Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Feb. 16, 2016

Cayetano vs Monsod (1991)

Facts:
In 1991, Christian Monsod was appointed as the Chairman of the Commission on
Elections. His appointment was affirmed by the Commission on Appointments. Monsods
appointment was opposed by Renato Cayetano on the ground that he does not qualify
for he failed to meet the Constitutional requirement which provides that the chairman of
the COMELEC should have been engaged in the practice law for at least ten years.
Monsods experience as a lawyer consisted of the following: (1) Passed the bar in 1960
with a rating of 86.55%; (2) Immediately after passing, worked in his fathers law firm for
one year; (3) Thereafter, until 1970, he went abroad where he had a degree in
economics in the University of Pennsylvania and held various positions in various foreign
corporations; (4) In 1970, he returned to the Philippines and held executive jobs for
various local corporations such as the Meralco Group until 1986; and (5) In 1986, he
became a member of the Constitutional Commission. He also became National Chairman
of NAMFREL.
Issue: Whether or not Monsod was engaged in the practice of law to qualify him as
COMELEC chairman.
Held: Yes. Atty. Monsods past work experiences as a lawyer-economist, a lawyermanager, 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. As noted by various authorities, the practice of law is not limited to court
appearances.
The members of the bench and bar and the informed laymen such as businessmen,
know that in most developed societies today, substantially more legal work is transacted
in law offices than in the courtrooms. General practitioners of law who do both litigation
and non-litigation work also know that in most cases they find themselves spending
more time doing what is loosely described as business counseling than in trying cases. In
the course of a working day the average general practitioner wig engage in a number of
legal tasks, each involving different legal doctrines, legal skills, legal processes, legal
institutions, clients, and other interested parties. Even the increasing numbers of lawyers
in specialized practice wig usually perform at least some legal services outside their
specialty. By no means will most of this work involve litigation, unless the lawyer is one
of the relatively rare types a litigator who specializes in this work to the exclusion of
much else. Instead, the work will require the lawyer to have mastered the full range of
traditional lawyer skills of client counseling, advice-giving, document drafting, and
negotiation.

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Feb. 16, 2016

In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. MARCIAL A.

EDILION (1978)
Facts:
Atty. Marcial Edilion stubbornly refused to pay the annual IBP dues resulting in an
investigation which ultimately led to the IBP Board of Governors recommendation to
remove his name from the Roll of Attorneys. Edilions arguments are as follows: (1)
Forced membership in the IBP is unconstitutional as it violates his right of freedom to
associate (and not to associate); (2) The provision of the Rules of Court requiring
payment of a membership fee is void; (3) The enforcement of the penalty provisions
would amount to a deprivation of property without due process and hence infringes on
one of his constitutional rights; (4) The Supreme Court has not power or jurisdiction to
strike the name of a lawyer from its Roll of Attorneys.
Issue: Whether or not mandatory membership in the IBP is constitutional.
Held: Yes. The integration of the Philippine Bar was obviously dictated by overriding
considerations of public interest and public welfare to such an extent as more than
constitutionally and legally justifies the restrictions that integration imposes upon the
personal interests and personal convenience of individual lawyers. Apropos to the above,
it must be stressed that all legislation directing the integration of the Bar have been
uniformly and universally sustained as a valid exercise of the police power over an
important profession. The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege, a privilege
moreover clothed with public interest because a lawyer owes substantial duties not only
to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation,
and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State the administration
of justice as an officer of the court.
Furthermore, Sec 5 (5) of Article VIII of the Constitution provides that one of the
powers of the Supreme Court is to 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 underprivileged. Also, Sec. 1 of RA 6397 provides: Within two years from the approval of this
Act, the Supreme Court may adopt rules of Court to effect the integration of the
Philippine Bar under such conditions as it shall see fit in order to raise the standards of
the legal profession, improve the administration of justice, and enable the Bar to
discharge its public responsibility more effectively.
With respect to Edilions arguments:
1. Integration does not make a lawyer a member of any group of which he is not
already a member. He became a member of the Bar when he passed the Bar
examinations. Bar integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with
anyone. He is free to attend or not attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar
Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its elections as he chooses. The only
compulsion to which he is subjected is the payment of annual dues. Assuming that
the questioned provision does in a sense compel a lawyer to be a member of the
Integrated Bar, such compulsion is justified as an exercise of the police power of
the State.

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Feb. 16, 2016

2. The fee is indeed imposed as a regulatory measure, designed to raise funds for
carrying out the objectives and purposes of integration.
3. Respondent's right to practice law before the courts of this country should be and
is a matter subject to regulation and inquiry
4. It is but an inherent judicial function and responsibility.

Petition for authority to continue use of the firm names Sycip, Salazar,
Feliciano, Hernandez and Castillo and Ozaeta, Romulo, De Leon, Mabanta
and Reyes (1979)
Facts:
Two separate Petitions were filed before this Court 1) by the surviving partners of Atty.
Alexander Sycip, who died on May 5, 1975, and 2) by the surviving partners of Atty.
Herminio Ozaeta, who died on February 14, 1976, praying that they be allowed to
continue using, in the names of their firms, the names of partners who had passed away.
Petitioners argued that:
1. Under the law, a partnership is not prohibited from continuing its business under a firm name which
includes the name of a deceased partner; in fact, Article 1840 of the Civil Code explicitly sanctions
the practice. It provides: The use by the person or partnership continuing the business of the
partnership name, or the name of a deceased partner as part thereof, shall not of itself make the
individual property of the deceased partner liable for any debts contracted by such person or
partnership.
2. Canon 33 of the Canons of Professional Ethics adopted by the American Bar Association declares
that: The continued use of the name of a deceased or former partner when permissible by local
custom, is not unethical but care should be taken that no imposition or deception is practiced
through this use.
3. There is no possibility of imposition or deception because the deaths of their respective deceased
partners were well-publicized
4. No local custom prohibits the continued use of a deceased partner's name in a professional firm's
name;
5. The continued use of a deceased partner's name in the firm name of law partnerships has been
consistently allowed by U.S. Courts and is an accepted practice in the legal profession of most
countries in the world

Issue: Whether or not petitioners should be allowed to continue the use of the names of
their deceased partners in their firm name.
Held: No. Art. 1815 of the Civil Code provides: Every partnership shall operate under a
firm name, which may or may not include the name of one or more of the partners.
Those who, not being members of the partnership, include their names in the firm name,
shall be subject to the liability, of a partner. Petitioners cant invoke Art. 1840, because
it treats more of a commercial partnership with a good will to protect rather than of a
professional partnership.
Also, the legal profession cannot be likened to other professions, because of these
primary characteristics: (1) A duty of public service, of which the emolument is a
byproduct, and in which one may attain the highest eminence without making much
money; (2) A relation as an "officer of court" to the administration of justice involving
thorough sincerity, integrity, and reliability; (3) A relation to clients in the highest degree

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Feb. 16, 2016

fiduciary; (4) A relation to colleagues at the bar characterized by candor, fairness, and
unwillingness to resort to current business methods of advertising and encroachment on
their practice, or dealing directly with their clients.
The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right but is in the nature of a
privilege or franchise.
It is true that Canon 33 does not consider as unethical the continued use of the name
of a deceased or former partner in the firm name of a law partnership when such a
practice is permissible by local custom but the Canon warns that care should be taken
that no imposition or deception is practiced through this use. It must be conceded that in
the Philippines, no local custom permits or allows the continued use of a deceased or
former partner's name in the firm names of law partnerships. Firm names, under our
custom, Identify the more active and/or more senior members or partners of the law
firm. A glimpse at the history of the firms of petitioners and of other law firms in this
country would show how their firm names have evolved and changed from time to time
as the composition of the partnership changed.

In Re: Petition to sign in the Roll of Attorneys Michael Medado (2013)

Facts:
Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines with the degree of Bachelor
of Laws in 1979 1 and passed the same year's bar examinations with a general weighted
average of 82.7. On 7 May 1980, he took the Attorneys Oath at the Philippine
International Convention Center (PICC) together with the successful bar examinees. He
was scheduled to sign in the Roll of Attorneys on 13 May 1980,4 but he failed to do so on
his scheduled date, allegedly because he had misplaced the Notice to Sign the Roll of
Attorneys given by the Bar Office when he went home to his province for a vacation.
Several years later, while rummaging through his old college files, Medado found the
Notice to Sign the Roll of Attorneys. It was then that he realized that he had not signed in
the roll, and that what he had signed at the entrance of the PICC was probably just an
attendance record. By the time Medado found the notice, he was already working. He
stated that he was mainly doing corporate and taxation work, and that he was not
actively involved in litigation practice. Thus, he operated under the mistaken belief
[that] since he ha[d] already taken the oath, the signing of the Roll of Attorneys was not
as urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer; and the matter of signing in the Roll
of Attorneys lost its urgency and compulsion, and was subsequently forgotten. In 2005,
when Medado attended Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) seminars, he was
required to provide his roll number in order for his MCLE compliances to be credited. Not
having signed in the Roll of Attorneys, he was unable to provide his roll number. About
seven years later, or on 6 February 2012, Medado filed the instant Petition, praying that
he be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.
Issue: Whether or not Medado should be allowed to sign in the Roll of Attorneys.
Held: Yes (sort of). At the onset, the Court said that Medado has demonstrated good faith
and good moral character when he finally filed the instant petition. However, he has

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Feb. 16, 2016

committed unauthorized practice of law the moment he realized that what he had signed
was merely an attendance record. At that point, Medado should have known that he was
not a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar because of his failure to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys, as it was the act of signing therein that would have made him so. When, in
spite of this knowledge, he chose to continue practicing law without taking the necessary
steps to complete all the requirements for admission to the Bar, he willfully engaged in
the unauthorized practice of law.
Medado was made to wait for one year before being allowed to sign in the Roll of
Attorneys

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Feb. 16, 2016

Heck vs Santos (2004)

Facts:
In 2001, Heinz Heck filed a complaint, praying for the disbarment of Judge Anthony
Santos, a Cagayan de Oro RTC judge. He alleged that from 1980 to 1984, Santos had
been notarizing documents without being duly commission as notary public.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the fact that Judge Santos was already retired precludes an
administrative charge against him.
2. Whether or not a judge may be disciplined for acts committed before his appointment
to the judiciary.
3. Whether or not an administrative complaint against a member of the bar prescribe.
Held:
Issue 1: No. In order for an administrative complaint against a retiring or retired judge or
justice to be dismissed outright, the following requisites must concur: (1) the complaint
must have been filed within six months from the compulsory retirement of the judge or
justice; (2) the cause of action must have occurred at least a year before such filing; and,
(3) it is shown that the complaint was intended to harass the respondent. These
elements are not present in this case.
Issue 2: Yes. It need not be shown that the respondent continued the doing of the act or
acts complained of; it is sufficient that the evidence on record supports the charge on
the respondent, considering the gravity of the offense. Although there is jurisprudence to
the effect that the act complained of must be continuing in order for the respondent
judge to be disciplined therefor, the respondents in those cases were actually
exonerated, because of lack of evidence. The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal
profession, has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys, which authority is not only a
right but a bounden duty as well. This is why respect and fidelity to the Court is
demanded of its members.
Issue 3: No. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil
nor purely criminal. If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened
to disregard the very oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as
no private complainant would immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being
completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for. It
is the duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the practice of law as well as the
administration of justice. No matter how much time has elapsed from the time of the
commission of the act complained of and the time of the institution of the complaint,
erring members of the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court.
This categorical pronouncement is aimed at unscrupulous members of the bench and
bar, to deter them from committing acts which violate the Code of Professional
Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or the Lawyers Oath. This should particularly
apply in this case, considering the seriousness of the matter involved - the respondents
dishonesty and the sanctity of notarial documents.

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Feb. 16, 2016

Quiachon vs Ramos (2014)

Facts:
Adelia Quiachon filed a disbarment case in 2011 against her former lawyer, Atty.
Joseph Ramos. Adelia was a plaintiff in a labor case, and she was represented by Ramos.
She won in the Labor Arbiter level, but it was reversed by the NLRC, and the reversal was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals. According to Adelia, she kept asking Ramos the status
of her case, and Ramos kept saying that there was no decision yet. While Adelia was
waiting for Ramos in his office, she noticed a mailman delivering an envelope with the
title of her labor case printed thereon. She asked Ramoss secretary to open the
envelope and was surprised to discover that it contained the Entry of Judgment of the
CAs decision.
During the pendency of the proceedings, Adelia filed a motion to withdraw the
complaint. And, on the basis of this withdrawal, the IBP Commissioner (Hector Almeyda)
recommended the dismissal of the case against Ramos despite the finding that there
was negligence. This was adopted by the IBP-BOG.
Issue: Whether or not the case against Ramos should be dismissed on the basis of
Adelias withdrawal.
Held: No. The complainant in a disbarment case is not a direct party to the case, but a
witness who brought the matter to the attention of the Court. There is neither a plaintiff
nor a prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers. The real question for
determination in these proceedings is whether or not the attorney is still a fit person to
be allowed the privileges of a member of the bar. Public interest is the primary objective.
In this case, the IBP found that respondent violated Canon Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility. Thus, it should have imposed the appropriate
penalty despite the desistance of complainant or the withdrawal of the charges.
Rrespondent failed not only to keep the client informed of the status of the case, but
also to avail of the proper legal remedy that would promote the client's cause. It is clear
that respondent neglected the case entrusted to him. All lawyers owe fidelity to their
client's cause. Regardless of their personal views, they must present every remedy or
defense within the authority of the law in support of that cause.