CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN

THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

A lawyer’s duty is not to his client but to the administration of justice; To that end, his client’s success is
wholly subordinate and his conduct ought to and must always be unscrupulously observant of law and
ethics [Magsalang v. People, G.R. No. 90083, (1990)].

1. When a lawyer accepts a case, whether for a fee or not, his acceptance is an implied
representation that he: [CASE]
2. will exercise reasonable and ordinary Care and diligence in the pursuit or defense of the case;
3. will possess the requisite degree of Academic learning, skill and ability in the practice of his
profession;
4. will take steps as will adequately Safeguard his client’s interests; and
5. will Exert his best judgment in the prosecution or defense of the litigation entrusted to him (Islas
v. Platon)

Authority to appear in court is presumed

GR: A lawyer is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in which he appears.

XPN: On motion of either party and on reasonable grounds, the presiding judge may require an attorney
to prove the authority under which he appears (Sec. 21, Rule 138, RRC).

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.

It is the duty of an attorney to employ, for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such
means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial
officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law [Sec. 20(d), Rule 138, RoC].

A lawyer should not file or threaten to file any unfounded or baseless criminal case or cases against the
adversaries of his client designed to secure a leverage to compel adversaries to yield or withdraw their
own cases against the lawyer’s client [Pena v. Aparicio, A.C. No. 7298 (2007)].

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.
This rule merely requires the lawyer to terminate his relationship with the client in the event the client
fails or refuses to rectify the fraud. The lawyer may not volunteer the information concerning the
client’s commission of fraud to anyone, as it will violate his obligation to maintain the client’s secrets
undisclosed [Agpalo (2004)].
Rule 19.03. A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the procedure on handling the case.
Within client’s control

1. Substantial Aspect
2. The cause of action, the claim or demand sued upon, and the subject matter of the litigation
are all within the exclusive control of a client.

Within counsel’s control

1. Procedural Aspect
2. All the proceedings in court to enforce the remedy, to bring the claim, demand, cause of action,
or subject matter of the suit to hearing, trial, determination, judgment, and execution, are
within the exclusive control of the attorney [Belandres v. Lopez Sugar Central Mill, G.R. No. L-
6869 (1955)].

An attorney may not impair, compromise, settle, surrender, or destroy rights without his client's
consent. A lawyer has no implied authority to waive his client’s right to appeal or to withdraw a pending
appeal.

If a lawyer believes that the appeal of his client is frivolous, he cannot move to dismiss the appeal,
without the consent of his client. His remedy is to withdraw from the case People v. Pagarao, G.R. No.
930026-27 (1991)].

Presumption of Authority: An attorney is presumed to be properly authorized to represent any cause in

which he appears in all stages of the litigation and no written authority is required to authorize him to
appear. A mere denial by a party that he has authorized an attorney to appear, in the absence of
compelling reason, is insufficient to overcome the presumption especially when the denial comes after
an adverse judgment. [Agpalo (2004)].

Authority of counsel to compromise

GR: The attorney has no authority to compromise his client’s case. This is so because the client, even if
represented by counsel, retains exclusive control over the subject matter of the litigation. The client can,
of course, authorize his lawyer to compromise his case, and the settlement made by the lawyer will bind
his client.

XPNs:

1. When the lawyer is confronted with an emergency where prompt and urgent action is necessary
to protect the interest of his client and there is no opportunity for consultation with the latter.
2. Settlement of monetary obligation to client is full payment in cash.

NOTE: Compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation
or put an end to one already commenced (Art. 2028, NCC).

Duty of the lawyer in gathering information regarding the case: The lawyer cannot entirely depend on
the information his client gave or the time his client wished to give. The lawyer should take more
control over handling the case. Where the client is based overseas, the lawyer should with more
reason, have moved to secure all the legal means available to him either to continue representing his
client effectively or to make the necessary manifestation in court, with the client’s conformity, that he
was withdrawing as counsel of record (CPR Annotated, PhilJA).

Appearance: It is the coming into court as a party either as a plaintiff or as a defendant and asking relief
therefrom.

Kinds of appearance

1. General appearance – When a party comes to court either as plaintiff or defendant and seeks
general reliefs from the court for satisfaction of his claims or counterclaims respectively.
2. Special appearance – When a defendant appears in court solely for the purpose of objecting to
the jurisdiction of the court over his person.

NOTE: By virtue of Sec. 20, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, there is no more distinction
between general appearance and special appearance, in the sense that a defendant may file a motion
to dismiss not only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over his person but also on some other grounds
without waiving the jurisdiction of the court over his person.

Entry of appearance v. Appearance of counsel

Entry of appearance is the written manifestation submitted by the counsel of record to inform the court
that he will act as the counsel of a party made before the date of the hearing while appearance of
counsel is the verbal manifestation of the counsel in order for the court to recognize his presence during
the hearing of the case (Sec. 21, Rule 138, Rules of Court).

What are the effects of unauthorized appearance?

INDIRECT CONTEMPT

Voluntary appearance of lawyer without authority: An attorney may appear for a person until he is in
fact employed by, or retained for such person. An attorney willfully appearing in court for a person
without being employed, unless by leave of court, may be punished for contempt as an officer of the
court, who has misbehaved in his official transactions. (Sec. 26, Rule 138)

Effects of unauthorized appearance:

1. The party represented is not bound by attorney’s appearance in the case neither by the
judgement rendered therein;
2. Court does not acquire jurisdiction over the person of the party represented;
3. The adverse party who has been forced to litigate as a defendant by the unauthorized action on
the part of the attorney for the plaintiff may, on that ground, move for the dismissal of the
complaint; and
4. If unauthorized appearance is willful, attorney may be cited for contempt as an officer of the
court who has misbehaved in his official transactions, and he may be disciplined for professional
misconduct.

Ratification of unauthorized appearance:

1. Express – categorized assertion by the client that he has authorized a lawyer or that he confirms
his authorization to represent him in the case.
 2. Implied – where party with knowledge of fact that a lawyer has been representing him in a case,
accepts benefits of representation or fails to promptly repudiate the assumed authority.

Requisites of Implied Ratification:

i. The party represented by the attorney is of age or competent or if he suffers from any
disability, he has a duly appointed guardian or legal representative;
ii. The party or his guardian, as the case may be, is aware of the attorney’s representation;
and
iii. He fails to promptly repudiate assumed authority.

Extent of lawyer’s authority in litigation:

A lawyer has authority to bind the client in all matters of ordinary judicial procedure. The cause of
action, the claim or demand sued upon and the subject matter of the litigation are within the exclusive
control of the client. A client may waive, surrender, dismiss, or compromise any of his rights involved in
litigation in favor of the other party even without or against the consent of his attorney.

Que, complainant vs. Atty. Revilla, respondent; AC No. 7054

INDIRECT CONTEMPT

FACTS:

Que accused Revilla, Jr. of willfully delaying the final judgment of the lower court against his client.
Respondent successfully filed a petition of certiorari before the Court of Appeals, two petitions of
annulment of title and a petition for annulment of judgment before the Regional Trial Court, and a
petition for declaratory execution of the lower court’s decision against his client.

1. Abuse of court procedures and processes.

2. Filing of multiple actions and forum shopping (directed against the filing of multiple actions to
attain the same objective. Both violations constitute abuse of court processes; they tend to
degrade the administration of justice; wreak havoc on orderly judicial procedure; and add to the
congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the courts.)
3. Willful, intentional and deliberate falsehood before the courts
4. Maligning the name of his fellow lawyers
5. Unauthorized appearances

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent violated various canons and provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR).

HELD:

Respondent’s abuse of court remedies by filing multiple actions praying for the same cause delayed the
execution of the final judgment of the court.
The respondent’s willful and revolting falsehood is also alleged by the complainant that unjustly
maligned and defamed the good name and reputation of the late Atty. Alfredo Catolico who was the
previous counsel of the respondent’s clients.

The respondent’s repeated attempts go beyond legitimate means allowed by professional ethical rules
in defending the interests of his clients. The respondent violated his duty as an attorney “never to
mislead the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false statement of fact or law.”

While a lawyer owes absolute fidelity to the cause of his client, full devotion to his genuine interest,
and warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights, as well as the exertion of his utmost
learning and ability, he must do so only within the bounds of the law. He must give a candid and
honest opinion on the merits and probable results of his client's case with the end in view of promoting
respect for the law and legal processes, and counsel or maintain such actions or proceedings only as
appear to him to be just, and such defenses only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.

He must always remind himself of the oath he took upon admission to the Bar that he 'will not wittingly
or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same';
and that he 'will conduct [himself] as a lawyer according to the best of [his] knowledge and discretion
with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to [his] clients.'

Needless to state, the lawyer's fidelity to his client must not be pursued at the expense of truth and the
administration of justice, and it must be done within the bounds of reason and common sense. A
lawyer's responsibility to protect and advance the interests of his client does not warrant a course of
action propelled by ill motives and malicious intentions against the other party

Due to the respondent’s multiple violations on the CPR, and is found liable for professional misconduct
for violations of the Lawyer’s Oath; Canon 8; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04,
Canon 10; Rules 12.02 and 12.04, Canon 12; Rule 19.01, Canon 19 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR); and Sections 20 (d), 21 and 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The Supreme
Court disbarred the respondent from the practice of law.

Ong, complainant vs. Atty. Unto, respondent AC No. 2417

Super zealous, nagbabayad ng info laban sa kaaway

This is a disbarment case filed by Alex Ong, a businessman from Dumaguete City, against Atty. Elpidio D.
Unto, for malpractice of law and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. The Commission on Bar Discipline of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP-Pasig City) found Atty. Unto guilty of malpractice and
recommended the penalty of one-month suspension from the practice of law or, at the very least, a
severe reprimand against him.

FACTS:

Respondent Atty. Elpidio D. Unto sent a demand letter, in representation of a client’s claim for child
support and other claims addressed to complainant Alex Ong. Another letter was sent listing down the
alleged additional financial demands of Ms. Garganian (Atty. Unto’s client), against the complainant and
discussed the courses of action that he would take against the complainant should the latter fail to
comply with his obligation to support Ms. Garganian and her son.
It was alleged that the real father of Ms. Garganian’s son was the complainant’s brother and that the
complainant merely assumed his brother’s obligation to appease Ms. Garganian who was threatening to
sue them. The complainant then did not comply with the demands against him.

The complainant then did not comply with the demands against him. Consequently, the respondent filed
various cases and criminal complaints against the complainant.

According to the complainant, these cases were subsequently denied due course and dismissed by the
aforesaid government agencies. The foregoing prompted the complainant to file the present case for
disbarment. Essentially, the complainant alleged that the respondent "manufactured" the criminal and
administrative cases against him to blackmail him or extort money from him.

The foregoing prompted the complainant to file the present case for disbarment. The records show
that the respondent offered monetary rewards to anyone who could provide him any information
against the complainant just so he would have a leverage in his actions against the latter. The
complainant branded the respondent’s tactics as “highly immoral, unprofessional and unethical,
constituting…malpractice of law and conduct gravely unbecoming of a lawyer.”

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is guilty of malpractice of law and conduct unbecoming of lawyer.

HELD: YES.

The relevant rule to the case at bar is Canon 19 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It mandates
lawyers to represent their clients with zeal but within the bounds of the law.

Rule 19.01 further commands that “a lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means to attain the
lawful objectives of his client and shall not present, participate or threaten to present unfounded
criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case or proceeding.”

We find the respondent’s action to be malicious as the cases he instituted against the complainant did
not have any bearing or connection to the cause of his client, Ms. Garganian.

Clearly, the respondent has violated the proscription in Canon 19, Rule 19.01. His behavior is
inexcusable. His tactic is unethical and runs counter to the rules that a lawyer shall not, for corrupt
motive or interest, encourage any suit or proceeding and he shall not do any act designed primarily to
solicit legal business.

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. 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.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent ATTY. ELPIDIO D. UNTO is hereby declared guilty of conduct
unbecoming of a lawyer. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of five (5) months and
sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Re: In the Matter of The Petition for Reinstatement of Rolando S. Torres As A Member of
The Philippine Bar.; A.C. 5161
Atty Torres filed petition for reinstatement as a member of the bar.

Guide or parameters to reinstate disbarred lawyers:

1. proof of remorse (testimonials of IBP officers, community, church priests, Rotary, Lion’s clubs)
2. sufficient time lapse
3. age of the petitioner
4. other factors

Based on this, denied.

FACTS:

In a 2004 case, Rolando Torres was ordered disbarred from the practice of law for "presentation of false
testimony, failure to advise against the forgery of complainant's signature in a purported Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement, and gross misrepresentation in court for the purpose of profiting from such
forgery, thereby committing gross misconduct and violating Canons 1 and 10 the Code of Professional
Responsibility.

More than ten (10) years from his disbarment, Torres filed a Petition seeking judicial clemency from the
Court to reinstate him in the Roll of Attorneys.

In a 2015 Resolution, the Court denied the petition, holding that Torres had failed to provide
substantial proof that he had reformed himself, especially considering the absence of showing that he
had reconciled or attempted to reconcile with his sister-in-law, the original complainant in the
disbarment case against him; nor was it demonstrated that he was remorseful over the fraudulent acts
he had committed against her.

Despite the foregoing, Torres filed the instant petition, again seeking judicial clemency from the Court to
reinstate him in the Roll of Attorneys.

Held:

The petition is not meritorious. Judicial clemency, as an act of mercy removing any disqualification,
should be balanced with the preservation of public confidence in the courts. The Court will grant it only
if there is a showing that it is merited.

Proof of reformation and a showing of potential and promise are indispensable.

The following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency are as follows:

1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation.

These shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or
chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges’ associations and prominent
members of the community with proven integrity and probity . A subsequent finding of guilt in
an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption
of non-reformation.
 2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of
reform.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead
of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or
contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and
other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.

In support of the instant petition for reinstatement, Torres merely rehashed all the several testimonials
and endorsements which he had already attached to his previous petitions.

However, these testimonials and endorsements do not prove whatsoever that Torres had already
successfully reformed himself subsequent to his disbarment. Neither do they exhibit remorse towards
the actions which caused his delisting from the Roll of Attorneys, i.e., the fraudulent acts he committed
against his sister-in-law.

In this regard, it is noteworthy to point out that since the promulgation of the Court's August 25, 2015
Resolution, there was still no showing that Torres had reconciled or even attempted to reconcile with
his sister-inlaw so as to show remorse for his previous faults.

Moreover, Torres also failed to present any evidence to demonstrate his potential for public service or
that he - now being 70 years of age - still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use
by giving him a chance to redeem himself. In sum, Torres failed to comply with the guidelines for the
grant of judicial clemency; hence, the instant petition must necessarily be denied.