Withdraws
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS 65

***REVIEW*** 3.01 No False or Unfair Claim re:

LAWYERS OATH
I, _________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will
support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as
the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities
therein;
Qualifications
3.02 No False or Misleading Firm Name
3.03 Partners Assuming Public Office
3.04 Not Use Media to Attract Legal
Business
CANON 4 Support For Legal Reforms And
Administration Of Justice
Canon 5 Participate In Legal Education Program

I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any CANON 6 Canons Applies To Lawyers In
in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue Government Service
any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor
consent to the same; 6.01 Primary Duty: That Justice is Done
6.02 Not to Use Public Position for Private
I will delay no man for money or malice, and will Interest
conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my 6.03 Not to Accept Employment After
knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well Government Service
to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon
myself these voluntary obligations without any mental Duties to the Legal Profession:
reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
CANON 7 Uphold The Integrity And Dignity Of The
Legal Profession

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 7.01 No False Statement

Duties to Society:
CANON 1 Promote And Respect The Law And Legal
Process
1.01 No Unlawful, Dishonest, Immoral,
Deceitful Conduct
1.02 No Counseling to Defy Law
1.03 Not to Encourage Lawsuit or
Proceedings o 1.04 Encourage Client to
Avoid Controversy
CANON 2 Provide Efficient And Convenient Legal
Services
2.01 Not to Reject The Cause of the
Defenseless or Oppressed
2.02 Not to Refuse to Give Legal Advice
2.03 No Solicitation
2.04 No Rates Lower Than Customarily
Charged
CANON 3 Information On Legal Services That Is
True, Honest, Fair, And Dignified
7.02 Not to Support Unqualified Bar
Applicant
7.03 No Conduct Adversely Affecting the
Profession
CANON 8 Courtesy, Fairness, Candor Towards
Professional Colleagues
8.01 No Abusive and Improper Language
8.02 Not to Encroach on Professional
Employment
CANON 9 Unauthorized Practice of Law
9.01 Not to Delegate Work
9.02 Not to Divide Legal Fees
Duties to the Court:
CANON 10 Observe Candor, Fairness and Good
Faith
10.01 Truthfulness Towards the Court
10.02 Not to Misquote or Misrepresent
Contents of Paper
10.03 Observe Rules of Procedure

AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS

LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS
CANON 11 Respect Courts and Judicial Officers
11.01 Proper Attire
11.02 Punctuality
11.03 Proper Language and Behavior
11.04 Not to Attribute to Judge Motives
11.05 Grievances Against Judge
CANON 12 Assist in Speedy and Efficient
Administration of Justice
12.01 Adequate Preparation
12.02 Forum Shopping
12.03 Not to Delay Case
12.04 Not Delay or Impede the Execution of
Judgment or Misuse Court Process
12.05 12.07 Proper Behavior; Lawyer
Shall Not Harass Witness
12.08 Not to Testify on Behalf of Client
CANON 13 Refrain from Act Giving Appearance of
Influence
13.01 No Extraordinary Attention
13.02 No Public Statements to Media
13.03 Not to Invite Outside Interference
Duties to the Client:
CANON 14 Service to the Needy
14.01 Availability of Services Regardless of
Status
14.02 Providing Counsel de Oficio
14.03 Valid Ground for Refusal
14.04 Same Standard of Conduct for Paying
and Non-Paying Clients
CANON 15 Observe Candor, Fairness, Loyalty
15.01 Conflict of Interest
15.02 Privilege Communication (To
Preserve the Secrets of a Client)
15.03 Conflict of Interest
15.04 Mediator, Conciliator or Arbitrator
15.05 Candid, Honest Advice
15.06 Not State or Imply Influence
15.07 Impress Compliance with Laws
15.08 Dual Profession
66
CANON 16 Hold in Trust Clients Moneys and
Properties
16.01 Account
16.02 Keep Clients Fund Separate
16.03 Delivery of Funds; Lawyers Lien
16.04 No Borrowing, Lending
CANON 17 Trust and Confidence
CANON 18 Competence and Diligence
18.01 Client Consent with Collaborating
Counsel
18.02 Adequate Preparation
18.03 Not to Neglect Legal Matters
18.04 Inform Client on Status of Case
CANON 19 Representation with Zeal
19.01 Fair and Honest
19.02 Rectify Clients Fraud
19.03 Control Proceedings
CANON 20 Attorneys Fees
20.01 Fee Guide
20.02 Clients Consent of Fees for Referral
20.03 Clients Consent of Acceptance Fee
20.04 Avoid Compensation Controversy with
Client
CANON 21 Preserve Clients Confidence
21.01 Revelations of Confidence and
Secrets Allowed
21.02 Use of Information Received in
Course of Employment Allowed
21.03 Prohibition to Giving Information to
Outside Agency
21.04 & 21.05 Protection from Disclosure
21.06 Prohibition of Indiscreet Conversation
21.07 Not to Reveal that Lawyer was
Consulted
CANON 22 Withdrawal of Services for Good Cause
22.01 Good Causes for Withdrawal of
Services
22.02 Duties of Lawyer Who Withdraws
AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS
LEGAL ETHICS_FINALS 67

NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT CANON 6 C O M P E T E N C E & D I L I G E N C E

CANON 1 I N D E P E N D E N C E 6.01 Precedence of Duties

1.01 Independent Judgment
1.02 Independence from Colleagues
1.03 Refrain from Influencing Outcome of
Litigation
1.04 Not to Allow Social Relations to
Influence Judgment
1.05 No Inappropriate Connections with
Other Branches of Government
1.06 Independent in Relation to Parties
1.07 Safeguards for Discharge of Judicial
Duties
CANON 2 I N T E G R I T Y
6.02 Judicial Duties
6.03 Keeping up with Developments
6.04 International Law
6.05 Efficient and Prompt Delivery
6.06 Order and Decorum
6.07 Incompatible Conduct
(Note: To be reviewed together with the compiled
class digests)
----------------------------- END----------------------------------

2.01 Conduct Above Reproach; Perception

2.02 Reaffirm Peoples Faith in Judiciary
2.03 Initiate Disciplinary Action Against
Erring Lawyers

CANON 3 I M PA R T I A L I T Y

3.01 Without Fear or Favor

3.02 Enhances Confidence of the Public
3.03 Minimize Occasions for Disqualification
3.04 Comments on Proceedings
3.05 Disqualifications
3.06 Disclosure

CANON 4 P R O P R I E T Y

4.01 Avoidance of Impropriety

4.02 Dignity
4.03 Relations with Lawyers
4.04 Family Associated with Case
4.05 Use of Residence
4.06 Free Expression
4.07 Fiduciary Interests
4.08 Advancing Private Interests
4.09 Confidential Information
4.10 Other Activities
4.11 Practice of Law
4.12 Form Associations
4.13 4.15 Gifts and Favors

CANON 5 E Q U A L I T Y

5.01 5.05 Equality of Treatment

AUF-SOL | 2016 | JDC.RYS