LEGAL COUNSELING AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

CASE TITLE TOPIC

Convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (BP 22)
PEOPLE V TUANDA Motion to Lift Suspension was denied. The Court ruled that she was convicted of a
AC 3360 (1990) crime that import deceit, violation of her lawyer’s oath and CPR under both of
which she was bound to obey the laws of the land.
What constitutes “gross immoral conduct”
FIGUEROA V BARRANCO Complainant prayed that respondent be denied admission to the legal profession.
SBC CASE 519 JULY 31, 1997 She contends that she and the respondent had been sweethearts and that a child out
of wedlock was born. Respondent did not fulfill his promise of marrying her.
Complainant claimed that respondent has an affair with his wife.
The Court ruled that respondent should not be suspended because the complaint is
not sufficient to show that the respondent had indeed cohabiting with the
TOLOSA V CARGO complainant’s wife. The Court had reminded lawyers that as members of the Bar
AM 2385 MARCH 8, 1989 they must comply with the strict standards of conduct appropriately required from a
lawyer. Lawyers is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or
keeping of mistresses but must also behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the
public by creating the belief that he flouting those moral standards.
Respondent displayed a gross misconduct not connected with his professional
duties. Respondent borrowed money to be invested in his business but when the
complainant wanted to collect the interest and the money respondent refused to
return it.
The Court ruled that even if there was no atty-client relationship between the
complainant and the respondent, Amante in failing to account for and return the
P5,000.00 delivered to him for investment purposes by complainant, constituted
LIZASO V AMANTE
dishonest and immoral conduct. Rule 191 set out in Chapter I entitled "The Lawyer
AM 2019 JUNE 3, 1991
and Society" of the "Code of Professional Responsibility" which requires that "a
lawyer shall not engage in unlawful dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." The
emphasize here that "conduct," as used in this rule, is not limited to conduct
exhibited in connection with the performance of professional duties. That any gross
misconduct of a lawyer, whether in his professional or private capacity, puts his
moral character in serious doubt as a member of the Bar, and renders him unfit to
continue in the practice of law.
Respondent refused to pay his loan to the complainant’s son.
The Court ruled that respondent’s failure to present convincing evidence to justify
his non-payment of the debt and his being indifferent to the complainant and
CONSTANTINO V
unreasonable absence from the proceedings shows that he failed to posses the
SALUDARES
integrity and morality demanded from a lawyer. A lawyer’s professional and
AC 2029 DEC 7, 1993
personal conduct must at all times be kept beyond approach. As a lawyers he is
bound to perform duties to the Courts, to the Bar, to his clients and to the society
with honor and dignity.
Counsels of the spouses resorted to a series of actions and petitions to delay the
execution of a simple money judgment which has been long final and executory.
The Court ruled that it is the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a
layman to the intricacies and vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of
COBB-PEREZ V LANTIN
his case. If he finds that his client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty
GR L-22320 JULY 29, 1968
to advise the latter to acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the
incontrovertible. A lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his client, and
temper his client's propensity to litigate. A lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of
justice is superior to his duty to his client; its primacy is indisputable.
CASTANEDA V AGO Respondents as assisted by their counsel Atty. Luison misused legal remedies and
GR L- 28546 JULY 30 1975 prostituted the judicial process to prevent the satisfaction of the judgment to extend
the prejudice of the petitioners. Atty. Luison for 14 years dodge the execution of the
 judgment thru tactics from one court to another.
The Court ruled that Atty Luison forgot his sacred mission as a sworn public
servant and allowed himself to become an instigator of controversy and a predator
of conflict instead of mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise. It is
the duty of a counsel to advise his client, ordinarily a layman to the intricacies and
vagaries of the law, on the merit or lack of merit of his case. If he finds that his
client's cause is defenseless, then it is his bounden duty to advise the latter to
acquiesce and submit, rather than traverse the incontrovertible. A lawyer must
resist the whims and caprices of his client, and temper his clients propensity to
litigate. A lawyer's oath to uphold the cause of justice is superior to his duty to his
client; its primacy is indisputable.
Court condemned the conduct of the counsels of the parties.
The conduct of the respective counsel of the parties, as revealed by the records,
sorely disappoints the Court and invites reproof. Both counsels may well be
reminded that their ethical duty as lawyers to represent their clients with zeal goes
beyond merely presenting their clients' respective causes in court. It is just as much
their responsibility, if not more importantly, to exert all reasonable efforts to
YSASI III V NLRC
smooth over legal conflicts, preferably out of court and especially in consideration
GR 104599 MARCH 11, 1994
of the direct and immediate consanguineous ties between their clients. Once again,
the useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation but to avoid it
whenever possible by advising settlement or withholding suit. He is often called
upon less for dramatic forensic exploits than for wise counsel in every phase of life.
He should be a mediator for concord and a conciliator for compromise, rather than
a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation.
The Court held that because of the exploitative deception exercised by respondent
attorney upon the complainants in his private transactions with them, and the
exacting of unconscionable rates of interest, considered together with the acts of
professional misconduct committed by respondent attorney, compel this Court to
the conviction that he has lost that good moral character which is indispensable for
continued membership in the Bar.

MELENDREZ V DECENA The nature of the office of an attorney at law requires that he shall be a person of
AM 2104 AUG 24 1989 good moral character. This qualification is not only a condition precedent to
admission to the practice of law; its continued possession is also essential for
remaining in the practice of law, in the exercise of privileges of members of the
Bar. Gross misconduct on the part of a lawyer, although not related to the
discharge of professional duties as a member of the Bar, which puts his moral
character in serious doubt, renders him unfit to continue in the practice of law.

Rule 12, Sec 3 of the ROC, provides that if the defendant appears without an
attorney, he must be informed by the court that it is his right to have a counsel
before arraignment before being arraigned and must be asked if he desires the aid
of a counsel. If he desires to have one and unable to employ a counsel, the Court to
assign a counsel to defend him. None of these were complied with by the trial court.
PEOPLE V HIDALGO The trial court failed to inquire as to the true import of the qualified plea of
GR L-2809 MARCH 22, 1950 accused. The record does not show whether the supposed instructions of Mr.
Ocampo was real and whether it had reference to the commission of the offense or
to the making of the plea guilty. No investigation was opened by the court on this
matter in the presence of the accused and there is now no way of determining
whether the supposed instruction is a good defense or may vitiate the voluntariness
of the confession.
In re LUIS B. TAGORDA, Malpractice.
53 Phil 37March 23, 1929 The Court has reminded lawyers that the most worthy and effective advertisement
possible, is the establishment of a well- merited reputation for professional capacity

B. R SEBASTIAN V CA
C. GR L-41862 FEB 7, 1992
ANTONI V CA
GR 77656 AUG 31 1987
DACANAY V BAKER &
MCKENZIE
AM 2131 MAY 10, 1985
DE ROY V CA
GR 80718 JAN 29 1988
and fidelity to trust. The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a ground for
disbarment or suspension. 
Death of a partner does not extinguish the lawyer-client relationship with the law
firm. The counsel for herein petitioner B. R. SEBASTIAN ENTERPRISES, INC
failed to file an Appellants’ Brief. Thereafter, respondent Court issued a Resolution
requiring said counsel to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for
failure to file the Appellant's Brief within the reglementary period. Petitioner, this
time thru the BAIZAS LAW OFFICE, filed a motion for alleging that as a result of
the death of Atty. Crispin Baizas, senior partner in the law firm of BAIZAS,
ALBERTO & ASSOCIATES, the affairs of the said firm are still being settled
between Atty. Jose Baizas (son of Crispin Baizas) and Atty. Ruby Alberto, the latter
having established her own law office; furthermore, Atty. Rodolfo Espiritu, the
lawyer who handled this case in the trial court. petition was likewise denied. Hence,
petitioner filed the original petition in this case against the Court of Appeals,
Eulogio B. Reyes, Nicanor G. Salaysay, as Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, and Antonio
Marinas, as Deputy Sheriff. The petition likewise prayed for the issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order. The Court denied the petition for lack of merit.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that since it was deprived of
the right to appeal without fault on its part, the petition should be given due course.
To justify its failure to file the Appellant's Brief, petitioner relies mainly on the
death of Atty. Crispin Baizas and the supposed confusion it brought to the firm of
BAIZAS, ALBERTO & ASSOCIATES.
Petitioner's counsel was the law firm of BAIZAS, ALBERTO & ASSOCIATES and
not merely Atty. Crispin Baizas. Hence, the death of the latter did not extinguish the
lawyer-client relationship between said firm and petitioner. Undoubtedly, there was
inexcusable negligence on the part of petitioner's counsel in failing to file the
Appellant's Brief.The "confusion" in the office of the law firm following the death of
Atty. Crispin Baizas is not a valid justification for its failure to file the Brief. With
Baizas' death, the responsibility of Atty. Alberto and his Associates to the petitioner
as counsel remained until withdrawal by the former of their appearance in the
manner provided by the Rules of Court. The rule is settled that negligence of
counsel binds the client.
Whether the client is bound by the negligence of its counsel.
Client is bound by the negligence or failings of its counsel. It is the duty of an atty
to himself and to his client to invariably adopt a system whereby he can be sure of
receiving promptly all judicial notices during his absence from his address of
record. The atty must arrange matters that communications sent by mail addressed
to his office or residence may reach him promptly.
Atty. Dacanay sought to enjoin Juan Collas and nine other lawyers from practicing law
under the name Baker and McKenzie, a law firm organized in Illinois. In 1979 respondent
Vicente A. Torres used the letterhead of Baker & McKenzie which contains the names of
the ten lawyers asking Rosie Clurman for the release of 87 shares of Cathay
Products International, Inc. to H.E. Gabriel, a client. Atty. Dacanay replied denying any
liability of Clurman and asking the lawyer his purpose of using the letterhead of another
law office.
Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law firm, cannot  practice law in the Philippines.
Respondents' use of the firm name Baker & McKenzie constitutes a representation that
being associated with the firm they could "render legal services of the  highest  quality to
multinational business enterprises and others engaged in foreign trade and investment"
which the Court finds unethical because Baker & McKenzie is not authorized to practise law
here. Thus, the respondents are enjoined from practising law under the firm name Baker &
McKenzie. 
Petitioner Feliza De Roy was the respondent in a civil case for damages filed by Luis Bernal.
In the civil case, the RTC found De Roy grossly negligent and awarded damages to Bernal
for the injuries he sustained and for the death of his daughter caused by the collapse of a

Zualo vs. CFI of Cebu,
CA-G.R. No. 27718-R, July 7, 1961
COLLANTES V RENOMERON
AC 3056 AUG 16, 1991
US V BARREDO
GR L-9278 DEC 7, 1915
GONZALES-AUSTRIA
ABAYA
AM R-705-RTJ AUG 23, 1989
burned-out building’s firewall owned by De Roy. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. On the
last day of the 15-day period to file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion for an extension of
time to file a motion for reconsideration. The CA denied the motion by applying the rule
laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises v. Japzon that said period cannot be extended.
Petitioners contend that the rule enunciated in the Habaluyas case should not be made to
apply to the case at bar owing to the non-publication of the decision in the Official Gazette
when the CA decision was promulgated.
It is the bounden duty of counsel as a lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of
decisions of the SC particularly where issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated,
and published in the advance reports of SC decisions and in such publications as the SCRA
and law journals. In this case, petitioner’s contention that the SC decision was not binding
and effective because it lacks publication is without merit.
A complaint for disbarment is filed by Atty.  Collantes, house counsel for V& G
Better Homes Subdivision, Inc. (V&G), against Atty. Renomeron, Register of
Deeds of Tacloban City, for the latter’s irregular actuations with regard to the
application of V&G for registration of 163 pro forma Deed of Absolute Sale with
Assignment (in favor of GSIS) of lots in its subdivision. Although V&G complied
with the desired requirements, respondent suspended the registration of the
documents with certain “special conditions” between them. Eventually, respondent
formally denied the registration of the documents. He himself elevated the question
on the registrability of the said documents to Administrator Bonifacio (of the
National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration-NLTDRA). The
Administrator then resolved in favor of the registrability of the documents. Despite
the resolution of the Administrator, the respondent still refused the registration
thereof but demanded from the parties interested the submission of additional
requirements not adverted in his previous denial.
The Court held that a lawyer’s misconduct as a public official 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
obligations and its violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other
disciplinary action. The Code of Professional Responsibility applies to government
service in the discharge of their official tasks (Canon 6). The Code forbids a lawyer
to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct (Rule 1.01, Code of
Professional Responsibility), or delay any man’s cause “for any corrupt motive or
interest” (Rule 1.03).
This is a complaint by Atty. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria charging Judge Emannuel M. Abaya
with: 1) estafa through falsification of public or official documents; 2) gross dishonesty and
corruption by soliciting, demanding, receiving bribed money in exchange for favorable
resolutions and decisions from different litigants and 3) illegal exaction of portion of the
salaries of his subordinates. Judge Abaya denied all these charges. He asserted that these
charges were concocted in retaliation against the administrative complaint against Atty.
Gonzales-Austria for dishonesty and grave misconduct in having forged his signature in a
V probation order.
Judge Emmanuel M. Abaya guilty of grave and serious misconduct affecting his integrity
and moral character which would have warranted his dismissal from the service had his
resignation not been accepted. By these acts, Judge Abaya has demonstrated his unfitness
and unworthiness of the honor and perquisites attached to his office. The office of a judge
exists for one solemn end — to promote justice by administering it fairly and impartially. In
regarding justice as a commodity to be sold at a price, Judge Abaya betrayed the very
essence of magistracy. In complicity with Annabelle Cardenas, he likewise abused the trust
and confidence of the people, shortchanging them of services undoubtedly vital to the
speedy administration of justice.
ENRIQUEZ V GIMENEZ
GR L-12817 APRIL 29, 1960

JK Mercardo and Sps Jesus and Rosario Mercado filed this complaint for disbarment against
Atty De Vera. R. Mercado engaged the services of the respondent in a civil case. The Court
ruled in favor of the Mercados. When she terminated the services of the respondent she
offered a sum of money by way of atty’s fee and at the same time demanded an accounting
and the turn over of the money still in the possession of the respondent. However, the latter
JK MERCADO V DE VERA refused to return, claiming that pursuant to the decison, he is entitled to 2.2 M by way of
AC 3066 (1997) atty’s fee. Failing to recover what she felt was lawfully due to her filed this disbarment
proceedings.
Under Canon 16 of CPR provides that in case of disagreement or when the client disputes
the amount claimed by the lawyer for being unconscionable, the lawyer should not
arbitrarily apply the funds in his possession to the payment of his fees, instead he should file
the proper action or motion to fix the amount of his atty’s fees.
Atty Lope Adriano was appointed as his counsel. Atty Adriano was required to
prepare and file his brief within 30 from notice. After so many extensions he still
failed to file his appellant’s brief.

The Court held that a duty was imposed upon the lawyer and that is to render the
PEOPLE V ESTEBIA, required service. A lawyer so appointed as counsel shoul always exert his best
GR L-26868 (1969) efforts in his client’s behalf. His failure to file his appellant’s brief as required from
him without valid reason just shows his disregard in his obligations as a lawyer.
His conduct shows willful dis-obedience of lawful orders of this Court. The Court
suspended him from the practice of law for 1 yr.

Privileged communication between attorney and client. The complainant alleged

that respondent maliciously instituted a criminal case for falsification of public
document against her, a former client, based on confidential information gained
from their attorney-client relationship. Respondent alleged that complainant made
false entries in the Certificates of Live Birth of her children.

In engaging the services of an attorney, the client reposes on him special powers of
trust and confidence. Their relationship is strictly personal and highly confidential
and fiduciary. The relation is of such delicate, exacting and confidential nature that
is required by necessity and public interest.The mere relation of attorney and client
does not raise a presumption of confidentiality. The client must intend the
communication to be confidential.Applying all these rules to the case at bar, they
MERCADO V VITRIOLO, hold that the evidence on record fails to substantiate complainants allegations.
AC 5108 (2005) complainant did not even specify the alleged communication in confidence
disclosed by respondent. All her claims were couched in general terms and lacked
specificity. She contends that respondent violated the rule on privileged
communication when he instituted a criminal action against her for falsification of
public documents because the criminal complaint disclosed facts relating to the
civil case for annulment then handled by respondent. She did not, however, spell
out these facts which will determine the merit of her complaint. Also, The
complainant had failed to appear during the hearings of IBP. Without her testimony
it is impossible to determine if there was any violation of the rule on privileged
communication. The case was dismissed against the respondent was dismissed due
to lack of merit.

PEOPLE V SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent Sansaet offered to testify as a state witness against his client Paredes,
GR 115439-41 (1997) claiming that the latter contrived and induced him to have the graft case dismissed
on the ground of double jeopardy by having him and co-respondent prepare and
 falsify the subject documents. But the Sandiganbayan denied the motion on the
ground of attorney-client privilege since the lawyer could not testify against his own
client. In view of such relationship, confidential matters must have been disclosed
by Paredes, as client, to accused Sansaet, as his lawyer, in his professional capacity,
and therefore privileged.
There is no privileged communication rule to talk about. The privilege applies only
if the information was relayed by the client to the lawyer respecting a past crime.
The reckoning point is when the communication was given, not when the lawyer
was made to testify. The attorney-client privilege cannot apply in these cases as the
facts thereof and the actuations of both respondents therein constitute an exception
to the rule. It may be correctly assumed that there was a confidential
communication made by Paredes to Sansaet in connection with the criminal cases
since the latter served as his counsel therein. The privilege is not confined to verbal
or written communications made by the client to his attorney but extends as well to
information communicated by other means. IOW, including physical acts. The acts
and words of the parties, therefore, during the period when the documents were
being falsified were necessarily confidential since Paredes would not have invited
Sansaet to his house and allowed him to witness the same except under conditions
of secrecy and confidence.
With respect to petitioner’s entitlement to the claimed attorney’s fees, it is the
Court’s considered view that he is deserving of it and that the amount should be
based on quantum meruit. Given the considerable amount of time spent, the diligent
ROSARIO V DE GUZMAN,
effort exerted by petitioner, and the quality of work shown by him in ensuring the
GR 191247 (2013)
successful defense of his clients, petitioner clearly deserves to be awarded
reasonable attorney’s fees for services rendered. Justice and equity dictate that
petitioner be paid his professional fee based on quantum meruit.
The respondent lawyer has the right recover in full its compensation based on its written
agreement with his client who unceremoniously and without any justifiable reason
terminated its legal service and required it to withdraw from the case. A client may at any
time dismiss his attorney or substitute another in his place, but if the contract between client
and attorney has been reduced to writing and the dismissal of the attorney was without
justifiable cause, he shall be entitled to recover from the client the full compensation
stipulated in the contract. However, the attorney may, in the discretion of the court,
MALVAR V KRAFT FOODS PHIL, intervene in the case to protect his rights. For the payment of his compensation the attorney
GR 183952 (2013) shall have a lien upon all judgments for the payment of money, and executions issued in
pursuance of such judgment, rendered in the case wherein his services had been retained by
the client.
Although the practice of law is not a business, an attorney is entitled to be properly
compensated for the professional services rendered for the client, who is bound by
her express agreement to duly compensate the attorney. The client may not deny
her attorney such just compensation.
The exercise of the powers and functions of a Commission on Human Rights
Regional Director constitutes practice of law. Thus, the Regional Director must be
an attorney — a member of the bar in good standing and authorized to practice
LINGAN V ATTY CALUBAQUIB,
law. When the Regional Director loses this authority, such as when he or she is
AC 5377 (2014)
disbarred or suspended from the practice of law, the Regional Director loses a
necessary qualification to the position he or she is holding. The disbarred or
suspended lawyer must desist from holding the position of Regional Director.
ZAGUIERRE V ATTY CASTILLO, This is a complaint for disbarment filed by Zaguirre against Atty Castillo on the
AC 4921 (2003) ground of Gross Immoral Conduct. Respondent who was already married with 3
children had an affair with complainant while he was reviewing for the bar until
before the release of the results. Complainant got pregnant and respondent, who was
then already a lawyer, executed a notarized affidavit acknowledging the child as his
with a promise to support said child. After the birth of the baby, however,
respondent had started to refuse recognizing the child and giving her any form of

ARCIAGA V MANIWANG,
AM 1608 (1981)
CAMACHO V PANGULAYAN,
AC 4807 (2000)
RE: LETTER DATED 21 FEBRUARY
2005 OF ATTY. NOEL S. SORREDA,
A.M. No. 05-3-04-SC (2005)
support.
As the Court have always reminded lawyers that as officers of the Court they must
not not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good
moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards
of the community. More specifically, a member of the Bar and officer of the court is
not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the keeping of
mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards. The illicit relationship
with Carmelita took place while respondent was preparing to take the bar
examinations. The Court deems it more appropriate under the circumstances that
indefinite suspension should be meted out than disbarment. The suspension shall
last until such time that respondent is able to show, to the full satisfaction of the
Court, that he had instilled in himself a firm conviction of maintaining moral
integrity and uprightness required of every member of the profession.
Respondent's cohabitation with the complainant and his reneging on his promise of
marriage do not warrant his disbarment. For a conduct to be considered grossly
immoral it must be willful, flagrant or shameless, and which shows a moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.
This Court found that respondent's refusal to marry the complainant was not so
corrupt nor unprincipled as to warrant disbarment. The complaint for disbarment
was dismissed.
Atty. Manuel N. Camacho filed a complaint against the lawyers comprising the
Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices. CAMACHO was the hired counsel of the
expelled students in an action for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injuction in the said civil case. While the civil case was still pending, letters of
apology and Re-admission Agreements were separately executed by the expelled
students without the knowledge of CAMACHO.CAMACHO led a complaint
against lawyers comprising the PANGULAYAN ANDASSOCIATES Law firm
(lawyers of AMA)because without his knowledge they procured and effected on
separate occasions compromise agreements (letters of apology and Re-admission
Agreements) with 4 of his clients which in effect required them to waive all kinds
of claims they may have with AMA.CAMACHO averred that such an act was
unbecoming of any member of the legal profession warranting either disbarment or
suspension.PANGULAYAN in his defense claimed that the agreements were
executed for the sole purpose of effecting the settlement of an administrative case.
The Court held that although the respondent was 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 the case. 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. Under the CPR, 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.
Atty Soreda expressed his frustrations over the unfavorable outcome and the
manner by which the Court resolved the cases filed by him. Through a letter
addressed to the Chief Justice he said that the manner the Court comported in the
cases is atrocious and entirely unworthy of the majesty and the office of the highest
tribunal of the land.
The Court ruled that the such unfounded allegations or words tending to embarrass

ANDRES V CABRERA,
GR 585 (1979)
SOLLER V COMELEC,
GR 139583 (2000)
CRUZ V JACINTO,
AC 5235 (2000)
PEOPLE V ESTESIA,
GR 106400 (1999)
RAMOS V MANALAC,
G.R. No. L-2610 June 16, 1951
ZETA V MALINAO,
AM P-220 DEC 20, 1978
NORIEGA V SISON,
AM 2266, OCTOBER 27, 1983
PCGG V SANDIGANBAYAN,
GR 151809-12 APRIL 12, 2005
the court or to bring it into dispute have no place in a pleading. Atty Soreda’s
conduct violated Canon 11 which provides that a lawyer shall observe and
maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers and should insist on
similar conduct by others. The Court has reminded members of the Bar that in
keeping with the dignity of the legal profession, a lawyer’s language even in his
pleadings must be dignified. Atty. Sorreda must be reminded that his first duty is
not to his client but to the administration of justice, to which his client’s success is
wholly subordinate. His conduct ought to and must always be scrupulously
observant of law and ethics. The use of intemperate language and unkind ascription
can hardly be justified nor can it have a place in the dignity of judicial forum.
Respondent is a successful bar examinee whom a petition to disqualify him from
membership in the Bar, was required to show cause why he should not be cited and
punished for contempt of court. The petition to disqualify respondent from
admission to the Bar was filed by Atty. Emilia F. Andres, Legal Officer II in the
Office of the Minister, Ministry of Labor on the ground of lack of good moral
character as shown by his propensity in using vile, uncouth, and in civil language to
the extent of being reprehensively malicious and criminally libelous and likewise,
for his proclivity in filing baseless, malicious and unfounded criminal cases.
The Court held that even though respondent is not yet admitted to the legal
profession but now stands at the threshold thereof, having already passed the Bar
examinations, it is as much his duty as every attorney-at-law already admitted to
the practice of law to ..observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice
and judicial officers. It is the duty of the lawyer to maintain towards the courts a
respectful attitude not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the Judicial
office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance. By his improper conduct
in the use of highly disrespectful insolent language, respondent has tended to
degrade the administration of justice; he has disparaged the dignity and brought to
disrepute the integrity and authority of the Court.He is held in contempt.
The word “appearance” includes not only arguing a case but also filing a pleading
in behalf of a client as by simply filing a formal plea, motion or answer.
The Court held that the respondent, apart from appearing as counsel in various
municipal courts without prior permission of his superiors in violation of civil
service rules and regulations, falsified his time record of service by making it
appear therein that he was present in his office on occasions when in fact he was in
the municipal courts appearing as counsel, without being a member of the bar,
which, furthermore, constitutes illegal practice of law.
Complainant filed a disbarment case against Sison who is a hearing officer of the
SEC so he is not allowed to engage in the private practice of law.
The Court ruled that Sison’s isolated appearance does not constitute private
practice of law as he did not derive any pecuniary gain for his appearance
considering that Sison and the client he represented was a close family friend. Such
act of Sison going out of his way to aid as counsel to a close friend should not be
allowed to be used as an instrument of harassment against him.
The Court held that “drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency
procedures, regulations and laws, or briefing abstract principles of law are acts
which do not fall within the scope of the term “matter” and cannot disqualify.
Respondent Mendoza had nothing to do with the decision of the Central Bank to
liquidate GENBANK. He also did not participate in the sale of GENBANK to
 Allied Bank. The legality of the liquidation of GENBANK is not an issue in the
sequestration cases. Indeed, the jurisdiction of the PCGG does not include the
dissolution and liquidation of banks. Thus, the Code 6.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility cannot apply to respondent Mendoza because his
alleged intervention while SolGen is an intervention on a matter different from the
matter involved in the Civil case of sequestration.
As a member of the bar and former judge, respondent is expected to be well-versed
in the Rules of Procedure. This expectation is imposed upon members of the legal
profession, because membership in the bar is in the category of a mandate for
public service of the highest order. Lawyers are oath-bound servants of society
whose conduct is clearly circumscribed by inflexible norms of law and ethics, and
OCA V LIANGCO,
whose primary duty is the advancement of the quest for truth and justice, for which
AC 5355 DEC 13, 11
they have sworn to be fearless crusaders. Displaying an utter lack of familiarity
with the rules, he in effect erodes the public’s confidence in the competence of our
courts. Moreover, he demonstrates his ignorance of the power and responsibility
that attach to the processes and issuances of a judge, and that he as a member of
the bar should know..
Whether there is an agreement or not, the courts shall fix a reasonable
compensation which lawyers may receive for their professional services.” “A
lawyer has the right to be paid for the legal services he has extended to his client,
which compensation must be reasonable.” A lawyer would be entitled to receive
what he merits for his services. Otherwise stated, the amount must be determined
on a quantum meruit basis.
RILLORAZA V EASTERN In fixing a reasonable compensation for the services rendered by a lawyer on the
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILS, basis of quantum meruit, the elements to be considered are generally:
GR 104600 JULY 2, 1999 (1) the importance of the subject matter in controversy,
(2) the extent of services rendered, and
(3) the professional standing of the lawyer.
A determination of these factors would indispensably require nothing less than a
full-blown trial where private respondents can adduce evidence to establish the
right to lawful attorney's fees and for petitioner to oppose or refute the same. The
trial court has the principal task of fixing the amount of attorney's fees.
Rule 6.02 is particularly directed to lawyers in government service, enjoining them
from using one’s public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance
private interests; or (3) allow private interests to interfere with public duties. It is
well to note that a lawyer who holds a government office may be disciplined as a
ABELLA V BARRIOS, member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath
AC 7332 JUNE 18, 2013 as a lawyer. The infractions of the respondent constitute gross misconduct.
Jurisprudence illumines that immoral conduct involves acts that are willful,
flagrant, or shameless, and that show a moral indifference to the opinion of the
upright and respectable members of the community. transgressions as discussed
herein and to equally deter the commission of the same or similar acts in the future.
PHILIPPINE LAWYER’S
ASSOCIATION V AGRAVA,
GR L-12426 FEB 16, 1959
Atty. Mendoza made irresponsible advices to her clients in violation of Rule 1.02
and Rule 15.07 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. It is the mandate of Rule
1.02 that "a lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal system." Rule 15.07 states that "a lawyer
AREOLA V MENDOZA shall impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of
fairness." Atty. Mendoza’s improper advice only lessens the confidence of the
public in our legal system. Judges must be free to judge, without pressure or
influence from external forces or factors according to the merits of a case. Atty.
Mendoza’s careless remark is uncalled for.
 The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. Adherence to the rigid
standards of mental fitness, maintenance of the highest degree of morality and
faithful compliance with the rules of the legal profession are the conditions
required for remaining a member of good standing of the bar and for enjoying the
privilege to practice law. The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal profession,
DUMADAG V LUMAYA, has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys. This authority to discipline its
AC 2614 JUNE 29, 2000 members is not only a right but a bounden duty as well--- that is why respect and
fidelity to the Court is demanded of its members. Atty. Lumaya is suspended
indefinitely until such time as he has purged himself of his misconduct and
acknowledged the same by exhibiting appropriate repentance and demonstrating
his willingness and capacity to live up to the exacting standards of conduct
demanded from every member of the bar and officer of the court.
DIMALITA V VILLALON,
297 SCRA 697
Complainant Chu retained Respondent Guico as counsel to handle the labor
disputes involving his company. Atty. Guico asked him to prepare a substantial
amount of money to be given to the NLRC Commissioner handling the appeal to
insure a favorable decision.Finally, the NLRC issued an adverse decision against
Chu’s company and there was no other recourse but to file an appeal to the CA.
Atty. Guico willingly and wittingly violated the law in appearing to counsel Chu to
raise the large sums of money in order to obtain a favorable decision in the labor
case. He thus violated the law against bribery and corruption. He compounded his
CHU V GUICO
violation by actually using said illegality as his means of obtaining a huge sum
AC 10573, JANUARY 13, 2015
from the client that he soon appropriated for his own personal interest. His acts
constituted gross dishonesty and deceit, and were a flagrant breach of his ethical
commitments under the Lawyer’s Oath not to delay any man for money or malice;
and under Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that forbade him
from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His deviant
conduct eroded the faith of the people in him as an individual lawyer as well as in
the Legal Profession as a whole. In doing so, he ceased to be a servant of the law.
Atty. Guico committed grave misconduct and disgraced the Legal Profession.
GUARIN V LIMPIN
AC 10576 JAN 14 2015