LECTURE 9

CANON 17 – A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL BE MINDFUL OF THE
TRUST AND CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
 In Manalang, et al. v. Angeles [Adm. Case No. 1558, March 10, 2003], respondent was lawyer for
complainants in a case for overtime and separation pay filed against the Philippine Racing Club Restaurant
before the NLRC. Judgment was rendered in their favor for PhP6,500. After the decision became final, a writ
of execution was issued. However, without authority from his clients, respondent compromised the award
and collected only PhP5,500. The Court held: Money claims due to workers [or to anyone else for that
matter] cannot, as a rule, be the object of settlement or compromise effected by counsel without the
consent of the workers concerned.
 Acceptance of money from prospective client is evidence of establishment of an attorney-client relationship
between them. This gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause [Villafuerte v. Cortez, Adm. Case
No. 3455, April 14, 1998 – In this case, after receiving his acceptance fee, the attorney did not file the proper
pleadings because of the complainant’s failure to give him the complete records of the case despite his
demands. The Court, while holding the attorney guilty of negligence merely suspended him for one month
because the client was equally negligent. He did not cooperate with his counsel.]
Solatan v. Inocentes, AC No. 6504, August 9, 2005
 Read facts – case about liability of supervising attorneys or a partner with respect to associate handling the
case
 The Court opined: Partners and practitioners who hold supervisory capacities are legally responsible to
exert ordinary diligence in apprising themselves of the comings and goings of the cases handled by the
persons over which they are exercising supervisory authority and in exerting necessary efforts to foreclose
the occurrence of violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility by persons under their charge.
Nonetheless, the liability of the supervising lawyer in this regard is by no means equivalent to that of the
recalcitrant lawyer. The actual degree of control and supervision exercised by said supervising lawyer varies,
inter alia, according to office practice, or the length of experience and competence of the lawyer supervised.
Such factors can be taken into account in ascertaining the proper penalty. Certainly, a lawyer charged with
the supervision of a fledgling attorney prone to rookie mistakes should bear greater responsibility for the
culpable acts of the underling than one satisfied enough with the work and professional ethic of the
associate so as to leave the latter mostly to his/her own devises.
CANON 18 – A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE.
 The duty to safeguard the client’s interests begins from retainer until effective discharge from the case or
final disposition of the whole subject matter of litigation. In the case of Edquibal v. Ferrer [Adm. Case No.
5687, February 3, 2005], the Court held that the diligence required of an attorney is not extraordinary
diligence but merely ordinary diligence or “that degree of vigilance expected of a bonus pater familias.”
Rule 18.01 – A lawyer shall not undertake a legal service which he knows or should know that he is not
qualified to render. However, he may render such service if, with the consent of his client, he can obtain as
collaborating counsel a lawyer who is competent on the matter.
Rule 18.02 – A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without adequate preparation.
 See Rule 12.01 (A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless he has adequately prepared himself…).
Rule 18.03 – A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection
therewith shall render him liable.
 In Moton v. Cadiao [Adm. Case No. 5169. November 24, 1999], respondent attorney’s non-appearance in
hearings and failure to present evidence for his client led to the dismissal of the action. In his defense in this
disbarment case against him, the attorney alleged failure of his client to give him original copies of the
records that would be presented in evidence. He also pleaded numerous commitments to excuse his

1
 absences from the set hearings. The Court held: [A lawyer] should give adequate attention, care and time to
his cases. This is why a practising lawyer may accept only so many cases that he can efficiently handle.
Otherwise, his clients will be prejudiced. Once he agrees to handle a case, he should undertake the task with
dedication and care. If he should do any less, then he is not true to his lawyer's oath. [Respondent was
fined.]
 Not even ill-health can excuse a lawyer for not filing necessary pleadings before the court when these are
due because he can request an extension of time to file the required pleadings, or at the very least, inform
his client of his medical condition (Nonato v. Fudolin, Jr., A.C. No. 10138, [June 16, 2015]).
Spouses Vargas v. Oriño, AC No. 8907, June 3, 2019
 Once a member of the Bar agrees to provide his legal services to a client, but does not perform or deliver as
promised, then he reneges upon the oath he took as a lawyer. Moreover, it has been held that the mere
failure of the lawyer to perform the obligations due to his client is considered per se a violation of the
lawyer's oath. Indeed, lawyers are duty bound to attend to their client's cause with diligence, care and
devotion, whether they accept it for a fee or for free, so much so that a lawyer's neglect of a legal matter
entrusted to him constitutes inexcusable negligence for which he must be held administratively liable.
Failure to perfect appeal
 In Reontoy v. Ibadlit [Adm. Case CBD No. 190, January 28, 1998] the Court said: A lawyer has no right to
waive his client’s right to appeal. [In his defense the attorney claimed that he after receiving the adverse
decision he was convinced that an appeal would be futile. However, he could not communicate with his
clients, despite efforts to do so, to confer on the proper action to take. He was suspended from the practice
of law for one year.]
Failure to file appellant’s brief
 In Hernandez v. Padilla [Adm.Case No. 9387. June 20, 2012] respondent attorney filed a Memorandum of
Appeal instead of an Appellants’ Brief as the Court of Appeals had ordered. He alleged the absence of
attorney-client relationship between him and complainant claiming that what he did was merely to draft a
legal document for a fee as requested by complainant. The Court held that acceptance of money from a
client establishes an attorney-client relationship and gives rise to the duty of fidelity to the client’s cause.
Motions for extension of time to file pleadings
 Motions for extension of time to file pleadings is addressed to the discretion of the courts. Therefore,
lawyers should not presume that their motions will be granted.
Abandonment of client’s cause
 In Suarez v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 91133, March 22, 1993] the Court found that defendant in the
complaint for issuance of bouncing check was totally abandoned by counsel who had left for the U.S. and
had not returned. The fact that he sent a “stand-in” counsel was of no moment because this was done
without the client’s consent. Therefore, no attorney-client relationship existed between the client and the
“stand-in” counsel. The Court held: The legal difficulty petitioner finds herself in is imputable to the
negligence of her de parte counsel, Atty. Vicente San Luis, in abandoning the conduct of the case without
formally withdrawing or at least informing petitioner that he would be permanently staying in the U.S.A. so
that petitioner could appoint another counsel… A client may reasonably expect that his counsel will make
good his representations (Agpalo's Legal Ethics, p. 169) … Petitioner, therefore, had the right to expect that
her counsel de parte, Atty. San Luis, would protect her interests during the trial of the cases… As a general
rule, a client is bound by his counsel's conduct, negligence, and mistakes in handling the case during the trial
(…). However the rule admits exceptions. A new trial may be granted where the incompetency of counsel is
so great that the defendant is prejudiced and prevented from fairly presenting his defense (.. ) [citations
omitted.]
Rule 18.04 – A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the client’s request for information.

2
CANON 19 – A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.
Rule 19.01 – A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and
shall not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded criminal charges to obtain an
improper advantage in any case or proceeding.
 C.f., Rule 138, sec.20(d). [Duty to] employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such
means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never to seek to mislead the judge or any judicial
officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.
 Ong v. Unto [Adm. Case No. 2417. February 6, 2002]--In demanding support for his client and her child from
complainant, respondent attorney employed means that went beyond the bounds of ethical representation
such as threatening and filing of numerous actions, administrative and criminal, against therein respondent
(herein complainant Ong) that had nothing at all to do with his client’s case. The records also show that
respondent attorney offered monetary rewards to anyone who could provide him with any information
against Ong just so he would have a leverage in his actions against the latter. The Court held that the
lawyer’s acts were forms of coercion and clearly violated the proscription in Canon 19, Rule 19.01. Atty.
Unto was suspended from the practice of law for five months.
Rule 19.02 – A lawyer who has received information that his client has, in the course of the representation,
perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and
failing which he shall terminate the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of Court.
 NOTE: “In accordance with the Rules of Court” means compliance with Rule 138, sec.26, to wit: An attorney
may retire at any time from any action or special proceeding, by the written consent of his client filed in
court. He may also retire at any time from an action or special proceeding, without the consent of his client,
should the court, on notice to the client and attorney, and on hearing, determine that he ought to be
allowed to retire. In case of substitution, the name of the attorney newly employed shall be entered on the
docket of the court in place of the former one, and written notice of the change shall be given to the adverse
party.
Rule 19.03 – A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure in handling the case.
 C.f., Rule 138, sec.23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients. — Attorneys have authority to bind their clients
in any case by any agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in taking appeals, and in all matters of
ordinary judicial procedure. But they cannot, without special authority, compromise their client's litigation,
or receive anything in discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash.
 NOTE: Cause of action, claim or demand and subject of litigation are within the client’s control. Hence, the
attorney may not impair, settle or compromise without the client’s knowledge and consent.
 HOWEVER, proceedings to enforce the remedy are within the exclusive control of the attorney. Thus, in
Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers Union v. Lo Bu [G.R. No. L-40136, March 25, 1997] where the employer, with
the aid of counsel, was able to delay execution of judgment in favor of the workers through use of
technicalities and machinations, the Court reminded the lawyer that while he was “expected to defend his
client’s cause with zeal” this should not be “at the disregard of the truth and in defiance of the clear purpose
of the labor statutes.” The Court further said that the lawyer “should not act like an errand-boy at the beck
and call of his client, ready and eager to do his every bidding.”