Legal Ethics Digests Hofilena 2c pdg Canon 9 A LAWYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE

E OF LAW RULE 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only performed by a member of the Bar in Good Standing. RULE 9.02 A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide for a fee legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except: a)where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate that, upon the latters death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time to his estate or to persons specified in the agreement; or b) where a lawyer undertakes to complete the unfinished or legal business of a deceased lawyer; c) where a lwayer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan, even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on profit sharing arrangement. Cayetano v Monsod Facts: Monsod was nominated as Comelec chairman in 1991. Cayetano opposed the nomination on the ground that Monsod did not possess the necessary qualifcation of having been in the practice of law for at least 10 year. The constitution requires the Comelec chair to be a member of the Philipppine bar who has engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years. Despite the objection of Cayetano, the Commission on Appointments confirmed the nomination. Hence this petition challenging Monsods appointment. Issue: Is Monsod Qualified? Yes. Held: The practice of law is not limited to overseeing cases in court. Practice of law n modern conditions consists of work performed outside of any court and having no immediate relation to court proceedings. It embraces the giving of legal advice on a large variety of subjects and the preparation and execution of legal foduments and instruments covering an extensive field of business relations and other affairs Atty Monsod after taking the bar exam worked in the law office of his father from 19631970 then joined the world bank. While there he got acquaitnted with the laws of member-countries and did coordinating legal work of the bank. Upon his return he worked with Meralco as an executive. Later he was a legal consultant for several companies. HE was also sec-gen and national chairman of namfrel, which incidentally required knowledge of election law. Taking into consideration Monsods past experiences as lawyereconomist/manager//negotiator/legislator it can be said e has been engaged in the practice of law for the past 10 years. Padilla dissent: Practice of law consists of several factors 1) habituality 2) compensation 3)application of law, legal practice principles and procedures 4)attorney client relationship Cambaliza v Cristobal-tenorio Facts: Cambaliza was a former employee of the Cristobal-Tenorio Law office, he filed a case for disbarment against Respondent Cristobal-Tenorio for deceit, grossly immoral conduct and malpractice. Deceit: represented herself married to Felicisimo Tenorio who has a prior exiting marriage. Gross immoral conduct: disseminated libelous affidavits against a Counselor. Malpractice: allowed her husband, a non-lawyer to practice by making him a senior partner in her law office.

The last allegation is evidenced by the law office letterhead which included her husband as a senior partner and an ID where he signed as Atty and appearance in curt as counsel Issue: Is she guilty of violating Rule 9.01?YES Held: A lawyer shall not delegate to an unqualified person the performance of a task that may only be performed by members of the bar in good standing. By allowing her husband to appear as counsel and by representing him as an attorney Cristobal-Tenorio is guilty of violating rule 9.01. She also assisted in unauthorized practice of law Aguirre v Rana Facts: Rana passed the 2000 bar examinations. The following year, one day before the oath taking, Aguirre filed a petition for denial of admission to the bar against Rana, charging Rama with unauthorized practice of law, grave misconduct, violation of law and grave misrepresentation. Rama was alleged to have appeared as counsel for a certain Bunan in the May 2001 elections before the Municipal Board of canvassers in Masbate, and filed a pleading as counsel. His clients were running for Mayor and Vice-Mayor. He was still allowed to take his oath as a member of the bar but ruled that he could not sign the roll of attorneys pending the resolution of the charge. Incidentally he is also a government employee (Secretary of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mandaon Masbate): By law, he is not allowed to act as counsel in any court/admin body because of his government position Issue: W/n he is allowed by law to act as counsel for a client in any court or administrative body? Held:

Respondent is guilty of unauthorized practice of law. Rana had been appearing in proceedings even before he took his oath. This misconduct casts serious doubt on his moral fitness as a member of the bar. Practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court. It embraces preparation of pleadings and papers incident to actions and other proceedings, the management of such actions on behalf of clients before judges and courts. Giving advice to clients and all actions taken for them in matters connected with the law. Basically activity in and out of court which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training, and experience. Although he passed the bar examinations it is the signing in the roll of attorneys that finally makes one a full-fledged lawyer. In fine, he engaged in the practice of law by filing pleadings and signing as counsel and giving advice to his clients thereby creating a atty-client relationship even before signing the roll of attorneys. He shouldve waited a little longer. (Rule 9 violat ed; Unauthorized practice of law) He is DENIED ADMISSION to the Bar

Laquindanum v Quintana Facts: Judge Laquindanum, an executive judge (in RTC Cotabato) tasked by the SC under AM 03-08-02-SC to closely monitor activities of notaries within her jurisdiction charged Quintana with notarizing documents beyond the jurisdiction of his notarial license and with notarizing documents not known to him to be based on actual facts. Further it was found that his wife sometimes notarized the documents herself

Legal Ethics Digests Hofilena 2c pdg Quintana argues that Judge Laquindanum purposedly singled him out as he already filed an application for notarial practice but he was burdened with too many requirements. This stemmed from an IBP dispute between the two. Issue: Is Quintana guilty of violating rule 9.01? Yes. He assisted in the unauthorized practice of law by negligently letting his wife notarize documents in his absence. While he contends that he rectified this error by slapping his wife, this is of no consequence as he did not in the first place make the necessary steps to make sure that it wouldnt happen in the first place. He is also in violation of notarial law. A person who is commissioned as a notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register. Respondent cannot take refuge claiming that it was his wifes act and that he did not authorize his wife to notarize documents. He is personally accountable for the activities in his office as well as the acts of his personnel including his wife, who acts as his secretary. Likewise, evidence reveals that respondent notarized in 2004 a Deed of Donation wherein, (sic) Honorata Rosel (Honorata Rosil) one of the affiants therein, was already dead at the time of notarization as shown in a Certificate of Death issued by the Civil Registrar General of Libungan, Cotabato. Penalty: Revoked notarial commission AND suspended for 6 months

Issue: Did the non-inclusion of the deed of sale in the complaint amount to a violation of 10.01, 02, 03? Held:

No. A lawyer has the duty to be truthful in all his dealings, however this duty does not require him to advance matters of defense on behalf of his or her clients opponent. Villalon was not duty bound to build the case for Fernandez. The cause of action chosen by Palacios was for the annulment of the deed of donation. Palacios had told her that the deed of sale was void for lack of consideration. It was not a necessary fact for his case. Only the clients operative facts and not the other evidentiary facts need to be included in the Complaint. It is correct for the respondent to argue that pointing out the existence of the January 12 Deed of Absolute Sale was a matter of defense which the defendant in said civil case can freely point out to the trial judge through his own pleadings. It cannot be argued that there was suppression of evidence on the part of the respondent as she is not the only person who had access or possession of the said Deed of Absolute Sale. It was a document readily available to the general public through the Notarial Office. Moreover, it was a document which was fully known to herein complainant as he was supposed to be a party to the said Deed of Absolute Sale. In other words, a person cannot possibly suppress the existence of a document which everyone else, especially the opposing party-litigant, knows about.

Canon 10 A LAWYER OWES CANDOR AND FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT RULE 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by an artifice RULE 10.02 A layer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved. RULE 10.03 A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the ends of justice . Fernandez v De Ramos-Villalon Facts: In 2004, Palacios, a lot owner in Makati, sought the help of Fernandez to help him in a land grabbing case. Palacios won the case and he allegedly agreed to pay Fernandez 2M. In 2005, Palacios bumped into one Mrs. Lirio and to his surprise, he found out that Fernandez was trying to sell HIS Makati property. Fernandez has for his basis an alleged deed of donation that Palacio executed in favor of Fernandez Palacios, with the help of Atty. Villalon, filed a complaint in order to nullify the deed of donation. Fernandez answered that he had an Absolute Deed of Sale in his favor from Palacios. Thereafter, Villalon was charged by Palacios for violation of rules 10.01, 10.02, 10.03 among others. He claims that Villalon suppressed and excluded in the complaint the existence of an unregistered but notarized deed of absolute sale. Villalon counters that as counsel of Palacios she is under no duty to include the fact that there existed a deed of sale because only her clients operative facts and not other evidentiary facts needed to be included n the complaint. The deed of sale was a matter of defense that Fernandez, as defendant could raise as a matter of defense.

Rivera v Corral Facts: Rivera instituted a complaint against Corral for malpractice and conduct unbecoming of a member of the Philippine bar. A decision for an ejectment case was received by the office of Corral on Feb 23 1990, a notice of appeal was filed by Corral March 13, 1990, the next day he went to the clerk of court and changed the date of receipt from Feb 23 to Feb 29, without leave of court. Corral later filed a reply to the Riveras manifestation that he received the decision on Feb 28, there being no Feb 29. Corral argues that he merely changed the date because of a typographical error with the consent of the clerk of court. Issue: Should Corral be disbarred for changing the date when he received the decision of the court? Held: No. but she shall be suspended for 1 year. The correction of the date was made not to reflect the truth but to mislead the trial court into believing that the notice of appeal was filed within the reglementary period. Receipt on the 23rd put the filing of the reply on the 13th of march outside of the reglementary period. In order to avoid this problem , Corral altered the date he received the decision. He made it to appear that the appeal was seasonably file (w/in 15 days!) This was an act of Dishonesty, which constitutes grave misconduct a violation of Canon 10, Rule 10.01.

Legal Ethics Digests Hofilena 2c pdg Bondoc v Judge Simbulan Facts: This case began because Attys Lanee and Stephen David (husband and wife), private prosecutors representing the government, were allegedly repeatedly absent or unprepared in two criminal complaints against the Totaans for violation of RA 3019 In the course of the proceedings, the complaint against the Totaans were dismissed upon the Totaans demurrer to evidence. In turn, former Representative Juan Pablo Bondoc charged Judge Simbulan of RTC Pampanga with partiality, gross ignorance and gross misconduct in the handling of two criminal cases against the Totaans. It was alleged that Simbulan kept on asking the Davids if they could speed up the case and she would accommodate them. This complaint was dismissed. Instead, the Davids were charged with violation of a certain SC Memorandum. Issue: Are the spouses david guilty of violating Canon 10? Held: Yes. The complaint was filed in the name of Bondoc, but he never actually appeared before the court and could not have woven the tale of unfair treatment in the complaint which spoke of intricate courtroom proceedings. The complaint was based primarily on information relayed to him by the Davids. The two lawyers authored the allegations in the complaint AS officers of the court the counsel are expected to be as truthful and objective as possible in providing information to their client regarding developments in the court room. They owe candor and fairness and good faith to the court. The case record shows that the two lawyers made it appear in their report that that Simbulan had made it unduly difficult for them to prosecute the criminal cases. What really happened was that they supplied their client with patently misleading information to cover up their gross short comings as lawyers. In fact, in the criminal cases, they were found to have come to court unprepared. They asked for postponements during the criminal trial and were unable to come up with the witnesses on time. They filed the case against Judge Simbulan just to cover up their shortcomings. Fine, warning, held in indirect contempt Que v Revilla Facts:

His repeated attempts to go beyond legitimate means allowed by professional ethical rules in defending the interest of his clients are uncalled for measures to avoid the enforcement of the final judgment of the trial courts. He violated rule 10.03 of the CPR that makes it obligatory for a lawyer to observe the rules of procedure and not to misuse them to defeat the ends of justice. He used the procedural rules to thwart and obstruct the speedy and efficient administration of justice. He committed willful, and deliberate falsehood in the pleadings filed with the lower courts. He neglected to file the proper remedy when it became available. He is also guilty of violating rule 10.01 a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be mislead by an artifice. He concealed the truth from the court. His duties to his clients yield to his duty to the court.

Que accused Atty. Revilla of violating certain provisions of the CPR. Among other things, Revilla lost in an unlawful detainer case and he repeatedly raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction of the MeTC and RTC in the cases even when knew that these courts had jurisdiction. It is alleged that he did this to overturn the decision against his clients. Revilla also filed two petitions for annulment of title, a petition for annulment of judgment and later on a petition for declaratory relief in a different court in order to further delay the execution of the judgment against his clients. He also brought up certain falsities in his motions for reconsideration

Issue: should he be disbarred? Held: Yes. A lawyer is not at liberty to maintain an action through means inconsistent with truth and honor. He must not encourage multiplicity of suits or engage in forum shopping.