All Cases and Doctrines

INTRODUCTION AND ADMISSION TO PRACTICE
CANON 1
CANON2
CANON 6
CANON 7
CANON 9
CANON 10
CANON 11
CANON 16
CANON 20
Ui vs. Iris Bonifacio 1.01

Zoreta vs. Simpliciano 1.01
Blanza vs. Arcangel 1.03
A-1 Financial Services, Inc. vs. Valerio 1.01
2003 Bar Examination Bar Matter No. 1222 1.01
In Re: David
De Leon vs. CA
Ting Dumali vs. CA 1
Ting Dumali vs. CA 1.01
People vs. Tuanda
People vs. Tuanda 1.01
Director of Religious Affairs vs. Bayot 2.03
Ledesma vs. Climaco 2.01
Villegas vs. Legaspi 6.02
Zoreta vs. Simpliciano
Ting Dumali vs. CA
In Re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys, Medado
Pangan vs. Dionisio Ramos 10.01
Deles vs. Aragona 10.02
Ting Dumali vs. CA
Salcedo vs. Hernandez 11.03
Metrobank vs. CA 16.03
Enriquez vs. Gimenez 20.01
ADMISSION TO PRACTICE
CANON 1
RULE 1.01
RULE 3.03
RULE 6.02
CANON 7
RULE 7.01
RULE 7.02
RULE 9.01
RULE 10.01
RULE 10.03
Ramos vs Rada
Kuroda vs. Jalandoni
Omico Mining & Industrial Corp. vs. Vallejos
Dia-Anonuevo vs Bercasio
Collantes vs Renomeron
In Re: Edillion
Diao vs Martinez
In Re: Argosino
Beltran vs Eliao Abad
Diao vs Martinez
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs. CA
RULE 18.04
RULE 20.01
Alcala vs De Vera
De Guzman vs Visayan Rapid Transit Co.
People vs Villanueva
Cayetano vs Monsod
Tejan vs Cusi, Jr.
Catimbuhan vs Cruz, Jr.
Hydro Resources Contractors Corp. vs Pagalilauan
Bacarro vs Pinataca
LAWYERS DUTIES TO SOCIETY
CANON 1
RULE 1.01
RULE 1.02
RULE 1.04
CANON 5
CANON 6
In Re: Gutierrez
Orence vs CA
De Ysasi vs NLRC
Pajares vs Abad Santos
De Roy vs CA
People vs Pineda
RULE 6.01
RULE 6.02
RULE 6.03
CANON 11
RULE 11.03
CANON 12
People vs Madera
People vs Sendaydiego
Far Eastern Shipping Co. vs CA
Jose vs Gonzalo Garcia
Misamin vs San Juan
PCCG vs Sandiganbayan and Mendoza
People vs Rosqueta
Montecillo vs Gica
Pajares vs Abad Santos
LAWYERS DUTIES TO THE COURT

CANON 10
RULE 10.01
RULE 10.02
Chan Kian vs Angsin

COMELEC vs NOY
Occena vs Marquez
Chavez vs Viola
COMELEC vs NOY
CANON 11
RULE 11.02
RULE 11.03
RULE 11.04
RULE 11.05
CANON 12
Primitivo Santos vs Judge Arturo Cruz

9.De Gracia vs Warden of Makati
10. Buenasada vs Flavier
12. People vs Taneo
13. Urbina vs Marecan
RULE 12.02
Castaneda vs Ago
RULE 13. 01
RULE 13.02
Austria vs Masaquel
Martelino vs. Alejandro
RULE 20.02
Occena vs Marquez
CANON 14
RULE 14.02
RULE 14.04
CANON 15
RULE 15.02
CANON 16
RULE 16.01
RULE 19.03
RULE 20.01
CANON 7
CANON 10
CANON 11
CANON 12
City Sheriff of Ilagan City vs Fortunato

Casals vs Cusi
NATURE AND CREATION OF ATTY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

13. Gonzales vs Chavez
12. People vs Daeng
11. Ledesma vs Climaco
11. Ledesma vs Climaco
14. Oparel vs. Abria
10. Orbit Transportation vs WCC
3. Daroy vs Legaspi
1. Regala vs Sandiganbayan
9. Government vs. Wagner
3. Daroy vs Legaspi
8. Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs Cloribel
4. Hilado vs David
5. Stone vs Bank of Commerce
6. Guerrero vs Hernando
7. Uy vs. Gonzales
8. Rilloraza, et al vs. Eastern Telecomunications Phil. Inc.
LAWYERS DUTIES IN HANDLING CLIENTS CASES
1.Topacion Nueno vs Santos 1
Cuaresma vs Daquis
Heirs of Elias Lorilla vs CA
Avelino vs Palana
DIMAN VS ALUMBRES
1. AVELINO VS PALANA 1
2. SAULOG VS CUSTOMBUILT 1
1. DIMAN VS ALUMBRES 1
2. SAULOG VS CUSTOMBUILT 1
CANON 15
6. Gamalinda vs Alcanter
RULE 15.05
CANON 16
4. Choa vs Chiongson
PEOPLE VS NADERA
ANGELES VS UY, JR
CANON 17
1. Santiago vs. Fojas

2. Cantiller vs Potenciano
CANON 18
Saulog vs custombuilt 1
People vs casimiro 1
PEOPLE VS NADERA 1
CANON 19
RULE 19.03
CANON 1
CANON 6
CANON 7
CANON 16
CANON 18
CANON 20
3. Millare vs. Montero

5. Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers Union vs Lo Bu
LAWYERS FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION
1. Penticostes vs ibanez 2
1. Penticostes vs ibanez 2
2.Canlas vs ca 2
1. NAKPIL VS VALDES(1993)
2. Liwag vs neri
3. Diaz vs kapunan
4. Canlas vs ca
5. Celaje vs Atty Soriano (2007)
6. Penticostes vs ibanez
7. Daroy vs legaspi
8. Sotto vs samson
9. Laig vs ca
10. Go beltran vs fernandez
Liwag vs neri
Canlas vs ca
LAWYERS DUTIES TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

CANON 1
CANON 7
CANON 9
CANON 16
CANON 18
CANON 20
Rivera vs angeles
Rivera vs angeles
Ducat jr vs villalon
Narido vs linsangan
Pangan vs Ramos
Tan vs Sabandal
In re: Gutierrez
Laput vs remotigue
Tan tek beng vs david
Camacho vs pangulayan
Rivera vs angeles 3
Laput vs remotigue
Tan tek beng vs david
INTRODUCTION & ADMISSION TO OFFICE

1. Director of
Religious
Affairs vs.
Bayot
2. Ledesma
vs. Climaco
3. Cui vs. Cui
CANON
Canon 2
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or
permit to be done any act
designed primarily to solicit legal
business.
Canon 2
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not
reject, except for valid reasons, the
cause of the defenseless or the
oppressed.
*Ito na pinaka malapit:
Rule 138
such admission requires passing
the Bar examination, taking
lawyers oath and receiving
certificate from the Clerk of Court.
4. Villegas vs.
Legaspi
5. Enriquez
vs. Gimenez
Canon 6
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the
government service shall not use
his public position to promote or
advance his private interests, nor
allow the latter to interfere with his
public duties.
Canon 20
Rule 20.01
The services of the petitioner
having been engaged by the
municipal council and mayor
without authority of law, the
Auditor General was correct in
disallowing in audit the petitioner's
claim for payment of attorney's
fees.
6. Salcedo vs.
Hernandez
Canon 11
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain
from scandalous, offensive or
DOCTRINE
Law is a profession and not a trade.
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened

with condition. The law is dedicated to the ideal
of service and not a mere trade.
A Bachelors degree alone, conferred by a law
school upon completion of a certain academic
requirements, does not entitle its holder to
exercise the legal profession. The English
equivalent of abogado s lawyer or attorney-atlaw. This term has a fixed and general
signification, and has reference to that class of
persons who are by license officers of the courts,
empowered to appear, prosecute and defend, and
upon whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and
liabilities are devolved by law as consequence.
It should be borne in mind that Courts of First
Instance have dual "personality". Depending on
the case before it, said Courts can be either of
appellate or original jurisdiction. The question
then to be resolved is whether or not
Assemblymen can appear as counsel before
Courts of First Instance in cases originally filed
with them.
It is contended, however, that the Courts of First
Instance in these two cases took cognizance of
the suits in the exercise of their exclusive original
and not appellate jurisdiction, hence,
Assemblymen Fernandez and Legaspi are still
prohibited from appearing before said Courts as
counsel. There is merit to this contention.
The Provincial Fiscal is the legal adviser of the
mayor and counsel of the various municipalities
of a province and it is his duty to represent the
municipality in any court except when he is
disqualified by law, which in this case he is not. A
fiscal cannot refuse the performance of his
functions on grounds not provided for by law
without violating his oath of office. Instead of
engaging the services of a special attorney, the
municipal council should have requested the
Secretary of Justice to appoint an acting
provincial fiscal in place of the provincial fiscal
who had declined to handle and prosecute its
case in court.
It is right and plausible that an attorney, in
defending the cause and rights of his client,
should do so with all the fervor and energy of
menacing language or behavior

before the Courts.
7. Alawi vs.
Alauya
8. Pangan vs.
Dionisio
Ramos
Canon 10
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do
any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he
mislead, or allow the Court to be
misled by any artifice.
9. PLA vs.
Agrava
Admission To Office
10. Ui vs. Iris

Bonifacio
Canon 1
engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 138
such admission requires passing
the Bar examination, taking
lawyers oath and receiving
certificate from the Clerk of Court.
*But in this case Ui may be

imprudent in managing her affairs
but it was not tantamount to gross
immoral conduct.
which he is capable, but it is not, and never will

be so for him to exercise said right by resorting to
intimidation or proceeding without the propriety
and respect which the dignity of the courts
require. The reason for this is that respect of the
courts guarantees the stability of their institution.
Without such guaranty, said institution would be
resting on a very shaky foundation.
As a member of the bar and an officer of this
court, Attorney Vicente J. Francisco, as any
attorney, is in duty bound to uphold its dignity
and authority and to defend its integrity, not only
because it has conferred upon him the high
privilege, not right (Malcolm, Legal Ethics, 158
and 160), of being what he now is.
The term attorney is reserved for those
who pass the Philippine Bar. It cannot be used
by those who only took and passed the
Sharia Bar
Public officials and employees must, at all
times, respect the rights of others and refrain
from doing any acts contrary to law, good
morals, public policy, good customs, and
public order.
The duty of an attorney to the courts to employ,
for the purpose of maintaining the causes
confided to him, such means as are consistent
with truth and honor cannot be overempahisized.
These injunctions circumscribe the general duty
of entire devotion of the attorney to the client. As
stated in a case, his I nigh vocation is to correctly
inform the court upon the law and the facts of the
case, and to aid it in doing justice and arriving at
correct conclusions. He violates Ms oath of
office ,when he resorts to deception or permits
his client to do so."
The practice of law embraces any activity, in
or out of the Court, which requires the
application of law, legal principle, practice or
procedure and calls for legal knowledge,
training or experience.
In the exercise of police power, the
legislature may regulate the practice of law by
requiring further examination in order to
practice before any quasi-judicial or
administrative agency.
Immorality connotes conduct that shows
indifference to the moral norms of society and the
opinion of good and respectable members of the
community. Moreover, for such conduct to
warrant disciplinary action, the same must be
grossly immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt
and false as to constitute a criminal act or so
unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree.
All the facts taken together leads to the
inescapable conclusion that respondent was
11. Deles vs.

Aragona
12. Blanza vs.

Arcangel
Canon 10
knowingly misquote or
misrepresent the contents of a
paper, the language or the
argument of opposing counsel, or
the text of a decision or authority,
or knowingly cite as law a provision
already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment, or assert as
a fact that which has not been
proved.
Canon1
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for
any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding
or delay any man's cause.
*But the case was dismissed and
the lawyer was not reprimanded.
13. Zoreta vs.

Simpliciano
Canon 1
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.
14. A-1
Financial
Services, Inc.
vs. Valerio
Canon 1
Rule 1.01A lawyer shall not engage
in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or
deceitful conduct.
15. 2003 Bar
Canon 1
imprudent in managing her personal affairs.

However, the fact remains that her relationship
with Carlos Ui, clothed, as it was with what
respondent believed was a valid marriage
couldnt be considered immoral.
There was no contempt.
Even when the statements are found to be false,
if there is probable cause for belief in their
truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith,
the mantle of privilege may still cover the
mistake of the individual. Xxx. The ultimate test is
that of bona fides.
Indeed, the actuations of Atty. Aragano were
motivated by the legitimate desire to serve the
interests of his clients -- Mrs. Soriano informed
Atty. Aragano of the incident coupled with Deles'
admissions.
A lawyer has a more dynamic and positive role
in the community than merely complying with the
minimal technicalities of the statute. As a man of
law, he is necessarily a leader of the community,
looked up to as a model citizen. His conduct
must, perforce, be par excellence, especially so
when, as in this case, he volunteers his
professional services.
Respondent here has not lived up to that ideal
standard. It was unnecessary to have
complainants wait, and hope, for six long years
on their pension claims. Upon their refusal to cooperate, respondent should have forthwith
terminated their professional relationship instead
of keeping them hanging indefinitely. And
although We voted that he not be reprimanded, in
a legal sense, let this be a reminder to Atty.
Arcangel of what the high standards of his chosen
profession require of him.
The requirements for the issuance of a
commission as notary public must not be treated
as a mere casual formality. The Court has
characterized a lawyers act of notarizing
documents without the requisite commission
therefore as reprehensible, constituting as it does
not only malpractice but also x x x the crime of
falsification of public documents. For such
reprehensible conduct, the Court has sanctioned
erring lawyers by suspension from the practice of
law, revocation of the notarial commission and
disqualification from acting as such, and even
disbarment.
They [lawyers] must at all times faithfully
perform their duties to society, to the bar, the
courts and to their clients, which include prompt
payment of financial obligations. They must
conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the
values and norms of the legal profession as
embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most
Examination
Bar Matter
No. 1222
16. In Re:
Petition to
Sign in the
Roll of
Attorneys,
Medado
17. In Re:
David

counsel or abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
CANON 9 - A lawyer shall not,
directly or indirectly, assist in the
unauthorized practice of law.
Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the

constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law
of and legal processes.
18. PLA vs.

Agrava
Admission To Office
19. Cayetano
vs. Monsod
Introduction:
What constitutes practice of law?
20. De Leon
vs. CA

21. Soriano
Ito na pinakamalapit:
sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their

sworn servant; and for him, of all men in the
world, to repudiate and override the laws, to
trample them underfoot and to ignore the very
bands of society, argues recreancy to his position
and office and sets a pernicious example to the
insubordinate and dangerous elements of the
body politic.
While a reading of Canon 9 appears to merely
prohibit lawyers from assisting in the
unauthorized practice of law, the unauthorized
practice of law by the lawyer himself is subsumed
under this provision, because at the heart of
Canon 9 is the lawyer's duty to prevent the
unauthorized practice of law. This duty likewise
applies to law students and Bar candidates. As
aspiring members of the Bar, they are bound to
comport themselves in accordance with the
ethical standards of the legal profession.
Neither can he [the lawyer] allow his name to
appear in such pleading by itself or as part of firm
name under the signature of another qualified
lawyer because the signature of an agent
amounts to signing of a non-qualified senator or
congressman, the office of an attorney being
originally an agency, and because he will, by such
act, be appearing in court or quasi-judicial or
administrative body in violation of the
constitutional restriction.
He cannot do indirectly what the Constitution
prohibits directly.
The practice of law embraces any activity, in
or out of the Court, which requires the
application of law, legal principle, practice or
procedure and calls for legal knowledge,
training or experience.
In the exercise of police power, the
legislature may regulate the practice of law by
requiring further examination in order to
practice before any quasi-judicial or
administrative agency.
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of
Court which requires the application of law, legal
procedures, knowledge, training and experience.
The mere fact that a position belongs to the
Career Service does not automatically confer
security of tenure on its occupant even if he does
not possess the required qualifications. Such right
will have to depend on the nature of his
appointment, which in turn depends on his
eligibility or lack of it. A person who does not
have the requisite qualifications for the position
cannot be appointed to it in the first place or,
only as an exception to the rule, may be
appointed to it merely in an acting capacity in the
absence of appropriate eligibles. The
appointment extended to him cannot be regarded
as permanent even if it may be so designated.
The purpose for a proceeding of disbarment is to
vs. Dizon
22.
Metrobank vs.
CA
23. Reyes vs.

Gaa
Sec 27 of Rule 138 of Rules of

Court, conviction for a crime
involving moral turpitude is a
ground for disbarment or
suspension. By such conviction, a
lawyer is deemed to have become
unfit to uphold the administration
of justice and to be no longer
possessed of good moral character.
Canon 16
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver
the funds and property of his client
when due or upon demand.
However, he shall have a lien over
the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to
satisfy his lawful fees and
disbursements, giving notice
promptly thereafter to his client.
He shall also have a lien to the
same extent on all judgments and
executions he has secured for his
client as provided for in the Rules
of Court.
Revised Rules of Court, Rule 138,
Section 27
Violation of Lawyers Oath
24. Ting
Dumali vs. CA
protect the administration of justice by requiring

that those who exercise this important function to
be competent, honorable and reliable lawyers in
whom courts and clients may repose confidence
*Disbarment; frustrated homicide
A charging lien, to be enforceable as security for

the payment of attorney's fees, requires as a
condition sine qua non a judgment for money and
execution in pursuance of such judgment secured
in the main action by the attorney in favor of his
client.
A lawyer may enforce his right to fees by filing
the necessary petition as an incident in the main
action in which his services were rendered when
something is due his client in the action from
which the fee is to be paid.
Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a

government official is of such a character as to
affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show
moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as
a member of the bar on such ground.
The extortion committed by respondent
constitutes misconduct as a public official, which
also constitutes a violation of his oath as a
lawyer. The lawyer's oath , imposes upon every
lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or
malice. The lawyer's oath is a source of his
obligations and its violation is a ground for his
suspension, disbarment or other disciplinary
action.
All of these underscore the role of a lawyer as
the vanguard of our legal system.

land and promote respect for law and When the respondent took the oath as a member
for legal processes.
of the legal profession, he made a solemn
counsel or abet activities aimed at
defiance of the law or at lessening
confidence in the legal system.
Canon 7 - A lawyer shall at all times
uphold the integrity and dignity of
the legal profession, and support the
promise to so stand by his pledge. In this

covenant, respondent miserably failed.
activities of the integrated bar.

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.
Canon 10 - A lawyer owes candor,
fairness and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do
any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in court; nor shall he
mislead or allow the court to be
25. People vs.
Tuanda

Sections 27 and 28 of Rule 138 of
the Revised Rules of Court
Sec. 27. Attorneys renewed or
suspended by Supreme Court on
what grounds. A member of the
bar may be removed or suspended
from his office as attorney by the
Supreme Court of any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross
misconduct in such office, grossly
immoral conduct, or by reason of
his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any
violation of the oath which he is
required to take before admission
to practice, or for a wilful
disobedience of any lawful order of
a superior court, or for corruptly or
wilfully appearing as an attorney
for a party to a case without
authority so to do. The practice of
soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally
or through paid agents or brokers,
constitutes malpractice. (Italics
supplied)
Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude

relates to and affects the good moral character of
a person convicted of such offense. Herein, BP 22
violation is a serious criminal offense which
deleteriously affects public interest and public
order. The effects of the issuance of a worthless
check transcends the private interest of parties
directly involved in the transaction and touches
the interest of the community at large. Putting
valueless commercial papers in circulation,
multiplied a thousand fold, can very well pollute
the channels of trade and commerce, injure the
banking system and eventually hurt the welfare
of society and the public interest.
The crimes of which respondent was convicted
also import deceit and violation of her attorney's
oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility
under both of which she was bound to "obey the
laws of the land."
26. In Re:
Elmo S. Abad,
B.M. N. 139
Sec. 28. Suspension of attorney by

the Court of Appeals or a Court of
First Instance. The Court of
Appeals or a Court of First Instance
may suspend an attorney from
practice for any of the causes
named in the last preceding
section, and after such suspension
such attorney shall not practice his
profession until further action of
the Supreme Court in the premises.
Rule 138, Secs. 17 and 19, Rules of
Court
Section 17. Admission and oath of
successful applicants. An
applicant who has passed the
required examination, or has been
otherwise found to be entitled to
admission to the bar, shall take
and subscribe before the Supreme
Court the corresponding oath of
office.
27. Aguirre
vs. Rana
28. In Re:
Atty. Marcial
Edillion
Section 19. Attorney's roll. The

clerk of the Supreme Court shall
kept a roll of all attorneys admitted
to practice, which roll shall be
signed by the person admitted
when he receives his certificate.
Admission to Office:
What Constitutes the practice of
law?
Par. 2 Section 24, Article Ill of the
IBP By-Laws (supra), whereas the
authority of the Court to issue the
order applied for is found in
Section 10 of the Court Rule.
SEC. 10. Effect of non-payment of
dues. Subject to the provisions
of Section 12 of this Rule, default in
the payment of annual dues for six
months shall warrant suspension of
membership in the Integrated Bar,
and default in such payment for
one year shall be a ground for the
removal of the name of the
delinquent member from the Roll
of Attorneys.
The two essential requisites for becoming a

lawyer still had to be performed, namely: his
lawyer's oath to be administered by this Court
and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys. (Rule
138, Secs. 17 and 19, Rules of Court.).
The proven charge against respondent Abad
constitutes contempt of court (Rule 71, Sec. 3(e),
Rules of Court.)
Respondent Abad should know that the
circumstances which he has narrated do not
constitute his admission to the Philippine Bar and
the right to practise law thereafter.
It is upon signing the roll of Attorney that one

becomes a full-fledged lawyer, prior to which one
has no authority to practice law.
"The power to regulate the conduct and
qualifications of its officers does not depend upon
constitutional or statutory grounds. It is a power
which is inherent in this court as a court
appropriate, indeed necessary, to the proper
administration of justice ... the argument that this
is an arbitrary power which the court is arrogating
to itself or accepting from the legislative likewise
misconceives the nature of the duty. It has
limitations no less real because they are inherent.
It is an unpleasant task to sit in judgment upon a
brother member of the Bar, particularly where, as
here, the facts are disputed. It is a grave
responsibility, to be assumed only with a
determination to uphold the Ideals and traditions
of an honorable profession and to protect the
public from overreaching and fraud. The very
burden of the duty is itself a guaranty that the
power will not be misused or prostituted. ..."
We [the Court] thus reach the conclusion that the
provisions of Rule of Court 139-A and of the ByLaws of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
complained of are neither unconstitutional nor
illegal.
ADMISSION TO PRACTICE
1. In Re:
Lanuevo
CANON
Sec 2 Rule 138
such admission requires good
moral character
2. First Lepanto
Ceramics, Inc.
vs. CA
Canon 10
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe
the rules of procedure and shall not
misuse them to defeat the ends of
justice.
3. In Re:
Cunanan
Admission To Practice:
Who may be admitted and may
continue in the practice of law?
4. Kuroda vs.
Jalandoni

Constitution, obey the laws of the
land and promote respect for law of
and legal processes.
5. Omico
Mining &
Industrial Corp.
vs. Vallejos

DOCTRINE
Sec. 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court
of 1964, candidates for admission to the Bar
must be of good moral character.
Galang has pending criminal cases of Physical
Injuries, he committed perjury when he declared
under oath that he had no pending criminal case
this resulted him to revoked his license.
The substantive right to appeal from decisions or
orders of the BOI under EO 226 remains and
continues to be respected. Circular I-91 simply
transferred the venue of the appeals from the
decisions of this agency to respondent CA and a
different period of appeal 15 days from notice (sa
EO 226 30 days from receipt of decision). It did
not make an incursion into the right to appeal
It is the primary and inherent prerogative of the
Supreme Court to render the ultimate decision on
who may be admitted and may continue in the
practice of law according to existing rules.
It cannot be denied that the rules and regulation
of the Hague and Geneva conventions form, part
of and are wholly based on the generally
accepted principals of international law. In facts
these rules and principles were accepted by the
two belligerent nations the United State and
Japan who were signatories to the two
Convention. Such rule and principles therefore
form part of the law of our nation even if the
Philippines was not a signatory to the
conventions embodying them for our Constitution
has been deliberately general and extensive in its
scope and is not confined to the recognition of
rule and principle of international law as
contained in treaties to which our government
may have been or shall be a signatory.
This inhibitory rule makes it obligatory upon the
judicial officers concerned to give their full time
and attention to their judicial duties, prevent
them from extending special favors to their own
private interests and assure the public of their
impartiality in the performance of their functions.
These objectives are dictated by a sense of moral
decency and the desire to promote the public
interest. Private respondent should have known
or ought to know that when he was elevated to
the bench of the CFI as a judge thereof, his right
to practice law as an attorney was suspended
and continued to be suspended as long as he
occupied the judicial position.
Judge entered into a contract of personal and
professional services with private individuals to
head defendants legal department for a fixed
yearly salary. The challenged judgment seeks to
enforce a contract which is patently void because
it is contrary to law and public policy. The
contract of professional services entered into
between private respondent and the petitioners,

while the former was still a judge of the Court of
First Instance, constituted private practice of law
in contravention of Section 35 of Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court. The aforecited rule was
promulgated by this Court pursuant to its
constitutional power to regulate the practice of
law. It is based on sound reasons of public policy,
for there is no question that the rights, duties,
privileges and functions of the office of an
attorney-at-law are so inherently incompatible
with the high official functions, duties, powers,
discretions and privileges of a Judge of the CFI
1. People vs
Villanueva
2. DiaAnonuevo vs
Bercasio Rule
3.03
3. De Guzman
vs Visayan
Rapid Transit
Co. Rule
20.01
4. Cayetano vs
Monsod
5. In Re:
Edillion - Canon
7
6. Tejan vs Cusi,
Jr.
-Strictly speaking, the word practice of law implies the customary

or habitual holding of oneself to the public as a lawyer and
demanding compensation for his legal services.
-Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in
frequent or customary actions, a succession of acts of the same
kind. In other words, it is frequent habitual exercise.
-Practice of law to fail within the prohibition of statute has been
interpreted as customarily or habitually holding ones self out to
the public, as a lawyer and demanding payment for such services.
-Rule 3.03 Where a partner accepts public office, he shall
withdraw from the firm and his name shall be dropped from the
firm name unless the law allows him to practice.
-A judge is among the public officers who is not allowed to practice
law.
-There will be a combination of factors that must be considered
such as those enumerated in Rule 20.01 of the code of
Professional Responsibility. Other matters like the financial ability
of the client may also be considered.
-Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which
requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experience. To engage in the practice of law is to
perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession.
Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of
service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of
legal knowledge or skill. (111 ALR 23)
-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.
-He is therefore expected to be concerned even with matters like
payment of his membership dues and special assessments in the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
-Relative to the issue of the power/or jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court to strike the name of a lawyer from its Roll of Attorneys, it is
sufficient to state that the matters of admission, suspension,
disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers and their regulation and
supervision have been and are undisputably recognized as
inherent judicial functions and responsibilities, and the authorities
holding such are legion.
-As an officer of the court, he is continually accountable to the
court for the manner in which he exercises the privilege.
-He holds office during good behavior and can only be deprived of
it for misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the
Supreme Court after opportunity to be heard has been afforded
him.
7. Alcala vs De
Vera - Rule
18.04
8. Catimbuhan
vs Cruz, Jr.
9. Hydro
Resources
Contractors
Corp. vs
Pagalilauan
10. Ramos vs
Rada Canon 1
11. Beltran vs
Eliao Abad
Rule9.01
12. Bacarro vs
Pinatacan
13. Diao vs
Martinez Rule
-Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status
of his case and shall respond within a reasonable time to the
clients request for information.
-Held: In failing to inform his clients of the decision in the civil case
handled by him, the lawyer failed to exercise such skill, care and
diligence as men of the legal profession commonly possess and
exercise in such matters and professional employment. The
relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is ever
present the need for the clients being adequately and fully
informed and should not be left in the dark as to the mode and
manner in which his interests are being defended. It is only thus
that their faith in counsel may remain unimpaired.
-Some persons not duly licensed to practice law are allowed
limited representation on behalf of others. In the municipal trial
court, a party may conduct his litigation with the aid of an agent
or friend appointed by him for that purpose. The attorney-client
privilege does not extend to such agent or friend because not
being an attorney his appearance in court is in the character of an
agent.
-A lawyer, like any other professional, may very well be an
employee of a private corporation or even of the government. It is
not unusual for a big corporation to hire a staff of lawyers as its inhouse counsel, pay them regular salaries, rank them in its table of
organization, and otherwise treat them like its other officers and
employees. At the same time, it may also contract with a law firm
to act as outside counsel on a retainer basis. The two classes of
lawyers often work closely together but one group is made up of
employees while the other is not. A similar arrangement may exist
as to doctors, nurses, dentists, public relations practitioners, and
other professionals.
-Canon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of
the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
-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.
-Held: Atty. Ruben Jacobe is required to explain within ten (10)
days from notice why he should not be disciplined for collaborating
and associating in the practice of the law with the respondent who
is not a member of the bar.
-One of the indispensable requisites for admission to the Philippine
Bar is that the applicant must be of good moral character. This
requirement aims to maintain and uphold the high moral
standards and the dignity of the legal profession, and one of the
ways of achieving this end is to admit to the practice of this noble
profession only those persons who are known to be honest and to
possess good moral character. "As a man of law, (a lawyer) is
necessary a leader of the community, looked up to as a model
citizen" He sets an example to his fellow citizens not only for his
respect for the law, but also for his clean living
-Rule 7.01 A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a
7.01, Rule
10.01
14. In Re:
Argosino Rule
7.02
15. Collantes
vs Renomeron
Canon 6, Rule
6.02
false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with

his application for admission to the bar.
-Held: The name of Telesforo A. Diao was stricken of the Roll of
Attorneys for false pretense on his educational attainment. He
misrepresented that he finished Associate in Arts Degree when the
truth is he had no such degree. The fact that he hurdled the Bar
Examination is immaterial. Passing such examination is not the
only qualification to become an attorney-at-law; taking the
prescribed courses of legal study in the regular manner is equally
essential.
-Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to
be misled by any artifice.
-Rule 7.02 A lawyer shall not support the application for
admission to the bar of any person known by him to be unqualified
in respect to character, education, or other relevant attribute.
-The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who
possess the strict, intellectual, and moral qualifications required of
lawyers who are instruments in the effective and efficient
administration of justice.
-Canon 6 These canons shall apply to lawyers in government
service in the discharge of their official tasks.
-Rule 6.02 A lawyer in the government service shall not use his
public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor
allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
-Generelly, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be
disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct in the
discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if the
misconduct of a govt official is of such a character as to affect his
qualifications as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he
may be disciplined as a member of the Bar upon such ground.
LAWYERS DUTIES TO SOCIETY

1. Montecillo
vs Gica Rule
1.02, Rule
8.01, Rule
11.03
-Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at

defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system.
-Atty. Del Mar, by his contemptuous acts is in violation of his duties
to the courts. As an officer of the court, it is his sworn and moral
duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily the high esteem
and regard towards the court so essential to the proper
administration of justice.
-Rule 8.01 A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
-A lawyer who uses intemperate, abusive, abrasive or threatening
language betrays disrespect to the court, disgraces the Bar and
invites the exercise by the court of its disciplinary power.
-Rule 11.03 A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the courts.
2. In Re:
Gutierrez
Rule 1.01
-Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,

immoral and deceitful conduct.
3. Orence vs
CA Rule 1.02
-Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at

defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
-Atty. Flaminianos acts of entering the property, aiding his wife,

without the consent of its occupants and in contravention of the
existing writ of preliminary injunction and making utterances

showing disrespect for the law and this Court, are unbecoming of
a member of the Bar.
4. De Ysasi vs
NLRC Rule
1.04
-Rule 1.04 A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or

settle a controversy if it will admit a fair settlement.
-The lawyers for both camps failed to exert all reasonable efforts
to smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and
especially in consideration of the direct and immediate
consanguineous ties between their clients especially considering
that the parties involved are father and son.
5. Pajares vs
Abad Santos
Rule 1.04,
Canon 12
-Rule 1.04 A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or

settle a controversy if it will admit a fair settlement.
-Had appellant been but prudently advised by her counsel to
confess judgment and ask from her creditor the reasonable time
she needed to discharge her lawful indebtedness, the expenses of
litigation that she has incurred would have been more than
sufficient to pay of her just debt to appelle.
6. People vs
Rosqueta
Canon 1
-Canon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of

the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.
-Atty. Estacio should be aware that in the pursuance of the duty
owed this Court as well as to the client, he cannot be too casual
and unconcerned about the filing of pleadings. It is not enough
that he prepares them; he must see to it that they are duly mail.
Such inattention as shown in this case is inexcusable.
7. De Roy vs
CA Canon 5
-Canon 5 A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments,

participate in continuing legal education programs, support efforts
to achieve high standards in law schools as well as in the practical
training of law students and assist in disseminating information
regarding the law and jurisprudence.
8. Far Eastern
Shipping Co. vs
CA Rule 6.01
-Rule 6.01 The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public

prosecution is not to convict but to see that ustice is done. The
suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of
establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible
and is cause for disciplinary action.
9. Jose vs
Gonzalo Garcia
- Rule 6.01

prosecution is not to convict but to see that ustice is done. The
10. People vs
Pineda Rule
6.01

prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice is done. The
11. People vs
Madera Rule
6.01

12. People vs
Sendaydiego

Rule 6.01

13. Misamin vs
San Juan Rule
6.02
-Rule 6.02 A lawyer in the government service shall not use his
public position to promote or advance his private interests, nor
allow the latter to interfere with his public duties.
14. PCCG vs
Sandiganbayan
and Mendoza
Rule 6.03
-Rule 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service,

accept engagement or employment in connection with any matter
in which he had intervened while in said service.
-The evils sought to be remedied by the Rule do not exist where
the government lawyer does an act which can be considered as
innocuous such as x x x drafting, enforcing or interpreting
government agency procedures, regulations or laws, or brief
abstract principles of law.
LAWYERS DUTIES TO THE COURT

1. City Sheriff
of Ilagan City
vs Fortunato
Canon 12
2. Occena vs
Marquez Rule
10.01, Rule
20.02
-Canon 12 A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty
to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
-Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not
thereby extinguished, it shall be the duty of the counsel to inform
the court within thirty days after such death of the fact thereof, and
to give the name and address of his legal representative or
representatives. Failure to comply with this duty shall be a ground
for disciplinary action.
-Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
-It is neither candid nor fair for a lawyer to knowingly make false
allegations in a judicial pleading or to misquote the contents of a
document, the testimony of a witness, the argument of opposing
counsel or the contents of a decision.
-Rule 20.02 A lawyer shall not, in cases of referral, with the
consent of the client, be entitled to a division of fees in proportion
to work performed and responsibility assumed.
3. Chavez vs
Viola Rule
10.01
-Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
-A lawyer owes honesty and candor to the courts. It cannot be
gainsaid that candidness, especially towards the courts, is essential
for the expeditious administration of justice. Courts are entitled to
expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers
appearing and pleading before them.
4. Chan Kian vs
Angsin Canon
10
-Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the

court.
- had the counsels, as officers of the courts, but faithfully complied
with their duty to deal with the courts in truth and candor, and
promptly manifested to the appellate court the above
developments, all by June, 1965, which have made the principal
issue at bar moot and academic, this case would then have been
disposed of and need not have been certified to this Court, and the
time needed by it to devote to the prompt disposition of meritorious
cases need not have been thus dissipated.
5. Casals vs
Cusi Rule
-Rule 12.02 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time

to file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without
12.03
submitting the same or offering an explanation for his failure to do

so.
-A lawyer who files a Motion for Extension of Time within which to
file pleadings, memoranda or briefs, must comply within the period
granted, unless, for valid reasons, he is granted another period, in
which latter case, he should comply before the lapse of the last
period so granted.
6. COMELEC vs
NOY Canon
10, Rule 10.02
-Rule 10.02 A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent

the contents of paper, the language or the argument of opposing
counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as
law a provision already rendered inoperative by repeal or
amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
8. Surigao
Mineral
Reservation
Board vs
Cloribel
RULE 19.03
A lawyer should use his best efforts to restrain and to prevent his
clients from doing those things which the lawyer himself ought not to
do, particularly with reference to their conduct towards courts,
judicial officers, jurors, witnesses and suitors. If a client persists in
such wrongdoing the lawyer should terminate their relation.
9.De Gracia vs
Warden of
Makati
RULE 11.02
A lawyer should be punctual. Inexcusable absence from, or repeated

tardiness in, attending a pre-trial or hearing may not only subject the
lawyer to disciplinary action, but may also prejudice his client who,
as a consequence thereof, may be non-suited, declared in default or
adjudged liable ex parte, as the case may be.
A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menancing
language or behavior before the courts. The language of a lawyer,
both oral and written, must be respectful and restrained in keeping
with the dignity of the legal profession and with his behavioral
attitude toward his brethren in the profession. The use of abusive
language by counsel against the opposing counsel constitutes at the
same time a disrespect to the dignity of the court of justice. The use
of impassioned language in pleadings, more often than not, creates
more heat than light.
The duty to observe and maintain respect is not a one-way duty from
a lawyer to a judge. A judge should be courteous to lawyer to merit
respect. He should be civil, for it is unbecoming of a judge to utter
intemperate language during the hearing of a case.
A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge improper motives. He should
not make hasty accusation against the judge, before whom he pleads
his case, without any cogent and valid ground extant in the record.
His arguments, written or oral, should be gracious to both the court
and opposing counsel.
A lawyer shall submit grievances to proper authorities. The
performance of the duty demands that the lawyer refrain from filing,
or be not a party to the bringing of, unfounded charges against
judges. A lawyer may prefer charges against a judge only after proper
circumspection and without the use of disrespectful language and
offensive personalities so as not to unduly burden the court in the
discharge of its functions.
A lawyer shall not file multiple actions. He should not misuse legal
remedies and prostitute the judicial process to thwart or delay the
satisfaction of a final judgment, to the extended prejudice of the
10. Buenasada vs RULE 11.03

Flavier
11. Primitivo
Santos vs Judge
Arturo Cruz
CANON 11
12. People vs
Taneo
RULE 11.04
13. Urbina vs
Marecan
RULE 11.05
14. Castaneda vs
Ago
RULE 12.02
petitioners.
RULE 12.02
It is the duty of a lawyer to resist the whims and caprices of his client
and to temper his clients propensity to litigate. While a client may
withhold from his counsel certain facts or give him false information
to attain his unlawful ends, a lawyer can easily see through the
clients action either before or at the early stage of the litigation.
When the purpose becomes evident, the lawyer should not allow
himself to be a party to its realization.
15. Austria vs
RULE 13. 01
A lawyer shall not extend hospitality to a judge. He should not see
Masaquel
him in chamber and talk to him about a case pending in his court; and
a judge should not allow it to happen, without committing a
misconduct, except where the lawyers of both parties are present or
upon request of the judge for both lawyers to see him in chamber.
16. Martelino vs. RULE 13.02
A lawyer shall not publicly discuss pending cases. For newspaper
Alejandro
publications by a lawyer concerning a pending litigation may
interfere with a fair trial in court and otherwise prejudice the
impartial administration of justice.
NATURE AND CREATION OF ATTY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
CANON
DOCTRINE
1. Regala vs
RULE 15.02
General rule: a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to
Sandiganbayan
divulge the name or identity of his client.
Exception:
1. client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that
revealing the clients name would implicate that client in the very
activity which he sought the lawyers advice.
2. the content of any client communication to a lawyer lies within the
privilege if it is relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on
which the client seeks legal assistance.
3. where the nature of the atty-client relationship has been previously
disclosed and it is the identity which is intended to be confidential,
the identity of the client has been held to be privileged
The instant case falls under exceptions: disclosure of clients name
would lead to establish said clients connection with the very fact in
issue of the case.
Where a client thinks he might have previously committed something
illegal and consults atty about it -> falls within the exception. But
where client seeks services of an atty for illicit purposes, seeking
advice about how to go around the law to commit illegal activities ->
not covered by privilege.Purpose of privilege: to avoid fishing
expedition by the prosecution. There are alternative sources of
information available to prosecutor w/c do not depend on utilizing
defendants counsel as source.Duration of privilege: exists not only
during relationship but extends even after termination.
2. In. Re. Sycip
The attorney-client relationship is strictly personal because it
involves mutual trust and confidence of the highest degree,
irrespective of whether the client is a private person or a government
functionary. The personal character of the relationship prohibits its
delegation in favor of another attorney without the client's consent.
3. Daroy vs
CANON 15
The relation between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in
Legaspi
its nature and of a very delicate, exacting and confidential in
character, requiring a high degree of fidelity and good faith.
RULE 16.01
4. Hilado vs
David
RULE 20.01
5. Stone vs Bank
of Commerce
RULE 20.01
6. Guerrero vs
Hernando
RULE 20.01
7. Uy vs.
Gonzales
RULE 20.01
8. Rilloraza, et al
vs. Eastern
Telecomunicatio
ns Phil. Inc.
RULE 20.01
In view of that special relationship, 'lawyers are bound to promptly

account for money or property received by them on behalf of their
clients and failure to do so constitutes professional misconduct. The
fact that a lawyer has a lien for fees on money in his hands collected
for his clients does not relieve him from the duty of promptly
accounting for the funds received.
To constitute an attorney-client relationship, it is not necessary 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. If a person, in respect
to his business affairs or troubles of any kind, consults with his
attorney in his professional capacity with the view to obtaining
professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits
or acquiesces in such consultation, then the professional employment
must be regarded as established.
The relation of attorney and client begins from the time an attorney is
retained. The authority of an attorney commences with his retainer.
He cannot, while acting generally as an attorney for an estate or a
corporation, accept service of process which commences the action,
without any authority so to do from his principal. When an attorney
has been retained, he has certain implied powers to act for his client,
in a suit actually commenced, in the due and orderly conduct of the
case through the courts.
There must be a contract of employment, express or implied, between
him and the party he purports to represent or the latters authorized
agent. If he corruptly or willfully appears as an attorney for a party to
a case without authority, he may be disciplined.
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 aferward undertake the case about
When a client employs the services of a law firm, he does not employ
the services of the lawyer who is assigned to personally handle the
case. Rather, he employs the entire law firm. In the event that the
counsel appearing for the client resigns, the firm is bound to provide
a replacement.
Recovery of attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit is
authorized when
(1) there is no express contract for payment of attorney's fees agreed
upon between the lawyer and the client;
(2) when although there is a formal contract for attorney's fees, the
fees stipulated are found unconscionable or unreasonable by the
court; and
(3) when the contract for attorney's fee's is void due to purely formal
defects of execution;
(4) when the counsel, for justifiable cause, was not able to finish the
case to its conclusion;
9. Government
vs. Wagner
10. Orbit
Transportation
vs WCC
11. Ledesma vs
Climaco
12. People vs
Daeng
13. Gonzales vs
Chavez
14. Oparel vs.

Abria
1. Santiago vs.
Fojas
2. Cantiller vs
Potenciano
(5) when lawyer and client disregard the contract for attorney's
fees,
CANON 16
An agent clothed by his principal with the power to deal with the
latters property or interest has the authority to engage the services of
an attorney as counsel for the principal to protect or preserve such
property or interest.
CANON 15
If a lawyer were to take a bad civil suit against a defendant, it will
either be to exert his best efforts toward a compromise or, if
unsuccessful, to advice his client to confess judgement.
RULE 14.02
The relation of attorney and client may be created not only by the
RULE 14.04
voluntary agreement between them but also by the appointment of an
attorney as counsel de oficio for a poor or indigent litigant, and the
attorney so appointed has as high a duty to the indigent as to his
paying client.
RULE 14.02
We would, nevertheless, caution all courts against the frequent
appointment of the same attorney as counsel de oficio, for two basic
reasons: first, it is unfair to the attorney concerned, considering the
burden of his regular practice that he should be saddled with too
many de officio cases; and, second, the compensation provided for by
section 32 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (a fixed fee of P500 in
capital offense) might be considered by some lawyers as a regular
source of income, something which the Rule does not envision. In
every case, the accused stands to suffer because the overburdened
counsel would have too little time to spare for his de officio cases,
and also would be inordinately eager to finish such cases in order to
collect his fees within the earliest possible time.
CANON 14
The solicitor General is the principal law officer and legal defender of
the government. It is incumbent upon him to present to the court what
he considers would legally uphold the best interest of the
government. He cannot simply refuse to do his duty nor can he
withdraw from a case on flimsy ground, otherwise, mandamus will
lie to compel him to perform his duties and responsibilities.
RULE 14.04
A lawyer shall observe the same standard for all clients. The purpose
of legal profession is to render public service and secure justice for
those who seek its aid. The gaining of a livelyhood is only a
secondary consideration. Consequently, neither the amount of
attorneys fees nor the clients financial ability to pay such fees
should serve as the test to determine the extent of the lawyers
devotion to his clients cause.
LAWYERS DUTIES IN HANDLING CLIENTS CASES
CANON
DOCTRINE
CANON 17
No fear of judicial disfavor or public unpopularity should restrain
him from the full discharge of his duty. In the judicial forum the
client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense
that is authorized by law, and he may expect his lawyer to assert
every such remedy or ddefense.
CANON 17
His actuation is definitely inconsistent with his duty to protect with
utmost dedication the interest of his client and of the fidelity, trust
and confidence which he owes his client.
Public interest requires that an attorney exert his best efforts and
ability in the prosecution or defense of his client's cause. A lawyer
3. Millare vs.
Montero
4. Choa vs
Chiongson
5. Cosmos
Foundry Shop
Workers Union
vs Lo Bu
6. Gamalinda vs
Alcanter
CANON 19
RULE 15.05
RULE 19.03
who performs that duty with diligence and candor not only protects
the interests of his client; he also serves the ends of justice, does
honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the community to
the legal profession. This is so because the entrusted privilege to
practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client
but also to the court, to the bar or to the public. That circumstance
explains the public concern for the maintenance of an untarnished
standard of conduct by every attorney towards his client.
A lawyer is required to represent his client "within the bounds of the
law." The Code enjoins a lawyer to employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful objectives of his client (Rule 19.01) and
warns him not to allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling
the case (Rule 19.03). In short, a lawyer is not a gun for hire.
Advocacy, within the bounds of the law, permits the attorney to use
any arguable construction of the law or rules which is favorable to his
client. But the lawyer is not allowed to knowingly advance a claim or
defense that is unwarranted under existing law. He cannot prosecute
patently frivolous and meritless appeals or institute clearly groundless
actions. Professional rules impose limits on a lawyer's zeal and hedge
it with necessary restrictions and qualifications.
As a Member of the Philippine Bar he is bound:
(1) by his oath, not to, wittingly or willingly, promote or sue any
groundless, false, or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the
same;
(2) by Section 20(c), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to counsel or
maintain such action or proceedings only as appear to him to be just;
and
(3) to uphold the Code of Professional Responsibility.
It was incumbent upon him to give a candid and honest opinion on
the merits and probable results of the complainants case with the end
in view of promoting respect for the law and legal processes. He
should, therefore, be required to show cause why no disciplinary
action should be taken against him for his apparent failure to observe
the foregoing duties and responsibilities.
The lawyers duty to the court, no less than the dignity of the legal
profession, requires that he should not act like an errand boy at the
back and call of his client, ready and eager to do his bidding.
CANON 17
A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and must be mindful
of the trust and confidence reposed in him.
CANON 18
He shall serve his client with competence and diligence,
CANON 15
and his duty of entire devotion to his client's cause not only requires,
but entitles him to employ every honorable means to secure for the
client what is justly due him or to present every defense provided by
law to enable the latter's cause to succeed.
An attorney's duty to safeguard the client's interests commences from
his retainer until the effective release from the case or the final
disposition of the whole subject matter of the litigation. During that

period, he is expected to take such reasonable steps and such ordinary
care as his client's interests may require.
Topacion
Nueno vs
Santos
Cuaresma vs
Daquis
CANON 7
respondent had openly been running a club for gambling purposes
Canon 10
An order to demolish the property where Cuaresma was staying

was issued by a trial judge pursuant to a civil case filed by Daquis.
Cuaresmas lawyer, Atty. Macario Directo, filed a petition for
certiorari before the Supreme Court where he alleged that they
had no knowledge of the said civil case hence the order of
demolition is unjust. The Supreme Court however later found out
that Cuaresma and his lawyer in fact knew of the existence of said
civil case. The Supreme Court then directed Directo to show cause
why he should not be disciplined.
-Failure to inform the court of the death of his client
The failure of Atty. Concepcion to serve notice on the court and
the adverse parties regarding his clients death binds herein
petitioners as much as the client himself could be so bound.
Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that a client is bound
by the conduct, negligence and mistakes of his counsel.
As regards respondent's failure to appear in court on the day set
for the trial,
We are inclined to accept his claim that it was due to the fact that
early in the morning of that date he had "a severe stomach ache,
followed by constant moving of bowel and vomiting and that as a
consequence he became very weak." But while this might be, to a
certain extent, a good excuse for his non-appearance in court, it is
obviously not sufficient to explain his failure to notify his clients in
due time of the date of the trial. Had he done so, his clients would
probably have tried to contact him in due time, and upon
discovering that he was sick they would have either gone to court
to ask for the postponement of the trial, or they would have
looked for another lawyer to represent them in court.
he had sought an extension of 30 days "due to the other volume
of legal works similarly situated and school work of the
undersigned as professor of law and dean of the University of
Manila," and had entertained "the honest belief" that it would be
granted. However, he learned belatedly that only a 15-day
extension had been conceded. He forthwith completed the
comment and filed it, albeit five days late.
As regards respondent's failure to appear in court on the day set
for the trial,
We are inclined to accept his claim that it was due to the fact that
early in the morning of that date he had "a severe stomach ache,
followed by constant moving of bowel and vomiting and that as a
consequence he became very weak." But while this might be, to a
certain extent, a good excuse for his non-appearance in court, it is
obviously not sufficient to explain his failure to notify his clients in
due time of the date of the trial. Had he done so, his clients would
probably have tried to contact him in due time, and upon
discovering that he was sick they would have either gone to court
to ask for the postponement of the trial, or they would have
looked for another lawyer to represent them in court.
Concededly, at the start of the pre-trial on November 5,
Custombuilt's attorney was present. But he unceremoniously left
the courtroom. Counsel averred in his petition for relief that he
had to leave posthaste because "he was summoned home all too
suddenly" as "(h)is pregnant wife had been having labor pains"
which "were cause for alarm" because "his wife was due for
Heirs of Elias
Lorilla vs CA
Avelino vs
Palana
DIMAN VS
ALUMBRES
3. AVELINO VS
PALANA 1
4. SAULOG VS
CUSTOMBUILT
1
CANON 11
confinement x x x and she finally delivered on November 10,

1964."
3. DIMAN VS
ALUMBRES 1
CANON 12
4. SAULOG VS
CUSTOMBUILT
1
1. PEOPLE VS
NADERA 1
11. ANGELES
VS UY, JR 1
CANON 15
CANON 16
In his petition for relief, Custombuilt's lawyer also made the

statement that his wife did not give birth until five days later, that
is, on November 10. It is unreasonable to assume that during the
whole period of time - from November 5 to November 10 - his
mind was in blank, such that it was impossible for him to have
taken steps to tell the court personally or otherwise that his
absence during the pre-trial was excusable. Again, he did not. He
received copy of the decision on November 10. He did not file the
petition for relief until November 14.
he had sought an extension of 30 days "due to the other volume
of legal works similarly situated and school work of the
undersigned as professor of law and dean of the University of
Manila," and had entertained "the honest belief" that it would be
granted. However, he learned belatedly that only a 15-day
extension had been conceded. He forthwith completed the
comment and filed it, albeit five days late.
All of these facts point to one conclusion: lack of interest on the
part of appellant to defend itself against the complaint. Rather,
the pattern of conduct discloses a desire to delay disposal of the
present case. Failure to prosecute is a ground for dismissal of the
appeal and revival of the judgment of the city court under Section
9, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.
Not only did defense counsel fail to object to the documentary
evidence presented by the prosecution, according to the trial
court's decision, he even expressed his conformity to the
admission of the same. Neither did he present any evidence on
behalf of accused-appellant.[37] Worse, nowhere in the records is
it shown that accused-appellant was informed, either by his
counsel or by the court, of his right to present evidence, if he so
desires.
Atty. Brotonel, as counsel de oficio, had the duty to defend his
client and protect his rights, no matter how guilty or evil he
perceives accused-appellant to be. The performance of this duty
was all the more imperative because the life of accused-appellant
hangs in the balance. His duty was no less because he was
counsel de oficio.
The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly fiduciary;
it requires a high degree of fidelity and good faith. It is designed
"to remove all such temptation and to prevent everything of that
kind from being done for the protection of the client."[5]
Thus, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that "a lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his
client that may come into his possession." Furthermore, Rule
16.01 of the Code also states that "a lawyer shall account for all
money or property collected or received for or from the client."
The Canons of Professional Ethics is even more explicit:
"The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his
personal benefit or gain he abuses or takes advantage of the
confidence reposed in him by his client. Sup rema
"Money of the client collected for the client or other trust property
coming into the possession of the lawyer should be reported and
accounted for promptly and should not under any circumstances
be commingled with his own or be used by him."[6]
In the present case, it is clear that respondent failed to promptly

report and account for the P16,500 he had received from Norma
Trajano on behalf of his client, Primitiva Del Rosario. Although the
amount had been entrusted to respondent on December 14, 1998,
his client revealed during the February 10, 1999 hearing that she
had not yet received it. Worse, she did not even know where it
was.
Saulog vs
custombuilt 1
CANON 18
Counsel left the court before the pretrial started.
People vs
casimiro 1
- Counsel did not file brief on time, and neglected his clients case.
PEOPLE VS
NADERA 1
- Counsel failed to object to the documentary evidence against his

clients.
LAWYERS FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION

Penticostes vs
ibanez
CANON 1
Penticostes vs
ibanez
CANON 6
Canlas vs ca
NAKPIL VS
VALDES(1993)
Liwag vs neri
Diaz vs
kapunan
CANON 7
CANON 16
This Court has repeatedly admonished lawyers that a high sense

of morality, honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of a
member of the bar. Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides that "[a] lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
It is glaringly clear that respondent's non-remittance for over one
year of the funds coming from Encarnacion Pascual constitutes
conduct in gross violation of the above canon. The belated
payment of the same to the SSS does not excuse his misconduct.
Respondent's claim that he may not be held liable because he
committed such acts, not in his capacity as a private lawyer, but
as a prosecutor is unavailing. Canon 6 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility provides:
"These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the
discharge of their official tasks."
As stated by the IBP Committee that drafted the Code, "a lawyer
does not shed his professional obligations upon assuming public
office. In fact, his public office should make him more sensitive to
his professional obligations because a lawyer's disreputable
conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public's eye.[3] Want
of moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer
who holds a responsible public office.
BREACH OF TRUST
Jose "Pinggoy" Nakpil prior to his death had requested Valdes to
purchase Pulong Maulap and thereafter register the sale and hold
the title thereto in trust for him (Pinggoy Nakpil), which
respondent Valdes did. But after her husband's death, Valdes
concealed and suppressed all information regarding the trust
agreement; instead, he transferred Pulong Maulap in the name of
respondent Caval Realty Corporation, which is 99.7% owned by
him, in exchange for 1,500 shares of stock.
the respondent has committed a breach of professional ethics
when, contrary to the fact, he made the complainant believe that
the Pineda spouses had already been sued in court and did not
return the amount of P30.00 intended for the filing fee.
The money received from the judgment creditor by the lawyer of
the judgment debtor as consideration for the lawyers desisting
from participating in execution sale of the debtors property is
owned by and must be turned over to the client.

Canlas vs ca
Celaje vs Atty
Soriano (2007)
Penticostes vs
ibanez
Daroy vs
legaspi
Sotto vs
samson
By Atty. Canlas own account, due to lack of paying capacity of

respondent Herrera, no financing entity was willing to extend him
any loan with which to pay the redemption price of his mortgaged
properties and petitioners P100,000.00 attorneys fees awarded
in the Compromise Judgment,[34] a development that should
have tempered his demand for his fees. For obvious reasons, he
placed his interest over and above those of his client, in
opposition to his oath to conduct [him]self as a lawyer . . . with
all good fidelity. . .to [his] clients.[35] The Court finds the
occasion fit to stress that lawyering is not a money-making
venture and lawyers are not merchants, a fundamental standard
that has, as a matter of judicial notice, eluded not a few law
advocates. The petitioners efforts partaking of a shakedown of
his own client are not becoming of a lawyer and certainly, do not
speak well of his fealty to his oath to delay no man for money
respondent asked for money to be put up as an injunction bond,
which complainant found out later, however, to be unnecessary as
the application for the writ was denied by the trial court.
Respondent also asked for money on several occasions allegedly
to spend for or to be given to the judge handling their case, Judge
Milagros Quijano, of the Regional Trial Court, Iriga City, Branch 36.
When complainant approached Judge Quijano and asked whether
what respondent was saying was true, Judge Quijano outrightly
denied the allegations and advised her to file an administrative
case against respondent
respondent Atty. Santiago C. Soriano is found GUILTY of violating
Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years
from notice, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same
or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
While Pascual may not strictly be considered a client of
respondent, the rules relating to a lawyer's handling of funds of a
client is applicable.
The failure of respondent to immediately remit the amount to the
SSS gives rise to the presumption that he has misappropriated it
for his own use. This is a gross violation of general morality as well
as professional ethics; it impairs public confidence in the legal
profession and deserves punishment.[
Petitioner charged Attorney Ramon Chaves Legaspi of Cagayan de
Oro City with malpractice for having misappropriated the sum of
four thousand pesos which he had collected for them.
We find respondent Legaspi guilty of deceit, malpractice and
professional misconduct for having misappropriated the funds of
his clients. His manufactured defenses, his lack of candor and his
repeated failure to appear at the investigation conducted by the
City Fiscal of Iligan and at the hearings scheduled by this Court,
thus causing this proceeding to drag on for a long time,
demonstrate his unworthiness to remain as a member of the noble
profession of law.
She alleges that, as her attorney, Sotto had taken advantage of
her financial difficulties and mental weakness and of the
confidence she had reposed in him.
Laig vs ca
Go beltran vs
fernandez
complaint, charging respondent with having purchased a property

of his client involved in a pending litigation in which he appeared
as counsel, and prayed that appropriate disciplinary action be
taken against him.
Liwag vs neri
CANON 18
Canlas vs ca
CANON 20
the respondent has committed a breach of professional ethics

when, contrary to the fact, he made the complainant believe that
the Pineda spouses had already been sued in court and did not
return the amount of P30.00 intended for the filing fee.
It is true that lawyers are entitled to make a living, in spite of the
fact that the practice of law is not a commercial enterprise; but
that does not furnish an excuse for plain lust for material wealth,
more so at the expense of another. Law advocacy, we reiterate, is
not capital that yields profits. The returns it births are simple
rewards for a job done or service rendered. It is a calling that,
unlike mercantile pursuits which enjoy a greater deal of freedom
from government interference, is impressed with a public interest,
for which it is subject to State regulation.[
We do not find the petitioner's claim of attorney's fees in the sum
of P100,000.00 reasonable. We do not believe that it satisfies the
standards set forth by the Rules.
LAWYERS DUTIES TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

Rivera vs
angeles
CANON 1
Rivera vs
angeles
Ducat jr vs
villalon
CANON 7
Respondents act of deceit and malpractice indubitably

demonstrated his failure to live up to his sworn duties as a lawyer.
The Supreme Court repeatedly stressed the importance of
integrity and good moral character as part of a lawyers
equipment in the practice of his profession.[4] For it cannot be
denied that the respect of litigants for the profession is inexorably
diminished whenever a member of the Bar betrays their trust and
confidence.[5]
The Court is not oblivious of the right of a lawyer to be paid for the
legal services he has extended to his client but such right should
not be exercised whimsically by appropriating to himself the
money intended for his clients. There should never be an instance
where the victor in litigation loses everything he won to the fees
of his own lawyer.
confidence.[5]
of his own lawyer.
The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act with
the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the
course of his practice of law. A lawyer may be disciplined or
suspended for any misconduct, whether in his professional or
private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral
character, in honesty, in probity and good demeanor, thus
rendering unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.[9]
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that
a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the
legal profession. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by
clients require in the lawyer a high standard and appreciation of
his duty to them. To this end, nothing should be done by any
Narido vs
linsangan
Laput
remotigue
vs
Tan tek beng

vs david
member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any

degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty, and
integrity of the profession.[10]
It has been established that the subject parcel of land, with an
area of five (5) hectares located in Barrio Pinugay, Antipolo, Rizal,
is owned by and registered in the name of complainant herein,
Jose Ducat, Jr. Respondent Villalon insists nonetheless that the
property was orally given to him by complainants father, Jose
Ducat, Sr., allegedly with the complete knowledge of the fact that
the subject property belonged to his son, Jose Ducat, Jr. It is basic
law, however, that conveyance or transfer of any titled real
property must be in writing, signed by the registered owner or at
least by his attorney-in-fact by virtue of a proper special power of
attorney and duly notarized. Respondent Villalon, as a lawyer, is
presumed to know, or ought to know, this process. Worse, when
the transfer was first reduced in writing in October, 1991 per Deed
of Sale of Parcel of Land,[11] purportedly in favor of Atty. Arsenio
C. Villalon and/or Andres Canares, Jr., respondent Villalon knew
that it was Jose Ducat, Sr. who signed the said document of sale
without any Special Power of Attorney from the registered owner
thereof, Jose Ducat, Jr.; and that Jose Ducat, Sr. also signed it for
his wife, Maria Cabrido, under the word Conforme. As regards
the subsequent Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property dated
December 5, 1991, covering the same property, this time
purportedly in favor of Andres Canares, Jr. only, respondent
Villalon admitted that there was in fact no payment of
P450,000.00 and that the said amount was placed in that
document only to make it appear that the conveyance was for a
consideration.
All these taken together, coupled with complainant Jose Ducat,
Jr.s strong and credible denial that he allegedly sold the subject
property to respondent Villalon and/or Andres Canares, Jr. and that
he allegedly appeared before respondent notary public Ducusin,
convince us that respondent Villalons acts herein complained of
which constitute gross misconduct were duly proven.
Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the
irresponsible and improper conduct of a member of the Bar. Thus,
every lawyer should act and comport himself in such a manner
that would promote public confidence in the integrity of the legal
profession. Members of the Bar are expected to always live up to
the standards of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility inasmuch as the relationship between
an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in nature and
demands utmost fidelity and good faith.[
The spectacle presented by two members of the bar engaged in
bickering and recrimination is far from edifying, although it is
understandable, if not justifiable, that at time zeal in the defense
of one's client may be carried to the point of undue skepticism and
doubt as to the motives of opposing counsel. Some such
reflection is induced by these two administrative cases wherein
respondents Jaime S. Linsangan and Rufino B. Risma, who
represented adverse parties in a workmen's compensation case,
did mutually hurl accusation at each other.
respondent Atty. Remotigue guilty of unprofessional conduct
inasmuch as he entered his appearance, dated February 5, 1955,
only on February 7, same year, after Mrs. Barrera had dispensed
with petitioner's professional services on January 11, 1955, and
after petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn his appearanceon
February 5, 1955.
The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be
taken against lawyer Timoteo A. David (admitted to the bar in
1945) for not giving Tan Tek Beng, a nonlawyer (alleged

missionary of the Seventh Day Adventists), one-half of the
attorney's fees received by David from the clients supplied by Tan
Tek Beng.
The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or
exploited by any lay agency, personal or corporate, which
intervenes between client and lawyer. A lawyer's responsibilities
and qualifications are individual. He should avoid all relations
which direct the performance of his duties by or in the interest of
such intermediary.
Although aware that the students were represented by counsel,
respondent attorney proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with
them and their parents without at the very least communicating
the matter to their lawyer, herein complainant, who was counsel
of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This failure of respondent,
whether by design or because of oversight, is an inexcusable
violation of the canons of professional ethics and in utter disregard
of a duty owing to a colleague. Respondent fell short of the
demands required of him as a lawyer and as a member of the Bar.
Respondent lawyers stand indicted for a violation of the Code of
Professional Ethics, specifically Canon 9 thereof, viz:
"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 only deal with his counsel. It is incumbent upon
the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to
mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not
undertake to advise him as to law."
Camacho vs
pangulayan
CANON 9
Rivera vs
angeles 3
CANON 16
Atty. Manuel N. Camacho filed a complaint against the lawyers

comprising the Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices, namely,
Attorneys Luis Meinrado C. Pangulayan, Regina D. Balmores,
Catherine V. Laurel, and Herbert Joaquin P. Bustos. Complainant,
the hired counsel of some expelled students from the AMA
Computer College ("AMACC"), in an action for the Issuance of a
Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and for Damages,
docketed Civil Case No. Q-97-30549 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 78, of Quezon City, charged that respondents, then
counsel for the defendants, procured and effected on separate
occasions, without his knowledge, compromise agreements ("ReAdmission Agreements") with four of his clients in the
aforementioned civil case which, in effect, required them to waive
all kinds of claims they might have had against AMACC, the
principal defendant, and to terminate all civil, criminal and
administrative proceedings filed against it. Complainant averred
that such an act of respondents was unbecoming of any member
of the legal profession warranting either disbarment or suspension
from the practice of law.
confidence.[5]
of his own lawyer.

Laput vs
remotigue
CANON 18
Tan tek beng
vs david
CANON 20
respondent Atty. Remotigue guilty of unprofessional conduct

inasmuch as he entered his appearance, dated February 5, 1955,
only on February 7, same year, after Mrs. Barrera had dispensed
with petitioner's professional services on January 11, 1955, and
after petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn his appearanceon
February 5, 1955.
The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be
taken against lawyer Timoteo A. David (admitted to the bar in
1945) for not giving Tan Tek Beng, a nonlawyer (alleged
missionary of the Seventh Day Adventists), one-half of the
attorney's fees received by David from the clients supplied by Tan
Tek Beng.
The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or
exploited by any lay agency, personal or corporate, which
intervenes between client and lawyer. A lawyer's responsibilities
and qualifications are individual. He should avoid all relations
which direct the performance of his duties by or in the interest of
such intermediary.

All Cases and Doctrines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

All Cases and Doctrines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTRODUCTION AND ADMISSION TO PRACTICE

Ui vs. Iris Bonifacio 1.01

LAWYERS DUTIES TO THE COURT

Chan Kian vs Angsin

Primitivo Santos vs Judge Arturo Cruz

City Sheriff of Ilagan City vs Fortunato

NATURE AND CREATION OF ATTY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

1. Santiago vs. Fojas

3. Millare vs. Montero

LAWYERS DUTIES TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

INTRODUCTION & ADMISSION TO OFFICE

3. Cui vs. Cui

Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened

menacing language or behavior

*Ito na pinaka malapit:

10. Ui vs. Iris

*But in this case Ui may be

which he is capable, but it is not, and never will

11. Deles vs.

12. Blanza vs.

13. Zoreta vs.

15. 2003 Bar

imprudent in managing her personal affairs.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not

Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the

18. PLA vs.

Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the

sacredly bound to uphold the laws. He is their

23. Reyes vs.

Sec 27 of Rule 138 of Rules of

protect the administration of justice by requiring

A charging lien, to be enforceable as security for

Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a

Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the

promise to so stand by his pledge. In this

activities of the integrated bar.

Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the

Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude

Sec. 28. Suspension of attorney by

Section 19. Attorney's roll. The

The two essential requisites for becoming a

It is upon signing the roll of Attorney that one

Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not

between private respondent and the petitioners,

-Strictly speaking, the word practice of law implies the customary

false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with

LAWYERS DUTIES TO SOCIETY

-Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at

-Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,

-Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at

-Atty. Flaminianos acts of entering the property, aiding his wife,

existing writ of preliminary injunction and making utterances

-Rule 1.04 A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or

-Rule 1.04 A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or

-Canon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of

-Canon 5 A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments,

-Rule 6.01 The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public

-Rule 6.01 The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public

-Rule 6.01 The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public

-Rule 6.01 The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public

-Rule 6.01 The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public

suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of

-Rule 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service,