Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Chapter 1 : INTRODUCTION

a. Definitions of Legal and Judicial Ehics

LEGAL ETHICS It is a branch of moral science which treats of the duties which an attorney owes to the court, to
his client, to his colleagues in the profession and to the public as embodied in the Constitution, Rules of Court, the
Code of Professional Responsibilities, Canons of Professional Ethics, jurisprudence, moral laws and special laws.
It is the embodiment of all principles of morality and refinement that should govern the conduct of every member
of the bar. It has also been broadly defined as the living spirit of the profession, which limits yet uplifts it as a
livelihood.

b. Sources of Legal and Judicial Ethics:
1. Rules of Court
2. Code of Professional Responsibility
3. Supreme Court Decisions
4. Statutes
5. Constitution

c. Supervision and Control Over the Practice of Law
*Art. VIII, sec 5, sub-sec. 5 of the 1987 Constitution
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-
privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

d. Admission to the Practice of Law
LOURDES R. BUSIOS, complainant, vs. ATTY. FRANCISCO RICAFORT, respondent.

Complainant charged respondent with having committed the crime of estafa by misappropriating the sum of
P32,000.00. Of this amount, P30,000.00 was entrusted to respondent for deposit in the bank account of complainants
husband, while P2,000.00 represented the amount respondent demanded from complainant supposedly for a bond in
a Civil Case when no such bond was required. Respondent did not appear in the administrative proceedings to clear his
name. Respondent was able to pay the amount, complainant withdrew the estafa case but proceeded with the
administrative case.

Held: DISBARRED. There is no doubt that respondent is guilty of having used the money of his clients without their
consent. Money collected by a lawyer in pursuance of a judgment in favor of his clients is held in trust and must be
immediately turned over to them
Respondent, by converting the money of his clients to his own personal use without their consent , and by deceiving
the complainant into giving him the amount of P2,000.00 purportedly to be used as a bond which was not required, is,
undoubtedly, guilty of deceit, malpractice and gross misconduct. By so doing, he betrays the confidence reposed in him
by his clients. Not only has he degraded himself but as an unfaithful lawyer he has besmirched the fair name of an
honorable profession.
When an attorney unjustly retains in his hands money of his client after it has been demanded he may be punished for
contempt as an officer of the Court who has misbehaved in his official transactions; but proceedings under this section
shall not be a bar to a criminal prosecution.

EMMA T. DANTES, complainant, vs.ATTY. CRISPIN G. DANTES, respondent.

Despite variations in the specific standards and provisions, one requirement remains constant in all the jurisdictions
where the practice of law is regulated: the candidate must demonstrate that he or she has "good moral character," and
once he becomes a lawyer he should always behave in accordance with the standard. In this jurisdiction too, good
moral character is not only a condition precedent1 to the practice of law, but an unending requirement for all the
members of the bar. Hence, when a lawyer is found guilty of grossly immoral conduct, he may be suspended or
disbarred.2
Facts:
In an Affidavit-Complaint3 dated June 6, 2001, filed with the (IBP), Emma T. Dantes, sought the disbarment of her
husband, Atty. Crispin G. Dantes on the ground of immorality, abandonment, and violation of professional ethics and
law. Complainant alleged that respondent is a philanderer. Respondent purportedly engaged in illicit relationships with
two women, one after the other, and had illegitimate children with them. From the time respondents illicit affairs
started, he failed to give regular support to complainant and their children, thus forcing complainant to work abroad to
provide for their childrens needs. Complainant pointed out that these acts of respondent constitute a violation of his
lawyers oath and his moral and legal obligation to be a role model to the community.
Three children were born to the couple, namely, Dandelo, Dante and Daisy, who were born on February 20,
1980,8October 14, 19819 and August 11, 1983,10 respectively. Complainant narrated that their relationship was
marred by frequent quarrels because of respondents extra-marital affairs.11 Sometime in 1983, she brought their
children to her mother in Pampanga to enable her to work because respondent had failed to provide adequate
support. From 1986 to 2001, complainant worked abroad as a domestic helper.
Denying that there was a mutual agreement between her and respondent to live separately, complainant asseverated
that she was just compelled to work abroad to support their children. When she returned to the Philippines, she
learned that respondent was living with another woman. Respondent, then bluntly told her, that he did not want to
live with her anymore and that he preferred his mistresses.
Complainant presented documentary evidence consisting of the birth certificates of Ray Darwin, Darling, and Christian
Dave,12 all surnamed Dantes, and the affidavits of respondent and his paramour13 to prove the fact that respondent
sired three illegitimate children out of his illicit affairs with two different women. Letters of complainants legitimate
children likewise support the allegation that respondent is practice of law.
Except for the penalty, we find the above recommendation well-taken.
Issue: won atty dantes is guilty of gross immoral conduct
Yes.
The Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
"Rule 1.01- A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
"Canon 7- A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities
of the Integrated Bar."
"Rule 7.03- A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he,
whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession."
The Code of Professional Responsibility forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct. Immoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show
indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.22 To be the basis of disciplinary
action, the lawyers conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree23 or committed under such
scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency.24
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing Atty. Crispin G. Dantes is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN
from the Roll of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the respondents record as a member of the Bar,
and notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the Office of the Court Administrator
for circulation to all courts in the country.

e. Definition and Nature/Characteristics of the Practice of Law

People vs Villanueva

FACTS: On Sept. 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged SImplicio Villanueva with crime of Malicious
Mischiedf, before the Justice of the Peace Court of said Municipality. Said accused was represented by counsel de
oficio, but later on replaced by counsel de parte. The complainant in the same case was representry by City Attorney
Ariston Fule of San Pablo City, having entered his appearance as private-prosecutor, having secuting the permission of
the the Secretary of Justice.
Counsel for the accused presented a Motion in inhibit Fiscal Fule from Acting as Private prosecutor in this case, this
time invoking sec. 32, Rule 127, now sec. 35, Rule 138, Revised Rules, which bars certain attorneys from practicing.
ISSUE: Whether of not Atty. Fule violate sec. 32 of Rule 127 now Sec. 35, Rule 138, revised Rules of Court, which bars
certain attorneys from practicing.
RULING: The Court holds that the appearance of Attorney Fule did not constitute private practice, within the meaning
and contemplation of the Rules. Practice is more than isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary
action, a succession of acts of the same kind. The word private practice of law implies that one must have presented
himself to be in the active and continued practice of the legal profession and that his professional services are available
to the public for compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. It has never been
refuted that City Attorney Fule had been given permission by his immediate supervisor, the Secretary of Justice, to
represent the complainant in the case at bar, who is a relative.





Cayetano vs monsod 201 SCRA 210, 1991

FACTS
Monsod was nominated by President Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC on April 25, 1991. Cayetano
opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been
engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years. Challenging the validity of the confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments of Monsods nomination, petitioner filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying that said
confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared
null and void because Monsod did not meet the requirement of having practiced law for the last ten years.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Monsod satisfies the requirement of the position of Chairman of the COMELEC.
HELD:
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. A person is also considered to be in the practice of
law when he: . . . for valuable consideration engages in the business of advising person, firms, associations or
corporations as to their rights under the law, or appears in a representative capacity as an advocate in proceedings
pending or prospective, before any court, commissioner, referee, board, body, committee, or commission constituted
by law or authorized to settle controversies. Otherwise stated, one who, in a representative capacity, engages in the
business of advising clients as to their rights under the law, or while so engaged performs any act or acts either in court
or outside of court for that purpose, is engaged in the practice of law.
Atty. Christian Monsod is a member of the Philippine Bar, having passed the bar examinations of 1960 with a grade of
86.55%. He has been a dues paying member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. He
has also been paying his professional license fees as lawyer for more than ten years. Atty. Monsods past work
experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyer-manager, a lawyer-entrepreneur of industry, a lawyer-negotiator of
contracts, and a lawyer-legislator of both the rich and the poor verily more than satisfy the constitutional
requirement that he has been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.


METROPOLITAN BANK v CA
FACTS:- ANTECEDAL FACTS (up to you guys kung gusto nyo basahin tong paragraph na toh... not pertinent to our
lesson):Celedonio Javier bought 7 parcels of land owned by Eustaqio Alejandro. Javier mortgaged with Metrobank the
lots to securea loan of Bautista?Int'lHotel Corp. Metrobank foreclosed on the properties. Alejandro alleged fraud in the
sale, and brought suits against Javierand Metrobank. During the pendency of these suits, Metrobank sold lots to
Service Leasing, resold to Herby Commercial,which mortgaged the sameto Banco de Oro.- Arturo Alfariz and Associates
handled the civil cases of Metrobank. All the civil cases were for the declaration of nullity of certain deeds of sale, with
damages. The lawyers did not have any knowledge of any of the transfers made by Metrobank. They filed amotion to
enter its charging lien (25% of the actual and current market values of the litigated properties as its attys fees.)Despite
due notice, Metrobank failed to appear and oppose, so the RD annotated the atty's liens on the TCTs.- Alejandro
(plaintiffs) filed a motion to dismiss which was granted with prejudice to the earlier order of annotation. Thelawyers
filed a motion to fix the atty's fees based on quantum meruit. CA affiremed order to Metrobank to pay ALfariz
andASsociates attysfees.
ISSUE: WoN lawyers are entitled to atty's fees
HELD: NO
RATIO:1. A charging lien to be enforceable requires as a condition sine qua non a judgment for money and execution
inpursuance of such judgment. In the case at bar, the civil cases were dismissed upon the initiative of the plaintiffs "in
viewof the fullsatisfaction of their claims". The dismissal neither provided for any money judgment nor made any
monetary award to anylitigant. The charging lien was WITHOUT ANY LEGAL BASIS.2. The lien of respondent is not of a
nature which attached to the property in litigation but is at most a personal claimenforceable by a writ of execution.3.
While a client cannot defeat an atty's right to his charging lien by dismissing the case, terminating the services of
hiscounsel, waiving his cause or interest in favor of the adverse party or compromising his action, this rule cannot
findapplication here as the termination of the cases was not at the instance of the client, but of the opposing party.4.
There is an obvious necessity for a hearing because the persons who are entitled to or who must pay attys fees have
theright to be heard upon the question of propriety or amount.5. Regarding American jurisprudence stating a contrary
rule - the Court held that in the absence of a statute or specialagreement providing otherwise, the general rule is that
an atty has no lien on the land

f. Restrictions and Disqualifications in the Practice of Law

Rule 138, Rules of Court (just refer to your codal)
Art VIII, sec 13, Constitution : The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or
in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the
Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record
of the case and served upon the parties. Any Members who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or
resolution, must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts.

Art IX, Sec 2 Constitution: No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any other office or
employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the active management or control of any
business which, in any way, may be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly
or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its subdivisions,
agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.

Art X, Constitution (codal)

Sec 90, RA 7160 : Section 90. Practice of Profession. -

(a) All governors, city and municipal mayors are prohibited from practicing their profession or engaging in any
occupation other than the exercise of their functions as local chief executives.

(b) Sanggunian members may practice their professions, engage in any occupation, or teach in schools except during
session hours: Provided, That sanggunian members who are also members of the Bar shall not:

(1) Appear as counsel before any court in any civil case wherein a local government unit or any office, agency, or
instrumentality of the government is the adverse party;

(2) Appear as counsel in any criminal case wherein an officer or employee of the national or local government is
accused of an offense committed in relation to his office.

(3) Collect any fee for their appearance in administrative proceedings involving the local government unit of which he is
an official; and

(4) Use property and personnel of the government except when the sanggunian member concerned is defending the
interest of the government.

(c) Doctors of medicine may practice their profession even during official hours of work only on occasions of
emergency: Provided, That the officials concerned do not derive monetary compensation therefrom.

Ramos vs. Maalac, 89 Phil. 270
24 Jul

FACTS:

Petition for certiorari was filed seeking annulment of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan regarding
a foreclosed parcel of land. Petitioners question the validity of the CFI ruling that they will be held in contempt for
refusing to vacate the land. The said property, being collateral for a loan to a Mr. Rivera, was foreclosed due to non-
payment of loan amount and its interest within the prescribed periods. Mr. Rivera later sold the property to Ms. Lopez,
who later filed petition that she be placed in possession of the land. The petitioners question the ruling of the court.

ISSUES:

Whether or not:

(1) The decision of the lower court (CFI) is valid;
(2) Directing the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of Felipa Lopez is valid; and,
(3) (Possible Legal Ethics Issue) the term appearance would include only presence in courts.

HELD:

YES on first two issues. NO on the third issue. Petition was dismissed. Cost against the petitioners.

RATIO:

Claim of the petitioners as to the validity of the decision cannot be sustained for the reason that it is in a nature of
collateral attack to judgment which on its face is valid and regular for a long time. It is a well known rule that a
judgment, which on its face is valid and regular, can only be attacked in separate action brought principally for the
purpose (Gomez vs. Concepcion, 47 Phil. 717).

The second issue was also not taken for the simple reason that the issuance of writ of possession in foreclosure
proceedings is not an execution of judgment within the purview of Section 6 Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, but is
merely ministerial and complementary duty of the court.

In the third issue, the word or term appearance includes not only arguing a case before any such body but also fi ling
a pleading in behalf of a client as by simply filing a formal motion, plea or answer.

Herminio Noriega vs Atty. Emmanuel Sison

In 1981, Noriega filed a disbarment case against Sison. Noriega alleged that Sison as a hearing officer of the Securities
and Exchange Commission is not allowed to engage in the private practice of law; yet Noriega alleged that Sison has
created another identity under the name Manuel Sison in order for him to engage in private practice and represent
one Juan Sacquing before a trial court in Manila.

Sison, in his defense, argued that he is in fact representing Juan Sacquing but the same is with the permission of the
SEC Commissioner; that he never held himself out to the public as a practicing lawyer; that he provided legal services to
Sacquing in view of close family friendship and for free; that he never represented himself deliberately and
intentionally as Atty. Manuel Sison in the Manila JDRC where, in the early stages of his appearance, he always signed
the minutes as Atty. Emmanuel R. Sison, and in one instance, he even made the necessary correction when the court
staff wrote his name as Atty. Manuel Sison; that due to the inept and careless work of the clerical staff of the JDRC,
notices were sent to Atty. Manuel Sison,

ISSUE: Whether or not the disbarment case should prosper.

HELD: No. The arguments of presented by Sison is well merited and backed by evidence. The allegations in the
complaint do not warrant disbarment of the Sison. There is no evidence that Sison has committed an act constituting
deceit, immoral conduct, violation of his oath as a lawyer, willful disobedience of any lawful order of the court, or
corruptly and willfully appearing as an attorney to a part to a case without attorney to do so. His isolated appearance
for Sacquing does not constitute private practice of law, more so since Sison did not derive any pecuniary gain for his
appearance because Sison and Sacquing were close family friends. Such act of Sison in going out of his way to aid as
counsel to a close family friend should not be allowed to be used as an instrument of harassment against him.

g. Duties of a Lawyer
Four-fold Duties:
a. His duties towards the court
b. His duties towards the society
c. His duties towards his colleagues in the profession and
d. His duties to his client

Section 20. Duties of attorneys. It is the duty of an attorney: (memorize)

(a) To maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to support the Constitution and obey the laws of the
Philippines.

(b) To observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers;

(c) To counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he
believes to be honestly debatable under the law.

(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;

(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;

(f) To abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or
witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged;

(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding, or delay any man's
cause, from any corrupt motive or interest;

(h) Never to reject, for any consideration personal to himself, the cause of the defenseless or oppressed;

(i) In the defense of a person accused of crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal
opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no
person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.

Lawyers Oath (memorize)

LAWYERS OATH:

I, _______________________, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I
will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I
will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not willingly nor willfully promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit; or give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will
conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well as to the
court as to my clients; and I impose or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

* Memorize this and think that you will take this oath after the Bar and it shall be so.

OLBES v DECIEMBRE

Facts:
Spouses Olbes (Franklin & Lourdes) were employees of the Central Post Office in Manila. They filed this case for
disbarment against Atty. Deciembre.
Lourdes, with the help of Deciembre, acquired a loan from Rodela Loans in the amount of P10K.
Lourdes then issued 5 PNB blank checks to respondent to serve as collateral.
Subsequently, Lourdes paid Deciembre the amount of the loan plus interest and surcharges.
Notwithstanding payment, Deciembre filled up the blank checks in the amount of P50k each. Siyempre tumalbog
yun mga cheke.
Deciembre then filed BP22 & estafa cases against the Olbes spouses.
Reklamo siyempre sila Olbes. They are even saying that some of their officemates suffered the same fate under
Deciembre.
Investigating officer: Deciembres version of the facts is highly doubtful. There are discrepancies between his oral
and written testimonies.

Issue:
W/N Deciembre should face disciplinary sanctions

Held:
Siyempre! He is in violation of Rule 7.03
He committed falsification when he filled up the blank checks even if this was not agreed upon and despite
knowledge that the loan had already been paid.
He even filed BP22 cases against the couple. This shows the vileness and wretchedness of his soul. Franklin was
even detained for 3 months because of the cases.
Deciembre is found to be lacking good moral character. Good moral character includes at least common honesty.
The penalty recommended by the IBP of suspension for 2 years is too mild. Deciembre is suspended from the
practice of law indefinitely.

Chapter 2: PROBLEM-AREAS IN LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

a. Moral Turpitude
CANON 1, RULE 1.01 CPR, Definition, Acts Constituting

CANON 1
A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01:
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.


155 BARRIENTOS v DAAROL

FACTS

Victoria BARRIENTOS is single, a college student and about 20 years and 7 months old during her relationship with
Transfiguracion DAVID, a lawyer and the General Manager of Zamboanga del Norte Electric Cooperative who was about 40
years old and married to SUMAYLO.



DAVID had been known by the BARRIENTOS family for quite sometime being the former student of Victoria BARRIENTOS
father and a former classmate of Victoria BARRIENTOS mother. DAVID courted BARRIENTOS and after a week of courtship,
BARRIENTOS accepted DAVIDS love. At this time, DAVID was separated from his wife for 16 years.

BARRIENTOS, with her parents permission, was DAVIDS partner during the Chamber Commerce affair. After the event and
before going home, they parked the jeep at the beach and after the usual preliminaries (what a term), they consummated
the sexual act. This was their set up until BARRIENTOS got pregnant. DAVID suggested abortion but BARRIENTOS
disagreed. During her pregnancy until she gave birth, it was BARRIENTOS family who took care of her.

BARRIENTOS then filed an administrative case against DAVID with the National Electrification Administration which was
however dismissed. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE W/N DAVID SHOULD BE DISBARRED

HELD YES, LACK GOOD MORAL CHARACTER --- A CONTINUING REQUIREMENT TO BE ABLE TO PRACTICE LAW

RATIO

From the records, it is indubitable that BARRIENTOS was never informed by DAVID of his real status as a married individual.
The fact of his previous marriage was disclosed by DAVID only after BARRIENTOS became pregnant. Moreover, DAVID
misrepresented himself as being eligible to re-marry for having been separated from his wife for 16 years and even dangled
a marriage proposal.

Interestingly enough, DAVID lived alone in Dipolog City though his son also studies in the same area. Moreover, he never
introduced his son and went around with his friends as though he was never married. These circumstances belie DAVIDS
claim that the BARRIENTOS family knew about his marital status at the very start of the courtship.

But what surprises the Court is the perverted sense of DAVIDS moral values when he said that I see nothing wrong with
this relationship despite my being married. Worse, he even suggested abortion.

The practice of law is a privilege accorded only to those who measure up to the exacting standards of mental and moral
fitness. DAVID having exhibited debased morality, the Court is constrained to impose upon him the most severe
disciplinary action --- disbarment.

37 DE LOS REYES v AZNAR

Facts: Delos Reyes filed a complaint against Atty. Aznar for gross immorality.
It appears that Atty. Aznar raped Delos Reyes. From the evidence, it appears that Aznar was the
Chairman of the Board of Southwestern University.
Delos Reyes failed her Pathology subject. As such, she approached Aznar for reconsideration. Aznar assured her that she
would pass. Despite her plea, she failed the subject. Aznar told Delos Reyes that she should go with him to Manila or else
she will flunk. They went to Manila. After dining in a restaurant, Aznar raped her twice in the evening and thrice the next
morning inside the Ambassador Hotel.
Aznar denies all the allegations and says that when he went to Manila, he slept at the house of his friends.

Issue: W/N Aznar is guilty of gross misconduct.

Held: Aznar is guilty of gross misconduct.
The court agrees with the Sol. Gen.s finding that Aznar committed gross misconduct. While Aznar denied
having taken Delos Reyes to the Ambassador Hotel and had sexual intercourse with her, he did not present any evidence to
show where he was on that date. It is the duty of the lawyer, whenever his moral character is put into question, to satisfy
the court that he is fit and proper to enjoy continued membership in the bar. He cannot dispense with the high exacting
moral standards of the profession. Good moral character is a continuing qualification necessary to entitle on to continue in
the practice of law.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, complainant vs.ATTY. FE T. TUANDA, respondent.
Facts;
Respondent was suspended for practicing his profession until further notice from the Supreme Court finding her guilty of
violating BP 22.

Atty. Tuanda is now appealing to the Supreme Court for her suspension to be lifted arguing that her suspension was a
penalty so harsh on top of the fines imposed to her in violation of the aforementioned law. Arguing further that she intends
no damage to the plaintiff-appellee (Herminia A. Marquez)and she is not guilty of the offense charged.

Issue;

WON the suspension of Atty. Fe Tuanda be lifted.

Ruling;

The Supreme Court ruled to DENY the respondent of his Motion to Lift Order of Suspension and affirmed the ruling of the
Court of Appeals regarding the suspension. The court found Atty. Fe Tuanda guilty of an offense involving moral turpitude
citing Secs 27 and 28 of the Rules of Court and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

SEBASTIAN V. CALIS, 314 SCRA 1
Facts:
Complainant Marilou Sebastian alleged that sometime in November, 1992, she was referred to the respondent who
promised to process all necessary documents required for complainants trip to the USA for a fee of P 150,000.00
The complainant made a partial payment of the required fee in which a receipt was issued.
From the period of January 1993 to May 1994 complainant had several conferences with the respondent regarding the
processing of her travel documents.
Atty. Calis informed Marilou Sebastian that she will be assuming the name Lizette P. Ferrer married to Roberto Ferrer,
employed as sales manager of Matiao Marketing, Inc. the complainant was furnished documents to support her assumed
identity and was assured by the respondent, with the promise that her money will be refunded if something goes wrong.
Weeks before her departure respondent demanded for the payment of the required fee which was paid by complainant,
but the corresponding receipt was not given to her.
Upon arrival at the Singapore International Airport, were apprehended by the Singapore Airport Officials for carrying
spurious travel documents; and was detained at Changi Prisons in Singapore and was deported back to the Philippines Since
complainant opted not to pursue with her travel, she demanded for the return of her money in the amount of
(P150,000.00).
The complainant tried to see the respondent however she found out that the respondent had transferred to an unknown
residence apparently with intentions to evade responsibility.
Issue:
WON Atty. Calis was guilty for gross misconduct?
Ruling:
Yes, the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct by engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct contrary
to Canon 1, Rule 101 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent deceived the complainant by assuring her that
he could give her visa and travel documents; that despite spurious documents nothing untoward would happen; that he
guarantees her arrival in the USA and even promised to refund her the fees and expenses already paid, in case something
went wrong. All for material gain.
Deception and other fraudulent acts by a lawyer are disgraceful and dishonorable. They reveal moral flaws in a lawyer.
They are unacceptable practices. A lawyers relationship with others should be characterized by the highest degree of good
faith, fairness and candor. This is the essence of the lawyers oath. The lawyers oath is not mere facile words, drift and
hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable.[]The nature of the office of an attorney requires that he
should be a person of good moral character.[] This requisite is not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice
of law, its continued possession is also essential for remaining in the practice of law.[]We have sternly warned that any
gross misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, puts his moral character in serious doubt as a
member of the Bar, and renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.[]
WHEREFORE, respondent Dorotheo Calis is hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

b. Legal Malpractice and Professional Misconduct

Rule 1.02 CPR A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the
legal system.

Canon 9, CPE
A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel,
much less should he undertake to negotiate or compromise the matter with him, but should deal only with his counsel.

Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance of any task which by law may only
be performed by a member of the Bar in good standing.

Rule 9.02. A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate a fee for legal service with persons not licensed to practice law,
except:
a. where there is a pre-existing agreement with the 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 unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
c. where the lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a retirement plan, even if the plan is based in
whole as in part, on a profit-sharing arrangement.

Definition

Tan Tek Beng vs. David
126 SCRA 389

Case: Administrative case filed in the Supreme Court

Tan Tek Beng (non-lawyer) has had an agreement with Timoteo David (lawyer) as documented by a letter made by David
with terms and condition that reads:

1. all commission/attorneys fees from the clients supplied by Tan will be divided 50-50 between them
2. David will not deal directly with their clients without Tans consent
3. Tan will be collecting and keeping the said fees/advances
4. Other clients who are related to Tan and are contacted through him will be his clients

This agreement was agreed by the parties but their business relationship did not last due to accusations and double-cross.
Because of the alleged breach of agreement Tan accused David to Pres. Asst. Zamora, Office of Civil Relations and to
Supreme Court; This case was sent to Solicitor General for investigation, report and recommendation.

Issue:

WON a disciplinary action be taken against David?

Ruling:

David is reprimanded for being guilty of malpractice.

Grounds:

The agreement made is void because it is tantamount to malpractice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either
personally or through agents or brokers. Practice of law is a profession, not a business. Commercialization of law practice is
condemned in certain canons of professional ethics adopted by American Bar Association that prohibits division of fees,
intermediaries, and compensation, commission and rebates.

The discountenance of Davids conduct was not because of the complaint of Tan Tek Beng (who does not know about legal
ethics) but because David should have known better that unprofessional conduct in an attorney is that which violates the
rule or ethical codes of his profession or which is unbecoming a member of that profession.


ORBE V ADAZA 428 SCRA 567 428 SCRA 567
Gross Misconduct What Conduct Means
Facts:
In November 1996, Attorney Adaza went to Priscilla Orbe to borrow P60k. Orbe loaned Adaza the said amount. As security,
Adaza issued Orbe two checks to cover the loan plus interest. The checks however bounced (the second check was even
post dated by Adaza to bear the date January 24, 1996- many months before November 1996 when the loan was made).
Subsequently, because of Adazas failure to pay despite notices and demand from Orbe, the latter filed a complaint for
grave misconduct against Adaza. Orbe alleged that Adaza is unfit to be a member of the bar. Eventually, the case was
referred to the respective Integrated Bar of Philippines chapter. Despite notices, Adaza failed to appear in any of the
proceedings. The IBP chapter then recommended Adazas suspension for one year.

ISSUE: Whether or not Adaza should be suspended.

HELD: Yes.
Adazas issuance of worthless checks and his contumacious refusal to comply with his just obligation for nearly eight years
(from SCs date of decision *2004+) is appalling. The Supreme Court also elucidated on the following:
A member of the bar may be so removed or suspended from office as an attorney for any deceit, malpractice, or
misconduct in office. The word conduct used in the rules is not limited to conduct exhibited in connection with the
performance of the lawyers professional duties but it also refers to any misconduct, although not connected with his
professional duties, that would show him to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which his license and the
law confer upon him. The grounds expressed in Section 27, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court are not limitative and are broad
enough to cover any misconduct, including dishonesty, of a lawyer in his professional or private capacity. Such misdeed
puts his moral fiber, as well as his fitness to continue in the advocacy of law, in serious doubt.

MELENDRES V. DECENA
Facts:
Aug. 5, 1975: spouses Erlinda Dalman & Narciso Melendrez obtained from Atty. Reynerio Decenaa loan of P4K. This loan
was secured by a real estate mortgage (REM). It was made to appear in the REM that the amount borrowed was P5K.
Decena assured the spouses that the REM was a mere formality, and due to this assurance the spouses signed the REM.
Despite the assurance, Decena collected from the spouses P500/month as usurious interest. The spouses paid such
usurious interest for 3 months. Because of their failure to pay the amounts, Decena drafted a new REM. New contract of
mortgage in the amount of P10K with interest at 19%/annum A special power of attorney authorizing Decena to sell the
mortgaged property in public auction
Spouses never knew the implications of the new REM. They failed to pay their obligation and so Decena acquired their
property in pulic auction and later sold it to Trinidad Ylanan for P12K Spouses then went to Decena with P10K in the hopes
of getting their property back. Decena then informs themthat their debt has soared to P20.4K. With shattered hopes and
grief in their hearts the spouses filed this case for disbarment.

ISSUE: W/N Decenas acts show gross misconduct and should therefore be disbarred
Held
Yes, Decena clearly failed to get the consent of the spouses before entering into a compromise. Decena also failed to inform
the spouses or turn over to them the P500 given to him by Pineda as down payment for the settlement of the case.
Decenas failure to turn over to the spouses the money underscores his lack of honesty and candor in dealing with his
clients

The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall be a person of good moral character. This qualification is
not only a condition precedent to admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for remaining
in the practice of law, in the exercise of privileges of members of the Bar. Gross misconduct on the part of a lawyer,
although not related to the discharge of professional duties as a member of the Bar, which puts his moral character in
serious doubt, renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.




c. Crime of Maintenance

Rule 1.03. A judge should be vigilant against any attempt to subvert the independence of the judiciary and resist any pressure
from whatever source.

Rule 1.04. A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a fair settlement.

Definition, acts constituting

Barratry - is the offense of frequently exciting and stirring up quarrels and suits, either at law or otherwise. It is the lawyers act of
fomenting suits among individuals and offering his legal services to one of them.

Ambulance Chasing - which refers to solicitation of almost any kind of legal business by laymen employed by an attorney for the
purpose or by the attorney himself. For ambulance chasing has spawned recognized evils such as:
a. fomenting of litigation with resulting burdens on the courts and the public;
b. subornation of perjury;
c. mulcting of innocent persons by judgments, upon manufactured causes of actions, and
d. defrauding of injured persons having proper causes actions but ignorant of legal rights and court procedure by means of
contracts which retain exorbitant percentages of recovery and illegal charges for court costs and expenses and by settlement made
for quick returns of fees and against the just rights of the injured persons.

DE YSASI III v NLRC
FACTS:This is a case filed by a son against his father
Father employed Son as farm administrator of Hacienda Manucao
Son suffered various ailments and was hospitalized on 2 separate occasions, June and August 1982
Father took care of medical expenses while son continued to receive compensation
However, in April 1984, Father ceased to pay Sons salarySon filed an action in NLRC for illegal dismissal with prayer for
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights andpayment of fullback wages
NLRC dismissed case stating that Son has abandoned his work and termination is for a valid cause though orderedFather to pay
P5,000 as penalty for failure to serve notice of said termination to son
ISSUE: W/N SON WAS ILLEGALLY DISMISSED
HELD: YES
RATIO Article 282 of Labor Code enumerates causes for which an employer may valid terminate an employment
Father banks on the fact that Son has abandoned his work
However, to constitute abandonment there must be a clear, deliberate and justified refusal to resume employmentand not mere
absence
In the case at bar, the reason for the Sons absence was due to his illness of which Father was aware of since hepaid hospital and
medical bills
Father is ordered to pay Son backwages in lieu of reinstatement and separation pay equivalent to 1 month forevery year of
service
ISSUEW/N COUNSELS OF EACH PARTY ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF PROFESSIONALRESPONSIBILITY HELDNORATIO
Rule 1.04 of the Code of Responsibility explicitly provides a lawyer shall encourage his client to avoid, end or settlethe controversy
if it will admit of a fair settlement
In the case at bar, records do not show that counsel of both parties took pains to initiate steps geared toward arapprochment
between their clients
In the same manner, the labor arbiter has been less than faithful to the spirit of the Labor Code as he did not exertall efforts
towards the amicable settlement of the labor dispute

Bonongon vs zerna
As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty
by filing pointless petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary, especially this Court, which is burdened enough as it is. A
judicious study of the facts and the law should advise them when a case, such as this, should not be permitted to be filed to merely
clutter the already congested judicial dockets. They do not advance the cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that
for sheer lack of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts.

Facts:
Its unbelievable. The original decision in this case was rendered by the cadastral court way back on February 9, 1926, sixty one years
ago. A motion to amend that decision was filed on March 6, 1957, thirty one years later. This was followed by an amended peti tion
for review of the judgment on March 18, 1957, and an opposition thereto on March 26, 1957. On October 11, 1971, or after
fourteen years, a motion to dismiss the petition was filed. The petition was dismissed on December 8, 1971, and the motion for
reconsideration was denied on February 14, 1972. The petitioners then came to us on certiorari to question the orders of the
respondent judge.
The petitioners contend that the said judgment had not yet become final and executory because the land in dispute had not yet
been registered in favor of the private respondents. The said judgment would become so only after one year from the issuance of
the decree of registration. If anyone was guilty of laches, it was the private respondents who had failed to enforce the judgment by
having the land registered in their the pursuant thereto.
For their part, the private respondents argue that the decision of February 9, 1926, became final and executory after 30 days, same
not having been appealed by the petitioners during that period. They slept on their rights for thirty one years before it occurred to
them to question the judgment of the cadastral court. In fact, their alleged predecessor-in-interest, Filomeno Banogon, lived for
nineteen more years after the 1926 decision and did not see fit to challenge it until his death in 1945. The herein petitioners
themselves waited another twelve years, or until 195 7, to file their petition for review.

Issue:
W/N the petition should be granted
Held:No. A reading (of the petitioners defense, Rivera v. Moran) will show that it is against their contentions and that under this
doctrine they should not have delayed in asserting their claim of fraud. Their delay was not only for thirty one days but for thirty one
years. Laches bars their petition now. Their position is clearly contrary to law and logic and to even ordinary common sense.
Litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is assent essential to an effective and efficient administration of
justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the
verdict. Courts must therefore guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end
to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.
Regarding the argument that the private respondents took fourteen years to move for the dismissal of the petition for review, it
suffices to point out that an opposition thereto had been made as early as March 26, 1957, or nine days after the filing of the
petition. Moreover, it was for the petitioners to move for the hearing of the petition instead of waiting for the private respondents
to ask for its dismissal. After all, they were the parties asking for relief, and it was the private respondents who were in possession of
the land in dispute.
As officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper administration of justice. They do not discharge this duty
by filing pointless petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary, especially this Court, which is burdened enough as it is. A
judicious study of the facts and the law should advise them when a case, such as this, should not be permitted to be filed to merely
clutter the already congested judicial dockets. They do not advance the cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that
for sheer lack of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts. Petition dismissed, with costs against the petitioners.

d. Conflict of Interest

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.

Test of 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.

There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or
not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In
brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client.[1] This rule 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.[2] Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act
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.[3] 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.[4]

PORMENTO V. PONTEVEDRA
(A.C. No. 5128) 31 March 2005

The Case: Complaint against Atty. Elias A. Pontevedra with malpractice and misconduct with prayer for disbarment

Facts: Respondent was the Pormento familys legal counsel between 1964 and 1994. The familys relationship with the respondent
extends beyond the mere lawyer-client relations.

The rift between complainant and respondent began when the complainants counterclaim in a civil case filed with the RTC
of Bacolod City was dismissed. Respondent failed to inform complainant Pormento of the dismissal of his counterclaim which
resulted to the latter being deprived of his right to appeal. In order to recover his ownership over a parcel of land, Pormento was forced
to hire a new lawyer as Atty. Pontevedra refused to institute an action to recover the subject property.

In a separate incident, In 1967, he bought a parcel of land located at Negros Occidental. The Deed of Declaration of
Heirship and Sale of said land was prepared and notarized by respondent. Since there was another person who claims ownership of
the property, complainant alleges that he heeded respondents advice to build a small house on the property and to allow his
(complainants) nephew and his family to occupy the house in order for complainant to establish his possession of the said
property. Subsequently, complainants nephew refused to vacate the property prompting the former to file an ejectment case with the
Municipal Trial Court of Escalante, Negros Occidental. Respondent acted as the counsel of complainants nephew

Held/Ruling:
Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the
facts.
Jurisprudence instructs that there is a 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. Another test
to determine if there is a representation of conflicting 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.

A lawyer is forbidden from representing a subsequent client against a former client when the subject matter of the present
controversy is related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which he appeared for the former
client. Conversely, he may properly act as counsel for a new client, with full disclosure to the latter, against a former client in a
matter wholly unrelated to that of the previous employment, there being in that instance no conflict of interests. Where, however,
the subject matter of the present suit between the lawyers new client and his former client is in some way connected with that of
the former clients action, the lawyer may have to contend for his new client that which he previously opposed as counsel for the
former client or to use against the latter information confided to him as his counsel.

76 NAKPIL v VALDES
Facts:
Jose Nakpil was interested in a piece of property situated in Moran, Baguio. He went into an agreement with Atty. Carlos
Valdes for the latter to buy the property in trust for Nakpil.
Valdes did buy the property by contracting 2 loans. The lands titles were transferred to his name.
When Jose Nakpil died, Imelda Nakpil (his wife) acquired the services of Valdes and his accounting and law firms for the
settlement of the estate of Jose Nakpil.
What Valdes did was to exclude the property in Baguio from the list of assets of Jose Nakpil (he actually transferred the
property to his company, the Caval Realty Corporation) while including the loans he contracted.
What Imelda did was to file a suit for reconveyance in the CFI. While the case was pending, Imelda also filed an
administrative complaint for disbarment against Valdes.
The CFI dismissed the action for reconveyance. The CA reversed the CFI.
The complaint for reconveyance went up to the SC and was decided in favor of Nakpil. The SC held that Valdes only held
the lots in trust for Nakpil.
Issue:
W/n Atty. Valdes should be administratively sanctioned for his acts, namely:
o Excluding the property in Baguio from the estate of Jose Nakpil;
o Including his loans as claims on the estate; and
o Apparently, representing conflicting interests when his accounting firm prepared the list of claims of creditors Angel Nakpil
and ENORN against the estate of Jose Nakpil, which was represented by his law firm.
Held:
The SC found Valdes guilty of misconduct and suspends him for 1 year.
The Court held that the first two acts clearly show that Valdes broke the trust reposed on him by Imelda Nakpil when the
latter agreed to use his professional services as a lawyer and an accountant. It was clear that Jose Nakpil and Atty. Came to an
agreement that the latter would be buying the property in trust for Jose. By his act of excluding the property from the estate and
including the loans he contracted (and used for his own benefit) as claims, Valdes took for granted the trust formed between Jose
and him (they had a close relationship since the 50s), which was the basis for Imeldas decision to use his services.
As to the third charge, we hold respondent guilty of representing conflicting interests which is proscribed by Canon 15 Rule
15.03. In the case at bar, there is no question that the interests of the estate and that of its creditors are adverse to each other.
Respondent's accounting firm prepared the list of assets and liabilities of the estate and, at the same time, computed the claims of
two creditors of the estate. There is clearly a conflict between the interest of the estate which stands as the debtor, and that of the
two claimants who are creditors of the estate.

ROGELIO R. SANTOS, SR., complainant, vs. ATTY. RODOLFO C. BELTRAN, respondent.

Facts:
Complainants parents donated their two residential lots situated at 11 Javier Baritan, Malabon, Metro Manila, consisting of
489 and 333.4 square meters, respectively, including the ancestral house situated thereon to their 9 children except to Rogelio Santos
Sr. Respondent notarized the Deed of Donation. Complainant was appointed as the administrator of his parents estate.
On November 9, 1999, complainant filed a verified complaint against respondent before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) alleging that respondent represented conflicting interest when he entered his appearance as
defense counsel in an ejectment case in which his former client, Erlinda R. Santos-Crawford (complainants sister), was the plaintiff;
and that respondent, through insidious machination acquired the titles of two residential lots at Villa Benita Subdivision owned by
Spouses Filomeno and Benita Santos. He also questioned the due execution of the Deed of Donation.
Respondent denied having represented complainant in Criminal Case No. 73560 on December 15, 1999 when he appeared as
private prosecutor. He explained that complainant filed a complaint for falsification of public document against him and his nine
siblings, docketed as I.S. No. 04-99-3187, before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Cabanatuan City, relying on the affidavit
executed by Benito and Renato that they signed the Deed of Donation in their houses at Villa Benita and not at respondents office.
The prosecutor dismissed the complaint. A second action for falsification of public document was filed by complainant against
Renato and Benito, docketed as Criminal Case No. 73560. Respondent appeared at one of the hearings of the said case to defend
himself from the accusation of Benito and Renato. Respondent emphasized that he did not ask for any compensation from
complainant for that isolated appearance.
Issue: WON Atty. Beltran represented conflicting interests.

Held: Yes.
The allegation that respondent represented complainant in Criminal Case No. 73569 without being retained or authorized by the court
is untenable. Respondent adequately explained his isolated appearance at one of the hearings. The transcript of stenographic notes
shows that respondent himself was in doubt as to the nature of his appearance in the case. In entering his appearance as private
prosecutor, he did not intend to represent complainant but only to defend himself from the accusation of Benito and Renato that he
notarized the Deed of Donation in their absence. This was patent in the transcript of stenographic notes wherein he admitted that he
himself was in doubt as to his position. We are not persuaded by complainant who tried to insinuate that it was unethical for the
respondent to represent him.
There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two or more opposing parties. The test is whether or
not in behalf of one client, it is the lawyers duty to fight for an issue or claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other client. In
brief, if he argues for one client, this argument will be opposed by him when he argues for the other client. This rule 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. Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance of the new retainer will require the attorney to perform an act 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. 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.
In the case at bar, Civil Case No. 12105 for ejectment was filed by Arcely Y. Santos in behalf of Erlinda Santos-Crawford against
complainant and Renato Santos. Respondent, however appeared as counsel for Evalyn Valino, Norberto Valino and Danilo Agsaway
in Civil Case No. 14823 for ejectment filed by complainant as attorney-in-fact of Erlinda Santos-Crawford. Civil Case No. 14823,
although litigated by complainant, was actually brought in behalf of and to protect the interest of Erlinda Santos-Crawford.
Respondents act of representing the parties against whom his other client, Erlinda Santos-Crawford, filed suit constituted conflict of
interest.[20]

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Rodolfo Beltran is found GUILTY of representing conflicting interests and is SUSPENDED from
the practice of law for a period of one (1) year effective immediately. Respondent is further STERNLY WARNED that a commission
of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
02 August 2005
Ponente: Panganiban, J.
FACTS:
Ben A. Nicolas, in behalf of Northwestern University, filed a letter-complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines allegedly
reporting that Atty. Macario Arquillo had engaged in conflicting interest by acting as counsel for both complainant and respondent in
the very same consolidated case filed to the National Labor Relations Commission. Respondent claims that there is no conflict-of-
interests as all parties are said to be on the same side.
For failing to appear in scheduled hearings, Atty. Arquillo is deemed to have waived his right to participate in the proceedings.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of violating the conflict-of-interests rule under the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
HELD:
Yes.
The Court held that Atty. Arquillo is guilty of violating the conflict-of-interests rule under the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires lawyers to observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all their dealings and
transactions with their clients. Therefore, a lawyer may not represent conflicting interests without the written consent of all parties
involved, after disclosure of the facts. The Court did not agree with Arquillos justification of his acts for he should have known that
in representing opposing parties, there would be an obvious conflict of interest, regardless of his belief that both parties are on the
same side.


GEORGE SOLATAN V OSCAR INOCENTES; August 9, 2005 A.C. No. 6504
FACTS Atty Camano was an associate in the firm of Atty. Oscar Inocentes. The Oscar Inocentes and Associates Law Office was
retained by spouses Genito, owners of an apartment complex when the Genito Apartments were placed under sequestration by the
PCGG. They represented the spouses Genito before the PCGG and the Sandiganbayan and in ejectment cases against non-paying
tenants occupying the Genito Apartments.
Complainants sister was a tenant of the Genito Apartments. It appears that she left for the States and her apartment was used by
members of her family. A complaint for ejectment for nonpayment of rentals was filed against her and a decision was rendered in a
judgment by default ordering her to vacate the premises.
Complainant was occupying said apartment when he learned of the judgment. He informed Atty. Inocentes of his desire to
PROFESSION arrange the execution of a new lease contract by virtue of which he would be the new lessee of the apartment. Atty.
Inocentes referred him to Atty. Camano, the attorney in charge of ejectment cases against tenants of the Genito Apartments. During
the meeting with Atty. Camano, a verbal agreement was made in which complainant agreed to pay the entire judgment debt of his
sister, including awarded attorneys fees and costs of suit. Complainant issued a check in the name of Atty. Camano representing half
of the attorneys fees.
Complainant failed to make any other payment. The sheriff in coordination with Atty. Camano enforced the writ of execution and
levied the properties found in the subject apartment. Complainant renegotiated and Atty. Camano agreed to release the levied
properties and allow complainant to remain at the apartment. Acting on Atty. Camanos advice, complainant presented an affidavit of
ownership to the sheriff who released the levied items. However, a gas stove was not returned to the complainant but was kept by
Atty. Camano in the unit of the Genito Apartments where he was temporarily staying. - complainant filed the instant administrative
case for disbarment against Atty. Camano and Atty. Inocentes. The IBP Board of Governors resolved to suspend Atty. Camano from
the practice of law for 1 year and to reprimand Atty. Inocentes for exercising command responsibility.
ISSUES 1. WON Atty. Camano violated the Code of Professional Responsibility 2. WON Atty. Inocentes violated the Code of
Professional Responsibility .
HELD 1. YES Ratio An attorney has no right to act as counsel or legal representative for a person without being retained. No
employment relation was offered or accepted in the instant case. Reasoning Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
requires all lawyers to observe loyalty in all transactions and dealings with their clients. Unquestionably, an attorney giving legal
advice to a party with an interest conflicting with that of his client may be held guilty of disloyalty. However, the advice given by
Atty. Camano in the context where the complainant was the rightful owner of the incorrectly levied properties was in consonance with
his duty as an officer of the court. It should not be construed as being in conflict with the interest of the spouses Genito as they have
no interest over the properties. The act of informing complainant that his properties would be returned upon showing proof of his
ownership may hint at infidelity to his clients but lacks the essence of double dealing and betrayal. 2. YES Ratio His failure to
exercise certain responsibilities over matters under the charge of his law firm is a blameworthy shortcoming. As name practitioner of
the law office, Atty. Inocentes is tasked with the responsibility to make reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the firm should
act in conformity to the Code of Professional Responsibility. Reasoning Atty. Inocentes received periodic reports from Atty. Camano
on the latters dealings with complainant. This is the linchpin of his supervisory capacity over Atty. Camano and liability by virtue
thereof. Partners and practitioners who hold supervisory capacities are legally responsible to exert ordinary diligence in apprising
themselves of the comings and goings of the cases handled by persons over which they are exercising supervisory authority and in
exerting necessary efforts to foreclose violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by persons under their charge. Disposition
Petition granted. Sanction on Atty. Camano is affirmed. Atty. Inocentes is admonished with the warning that repetition of the same or
similar omission will be dealt with more severely.

e.Attorneys Fees
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:
a. The time spent and the extent of the services rendered or required;
b. The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved;
c. The importance of the subject matter;
d. The skill demanded;
e. The probability of losing other employment as a result of acceptance of the proffered case;
f. The customary charges for similar services and the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he belongs;
g. The amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client from the services;
h. The contingency of certainty of compensation;
i. The character of the employment, whether occasional or established; and
j. The professional standing of the lawyer.

Section 24. 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.

Definition,Concept, Basis/Guidelines, Kinds

WILLIAM S. UY, complainant, vs. ATTY. FERMIN L. GONZALES, respondent.

Facts:

William S. Uy filed before this Court an administrative case against Atty. Fermin L. Gonzales for violation of the
confidentiality of their lawyer-client relationship. Complainant alleged that he engaged the services of respondent lawyer
to prepare and file a petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title. After confiding with respondent the
circumstances surrounding the lost title and discussing the fees and costs, respondent prepared, finalized and submitted
to him a petition to be filed before the Regional Trial Court. When the petition was about to be filed, respondent went to
his (complainants) office and demanded a certain amount from him other than what they had previously agreed upon.
Respondent left his office after reasoning with him. Expecting that said petition would be filed, he was shocked to find
out later that instead of filing the petition for the issuance of a new certificate of title, respondent filed a letter-complaint
Falsification of Public Documents.

However, respondent alleged that on December 17, 1998, he offered to redeem from complainant the land covered
by TCT No. T-33122 which the latter acquired by purchase from his (respondents) son, the late Fermin C. Gonzales, Jr..
On the same date, he paid complainant P340,000.00 and demanded the delivery of TCT No. T-33122 as well as the
execution of the Deed of Redemption. Upon request, he gave complainant additional time to locate said title or until after
Christmas to deliver the same and execute the Deed of Redemption. After the said period, he went to complainants
office and demanded the delivery of the title and the execution of the Deed of Redemption. Instead, complainant gave
him photocopies of TCT No. T-33122 and TCT No. T-5165. Complainant explained that he had already transferred the
title of the property, covered by TCT No.T-5165 to his children Michael and Cristina Uy and that TCT No. T-5165 was
misplaced and cannot be located despite efforts to locate it. Wanting to protect his interest over the property coupled
with his desire to get hold of TCT No. T-5165 the earliest possible time, he offered his assistance pro bono to prepare a
petition for lost title provided that all necessary expenses incident thereto including expenses for transportation and
others, estimated at P20,000.00, will be shouldered by complainant. To these, complainant agreed.

In his letter-complaint, respondent stated that Uy committed estafa by making it appear that his said children are of
legal age, and residents of Brgy. Gonzales, Umingan, Pangasinan, when in fact and in truth, they are minors and residents
of Metro Manila, to qualify them as farmers/beneficiaries, thus placing the said property within the coverage of the Land
Reform Program so that he can transfer the title to them.

On April 9, 1999, he submitted to complainant a draft of the petition for the lost title ready for signing and
notarization but complainant left no instructions nor funds for the filing of the petition. Complainants conduct infuriated
him which prompted him to give a handwritten letter telling complainant that he is withdrawing the petition he prepared
and that complainant should get another lawyer to file the petition.

Respondent maintains that the lawyer-client relationship between him and complainant was terminated when he
gave the handwritten letter to complainant; that there was no longer any professional relationship between the two of
them when he filed the letter-complaint for falsification of public document; that the facts and allegations contained in the
letter-complaint for falsification were culled from public documents procured from the Office of the Register of Deeds in
Tayug, Pangasinan.[5]

IBP rendered judgment for the suspension of Gonzales.

Issue:
WON respondent violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by filing a case against complainant for
protecting a personal interest based on information he obtained from the alleged attorney-client relationship with Uy.

Held:
No.
Complainant failed to prove any of the circumstances that would warrant the disbarment or suspension of herein
respondent. Notwithstanding respondents own perception on the matter, a scrutiny of the records reveals that the
relationship between complainant and respondent stemmed from a personal transaction or dealings between them rather
than the practice of law by respondent. Respondent dealt with complainant only because he redeemed a property which
complainant had earlier purchased from his (complainants) son. It is not refuted that respondent paid complainant
P340,000.00 and gave him ample time to produce its title and execute the Deed of Redemption. However, despite the
period given to him, complainant failed to fulfill his end of the bargain because of the alleged loss of the title which he
had admitted to respondent as having prematurely transferred to his children, thus prompting respondent to offer his
assistance so as to secure the issuance of a new title to the property, in lieu of the lost one, with complainant assuming the
expenses therefor.

As a rule, an attorney-client relationship is said to exist when a lawyer voluntarily permits or acquiesces with the
consultation of a person, who in respect to a business or trouble of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view of
obtaining professional advice or assistance. It is not essential that the client should have employed the attorney on
any previous occasion or that any retainer should have been paid, promised or charged for, neither is it material that
the attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the consultation was had, for as long as the
advice and assistance of the attorney is sought and received, in matters pertinent to his profession.[15]

Considering the attendant peculiar circumstances, said rule cannot apply to the present case. Evidently, the facts alleged
in the complaint for Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents filed by respondent against complainant were
obtained by respondent due to his personal dealings with complainant. Respondent volunteered his service to hasten the
issuance of the certificate of title of the land he has redeemed from complainant. Respondents immediate objective was
to secure the title of the property that complainant had earlier bought from his son. Clearly, there was no attorney-client
relationship between respondent and complainant. The preparation and the proposed filing of the petition was only
incidental to their personal transaction. The alleged secrets of complainant were not specified by him in his affidavit-
complaint. Whatever facts alleged by respondent against complainant were not obtained by respondent in his
professional capacity but as a redemptioner of a property originally owned by his deceased son and therefore, when
respondent filed the complaint for estafa against herein complainant, which necessarily involved alleging facts that would
constitute estafa, respondent was not, in any way, violating Canon 21. There is no way we can equate the filing of the
affidavit-complaint against herein 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.





G.R. No. 118746 September 7, 1995

ATTY. WILFREDO TAGANAS, petitioner,
vs.
NATIONAL G LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MELCHOR ESCULTURA, ET AL., respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N



Facts;

Petitioner Atty. Wilfredo E. Taganas represented herein private respondents in a labor suit for illegal dismissal,
underpayment and non-payment of wages, thirteenth-month pay, attorney's fees and damages conditioned upon a
contingent fee arrangement granting the equivalent of fifty percent of the judgment award plus three hundred pesos
appearance fee per hearing. 1 The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of private respondents and ordered Ultra Clean Services
(Ultra) and the Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc., (PTSI) respondents therein, jointly and severally to reinstate herein
private respondents with full backwages, to pay wage differentials, emergency cost of living allowance, thirteenth-month
pay and attorney's fee, but disallowed the claim for damages for lack of basis. 2 This decision was appealed by Ultra and
PTSI to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and subsequently by PTSI to the Court but to no avail. During
the execution stage of the decision, petitioner moved to enforce his attorney's charging lien. 3 Private respondents,
aggrieved for receiving a reduced award due to the attorney's charging lien, contested the validity of the contingent fee
arrangement they have with petitioner, albeit four of the fourteen private respondents have expressed their conformity
thereto. 4

Finding the arrangement excessive, the Labor Arbiter ordered the reduction of petitioner's contingent fee from fifty
percent of the judgment award to ten percent, except for the four private respondents who earlier expressed their
conformity. 5 Petitioner appealed to NLRC which affirmed with modification the Labor Arbiter's order by ruling that the
ten percent contingent fee should apply also to the four respondents even if they earlier agreed to pay a higher
percentage. 6 Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, hence this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE; whether or not the reduction of petitioner's contingent fee is warranted.

RULING; A contingent fee arrangement is an agreement laid down in an express contract between a lawyer and a client
in which the lawyer's professional fee, usually a fixed percentage of what may be recovered in the action is made to
depend upon the success of the litigation. 7 This arrangement is valid in this jurisdiction. 8 It is, however, under the
supervision and scrutiny of the court to protect clients from unjust charges. 9 Section 13 of the Canons of Professional
Ethics states that "[a] contract for a contingent fee, where sanctioned by law, should be reasonable under all the
circumstances of the case including the risk and uncertainty of the compensation, but should always be subject to the
supervision of a court, as to its reasonableness". Likewise, Rule 138, Section 24 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 24. 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.

When it comes, therefore, to the validity of contingent fees, in large measure it depends on the reasonableness of the
stipulated fees under the circumstances of each case. The reduction of unreasonable attorney's fees is within the
regulatory powers of the courts. 10

We agree with the NLRC's assessment that fifty percent of the judgment award as attorney's fees is excessive and
unreasonable. The financial capacity and economic status of the client have to be taken into account in fixing the
reasonableness of the fee. 11 Noting that petitioner's clients were lowly janitors who receive miniscule salaries and that
they were precisely represented by petitioner in the labor dispute for reinstatement and claim for backwages, wage
differentials, emergency cost of living allowance, thirteenth-month pay and attorney's fees to acquire what they have not
been receiving under the law and to alleviate their living condition, the reduction of petitioner's contingent fee is proper.
Labor cases, it should be stressed, call for compassionate justice.

93 DALISAY v MAURICIO

Facts:
This is the case against Batas Mauricio, the TV host.
Allegedly, Mauricio demanded and received exorbitant attorneys fees but did not take any action on Valerina
Dalisays case.
Initially, she paid P25T as acceptance fee.
In total, she paid Mauricio P56T: P8T filing fee (though the case was already filed) the balance might be a
combination of the ff:
o Additional acceptance fee P90,000.00, with the explanation that he can give a discount should she pay in
cash.
o P3,000.00 as appearance fee
notwithstanding her payments, respondent never rendered any legal service. She terminated their attorney-client
relationship and demanded the return of her money and documents. Mauicio refused.
The IBP Board of Governors wanted to dismiss the case.

Issue:
W/N the case against Mauricio should be dismissed.

Held:
No. He should be suspended for 6 months.
When respondent accepted P56,000.00 from complainant, it was understood that he agreed to take up the latters
case and that an attorney-client relationship between them was established. From then on, it was expected of him to
serve complainant with competence and attend to her case with fidelity, care and devotion.
But there is nothing on record that Mauricio entered his appearance as counsel of record.
He did not even follow-up the case which remained pending up to the time she terminated his services.
Regarding the P8T: (allegedly as docket fees for other cases): there was no evidence nor any pleadings
submitted to show that respondent filed any case considering that the filing fee had to be paid simultaneously with
the filing of a case.
when a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due diligence in protecting his rights.
Just like any other professional, a lawyer is entitled to collect fees for his services. However, he should
charge only a reasonable amount of fees.


126 BAUTISTA v GONZALES

Facts:
- Angel Bautista filed a complaint against Ramon Gonzales for the following acts:
o Accepting a case where he agreed to pay all expenses for a contingent fee of 50% of the value of the
property in litigation;
o Acting as counsel for the Fortunados in a case where Eugenio Lopez, Jr. is one of the defendants and,
without said case being terminated, acting as counsel for Lopez in another case;
o Transferring to himself one-half of the properties of the Fortunados, which properties are the subject of
the litigation, while the case was still pending;
o Inducing complainant, who was his former client, to enter into a contract with him for the development
of the land involved in a case into a residential subdivision, claiming that he acquired fifty percent (50%)
interest thereof as attorney's fees from the Fortunados, while knowing fully well that the said property
was already sold at a public auction;
o Submitting to the CFI falsified documents purporting to be true copies of "Addendum to the Land
Development Agreement" and submitting the same document to the Fiscal's Office of Quezon City, in
connection with the complaint for estafa filed by respondent against complainant.
Issue:
- W/n Gonzales should be punished for these acts.
Held:
- Yes, SC suspends him for 6 months.
- For the first allegation, the SC pointed out that a lawyer may indeed advance expenses of litigation but such
payment should be subject to reimbursement. In this case, the contingent fee agreement between the Fortunados
and Gonzales did not provide for such reimbursement. Such contract is against public policy because it gives
undue leverage in favor of the lawyer.
- Second, the Court found that Gonzales did not violate any law because the Fortunados consented to his
appearance for Lopez.
- Third act, the Court said that such is a violation of Art. 1491 of the Civil Code, which prohibits a lawyer from
buying/acquiring the property of his clients which is the subject of a pending case. This Court has held that the
purchase by a lawyer of his client's property or interest in litigation is a breach of professional ethics and
constitutes malpractice. And although the Code of Professional Responsibility does not anymore contain Canon
10 of the old Canons of Professional Ethics, which states that "[t]he lawyer should not purchase any interests in
the subject matter of the litigation which he is conducting," the Code still provides that a lawyer should follow the
laws of the Phil. At all times. By acquiring the property in litigation, Gonzales has violated Art. 1491 of the Civil
Code and can be administratively punished for such violation.
- The SC held that in withholding such information, respondent failed to live up to the rigorous standards of ethics
of the law profession which place a premium on honesty and condemn duplicitous conduct. The fact that
complainant was not a former client of respondent does not exempt respondent from his duty to inform
complainant of an important fact pertaining to the land which is subject of their negotiation.
- Lastly, the SC held that the original copies of the documents Gonzales submitted were false because they bore the
signatures of the Fortunados when, in fact, they did not sign the original copy but only a photocopy of the
original. Such conduct constitutes willful disregard of his solemn duty as a lawyer to act at all times in a manner
consistent with the truth. A lawyer should never seek to mislead the court by an artifice or false statement of fact
or law.