I.
I.
INT
INT
ROD
ROD
UCTI
UCTI
ON
ON
TO
TO
LEGA
LEGA
L
L
ETHI
ETHI
CS
CS
1.
1.
Dir
Dir
ecto
ecto
r of R
r of R
elig
elig
iou
iou
s Aair
s Aair
s vs. Bayo
s vs. Bayo
t
t
—
— The The advertiseadvertisement of ment of (law services) (law services) is a is a agrant violation of agrant violation of the ethics the ethics of of
the law rofession. !ection "#$ Rule 1"% rovides$ among other things$ the law rofession. !ection "#$ Rule 1"% rovides$ among other things$ that &the ractice of soliciting cases at law for the urose of gain$ either that &the ractice of soliciting cases at law for the urose of gain$ either ersonally or thru aid agents or 'roers$ constitute malractice.
ersonally or thru aid agents or 'roers$ constitute malractice.
".
".
*e
*e
des
des
ma
ma
vs.
vs.
+li
+li
ma
ma
co
co
—
— ,i,ithdthdrawrawal al as as coucounsensel l de de o-o-cio 'y cio 'y an an attattororney on ney on the grouthe ground nd of of hishis
aointment as lection Registrar 'y the +ommission on lections is not
aointment as lection Registrar 'y the +ommission on lections is not
allowed. A high degree of -delity to duty is re/uired of one designated as
allowed. A high degree of -delity to duty is re/uired of one designated as
counsel de o-cio 'ecause law is a rofession dedicated to the ideal of
counsel de o-cio 'ecause law is a rofession dedicated to the ideal of
service and not a mere trade.
service and not a mere trade.
0.
0.
+u
+u
i
i
v
v
s.
s.
+u
+u
i
i
—
— The term &titulo de a'og The term &titulo de a'ogado meaado means not mere ossesns not mere ossession of the academicsion of the academic
de
degrgree ee of of BaBachchelelor or of of *a*awsws$ $ 'u'ut t memem'm'erershshi i in in ththe e 'a'ar r afafteter r duduee
admission thereto$ /ualif
admission thereto$ /ualifying one ying one for the for the ractice of lawractice of law. ossession of the. ossession of the
law
law dedegrgree ee itsitself elf is is not not indindisisensensa'la'le2 e2 comcomlletietion on of of ththe e rresescricri'ed'ed
courses may 'e shown in some other way.
courses may 'e shown in some other way.
3.
3.
4i
4i
lle
lle
gas v
gas v
s. *
s. *
eg
eg
as
as
i
i
—
—
&&Aearance as counsel Aearance as counsel is a is a voluntary su'mission to a voluntary su'mission to a court5s 6urisdictioncourt5s 6urisdiction'y
'y a a lelegagal l adadvovocacate te or or adadvivisising ng lalawywyer er rrofofesessisiononalally ly enengagageged d toto
reresent and lead the cause of another. rearation of an answer is
reresent and lead the cause of another. rearation of an answer is
included in the
included in the term &aearance as counsel.term &aearance as counsel.
#.
#.
nr
nr
i/u
i/u
e7
e7
vs.
vs.
8im
8im
en
en
e7
e7
—
—
The rovincial -scal is dis/uali-ed to reresent in court The rovincial -scal is dis/uali-ed to reresent in court the municiality if the municiality ifand when
and when origoriginal 6urisdiinal 6urisdictioction n of of the case the case involinvolving the ving the municmunicialiality isity is
vested in the !ureme +ourt2 when the municiality is a arty adverse to
vested in the !ureme +ourt2 when the municiality is a arty adverse to
the
the rroviovincincial al gogoververnmenment nt or or to to somsome e othother er munmuniciicialality ity in in the the samsamee
rovince2 and when in the case involving the municiality$ he$ or his wife$
rovince2 and when in the case involving the municiality$ he$ or his wife$
or
or chilchild$ d$ is is ecuecuniariniarily ly invoinvolved as lved as heir$ legateheir$ legatee$ e$ crecreditoditor r or or otherotherwisewise..
9nlie a racticing lawyer who has the right to decline emloyment$ a
9nlie a racticing lawyer who has the right to decline emloyment$ a
-sc
-scal al cacannonnot t rerefusfuse e the the ererforformamance nce of of his his funfunctictions ons on on grgrounounds ds notnot
rovided for 'y law without violating his oath of o:ce$ where he swore$
rovided for 'y law without violating his oath of o:ce$ where he swore$
among others$ &that he will well and faithfully discharge to the 'est of his
among others$ &that he will well and faithfully discharge to the 'est of his
a'i
a'ilitlity y ththe e dutdutieies s of the of the o:o:ce ce or osior ositiotion n uouon n whiwhich ch he he is is a'a'out toout to
enter;
enter;
<.
<.
!a
!a
lce
lce
do v
do v
s. =e
s. =e
rn
rn
and
and
e7
e7
—
—
As a mem'er of the 'ar and an o:cer of the court$ any attorney is in dutyAs a mem'er of the 'ar and an o:cer of the court$ any attorney is in duty'ound to uhold its dignity and authority and to defend its integrity$ not
'ound to uhold its dignity and authority and to defend its integrity$ not
only 'ecause it has conferred uon him the high rivilege$ not a right$ of
only 'ecause it has conferred uon him the high rivilege$ not a right$ of
'eing what he now is$ 'ut also 'ecause in so doing he neither creates or
'eing what he now is$ 'ut also 'ecause in so doing he neither creates or
1 1
r
romomoteotes s didistrstrust ust in in the the adadminminististratration ion of of 6us6ustictice$ e$ and and he he rreveeventsnts
any'o
any'ody dy frfrom om har'har'ourinouring g and and encouencouragiraging ng discdisconteontent$ nt$ whicwhich h in in manymany
cases$ is the source of disorder$ thus undermining the foundation on which
cases$ is the source of disorder$ thus undermining the foundation on which
rests the 'ulwar called 6udicial ower to which those who are aggrieved
rests the 'ulwar called 6udicial ower to which those who are aggrieved
turn for rotection and relief. >t is right and lausi'le that an attorney$ in
turn for rotection and relief. >t is right and lausi'le that an attorney$ in
defending the cause and rights of his client$ should do so with fervor and
defending the cause and rights of his client$ should do so with fervor and
energy of which he is caa'le$ 'ut it
energy of which he is caa'le$ 'ut it is not$ and will never is not$ and will never 'e so for him to'e so for him to
e?ercise said right 'y resorting to intimidation or roceeding without the
e?ercise said right 'y resorting to intimidation or roceeding without the
roriety and resect which the dignity of the courts re/uire.
roriety and resect which the dignity of the courts re/uire.
%.
%.
Al
Al
aw
aw
i vs
i vs
. Al
. Al
au
au
ya
ya
—
—
The The title title &attorney &attorney is is reserved reserved to to those those who$ who$ having having o'tained o'tained thethenec
necesessarsary y degdegreree e in in the the stustudy dy of of lalaw w anand d sucsuccescessfusfully lly tataen en the the BaBarr
?aminations$ have 'een admitted to the >ntegrated Bar of the
?aminations$ have 'een admitted to the >ntegrated Bar of the hiliinehiliiness
and remain mem'ers thereof in good standing
and remain mem'ers thereof in good standing$ and it is $ and it is they only who arethey only who are
authori7ed to ractice law in
authori7ed to ractice law in this 6urisdiction.this 6urisdiction.
@.
@.
ang
ang
an
an
vs.
vs.
Ra
Ra
mo
mo
s
s
—
—
The o:cial oath o'lig The o:cial oath o'liges the attorney to solemes the attorney to solemnly swear that he &wilnly swear that he &will do nol do nofalsehood. *awyers who use 'efore the courts a name other than the
falsehood. *awyers who use 'efore the courts a name other than the
na
name me ininscscriri'e'ed d in in ththe e RRololl l of of AtAttotornrneyeys s rresesororteted d to to dedececettioion n anandd
demonstrate
demonstrated lac of d lac of candor in dealing with the candor in dealing with the courts.courts.
.
.
hil
hil
ii
ii
ne *awy
ne *awy
ers5 Asso
ers5 Asso
ciat
ciat
ion vs. Ag
ion vs. Ag
rava
rava
—
— ractice of law in the hiliines includes such aearance 'efore theractice of law in the hiliines includes such aearance 'efore the
a
atent tent :c:ce$ e$ the the rereresresentatentation ion of of alalicanticants$ s$ oooositositors$ rs$ and and otherother
e
ersrsonons$ s$ anand d ththe e rrososececututioion n of of ththeieir r aallicicatatioions ns fofor r aatetentnt$ $ ththeieirr
oositions thereto or the enforcement of their rights in atent cases. A
oositions thereto or the enforcement of their rights in atent cases. A
mem'er of the 'ar$ 'ecause of his legal nowledge and training should 'e
mem'er of the 'ar$ 'ecause of his legal nowledge and training should 'e
allowed to ractice 'efore the atent :ce$ without further e?amination
allowed to ractice 'efore the atent :ce$ without further e?amination
or other
or other /uali-catio/uali-cation.n.
1
1
C
C
.
.
9
9
i
i
v
v
s
s
.
.
B
B
o
o
n
n
i
i
f
f
a
a
c
c
i
i
o
o
—
— The The re/uisitre/uisites es for for admissioadmission n to to the the ractice of ractice of law law are are (a) (a) he he must must 'e 'e aa
citi7en of the hiliines2 (') a resident thereof2 (c) at least twenty one citi7en of the hiliines2 (') a resident thereof2 (c) at least twenty one ("1) years of age2 (d) a erson of good moral character2 (e) he must show ("1) years of age2 (d) a erson of good moral character2 (e) he must show that no charges against him
that no charges against him involving moral turitude$ are -led or endinginvolving moral turitude$ are -led or ending in court2 (f) ossess the re/uired educational /uali-cations2 and (g) ass in court2 (f) ossess the re/uired educational /uali-cations2 and (g) ass the
the 'ar 'ar e?e?amiaminatnatioions. ns. oossssessession ion of of googood d momoral ral chacharacracter ter musmust t 'e'e con
contitinuonuous us as as a a rere/ui/uireremenment t to to the the en6en6oymoyment ent of of ththe e ririvilvilege ege of of lawlaw ractice.
ractice.
1
1
1
1
.
.
D
D
e
e
l
l
e
e
s v
s v
s
s
. A
. A
r
r
a
a
g
g
o
o
n
n
a
a
—
—
*awyers should 'e allowed great latitude of ertinent comment in the*awyers should 'e allowed great latitude of ertinent comment in thefurtherance of the causes they uhold$ and for the felicity of their clients$
furtherance of the causes they uhold$ and for the felicity of their clients$
they may 'e ardoned some infelicities of language.
they may 'e ardoned some infelicities of language.
" "
—
The o'6ect of a dis'arment roceeding is not so much to unish theindividual attorney himself$ as to safeguard the administration of 6ustice 'y rotecting the court and the u'lic from the misconduct of o:cers of the court$ and to remove from the rofession of law ersons whose disregard for their oath of o:ce have roved them un-t to continue discharging the trust reosed in them as mem'ers of the 'ar.
1".
Blan7a vs. Arcangel
—
A lawyer has a more dynamic and ositive role in the community thanmerely comlying with the minimal technicalities of the statute. =is conduct must 'e ar e?cellence$ esecially so when he volunteers his rofessional services.
10.
Eoreta vs. !imliciano
— The ractice of law is not a right 'ut a rivilege 'estowed 'y the !tate on those who show that they ossess$ and continue to ossess$ the /uali-cations re/uired 'y law for the conferment of such rivilege. An attorney may 'e dis'arred$ or susended for any violation of his oath or of his duties as attorney and counsellor$ which include statutory grounds enumerated in section "%$ Rule 10@ of the Rules of +ourt$ all of these 'eing 'road enough to cover ractically any misconduct of a lawyer in his rofessional or rivate caacity.
13.
AF1 Ginancial !ervices$ >nc. vs. 4alerio
—
The deli'erate failure to ay 6ust de'ts and the issuance of worthlesschecs constitute gross misconduct$ for which a lawyer may 'e sanctioned with susension from the ractice of law.
—
A lawyer5s failure to answer the comlaint against him and his failure toaear at the investigation are evidence of his outing resistance to lawful orders of the court and illustrate his desiciency for his oath of o:ce in violation of section 0$ Rule 10@ of the Rules of +ourt.
1#.
"CC0 Bar ?aminations Bar Hatter Io. 1"""
—
enalties$ such as dis'arment$ are imosed not to unish 'ut to correctoenders. >n cases where the !ureme +ourt had deigned to lift or commute the sureme enalty of dis'arment imosed on the lawyer$ it had taen into account the remorse of the dis'arred lawyer and the conduct of his u'lic life during his years outside of the 'ar.
II.
ADMISSION TO PRACTICE
1. >n re *anuevo
—
The 6udicial function of the !ureme +ourt in admitting candidates to thelegal rofession involves e?ercise of discretion. ractice of law is not an
a'solute right granted to everyone who demands it 'ut a rivilege e?tended or withheld in the e?ercise of sound discretion.
". Girst *eanto +eramics$ >nc. vs. +ourt of Aeals
—
!u'stantive law is that art of the law creates$ de-nes and regulatesrights$ or which regulates and duties which give rise to a cause of action$ as oosed to ad6ective or remedial law$ which rescri'es the method of enforcing rights or o'tains a redress for their invasion.
0. >n re +unanan
—
The admission$ susension$ dis'arment and reinstatement of attorneysFatFlaw in the ractice of the rofession and their suervision have 'een indisuta'ly a 6udicial function and resonsi'ility. +ongress may reeal$ alter and sulement the rules romulgated 'y the !ureme +ourt$ 'ut the authority and resonsi'ility over the admission$ susension$ dis'arment and reinstatement of attorneysFatFlaw and their suervision remain vested in the !ureme +ourt.
3. Juroda vs. Kalandoni
—
There is nothing in ?ecutive rder Io. <@ which re/uires that counselaearing 'efore the Hilitary +ommission must 'e attorneys /uali-ed to ractice law in the hiliines in accordance with the Rules of +ourt. >t is common in military tri'unals that counsel for the arties are usually military ersonnel who are neither attorneys nor even ossesses legal training.
#. mico Hining L >ndustrial +or. vs. 4alle6os
—
,hen a mem'er of the Bar is elevated to the Bench of the +ourt of Girst>nstance as a 6udge thereof$ his right to ractice law as an attorney is susended and continued to 'e susended as long as he occuied the 6udicial osition. This rohi'ition is 'ased on sound reasons of u'lic olicy$ for there is no /uestion that the rights$ duties$ rivileges and functions of the o:ce of an attorneyFatFlaw are so inherently incomati'le with the high o:cial functions$ duties$ owers$ discretions and rivileges of a 6udge of the +ourt of Girst >nstance.
<. eole vs. 4illanueva
—
The ractice of law 'y attorneys emloyed in the government$ to fallwithin the rohi'ition rovided for in !ection 0#$ Rule 10@ of the Rules of +ourt$ has 'een interreted as customarily or ha'itually holding one5s self out to the u'lic as a lawyer and demanding ayment for such services.
—
The isolated aearance as a rivate rosecutor$ reviously authori7ed 'yhis suerior$ of an assistant city attorney in a criminal case 'efore a court where the oended arty is his relative does not violate the aforementioned statute$ which 'ars certain attorneys from racticing.
%. DiaFAnonuevo vs. Bercacio
—
The rule dis/ualifying a municial 6udge from engaging in the ractice oflaw sees to avoid the evil of ossi'le use of the ower and inuence of his o:ce to aect the outcome of litigation where he is retained as counsel. The ractice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court or articiation in court roceedings 'ut also includes rearation of leadings or aers in anticiation of litigation$ and giving of legal advice to clients or ersons needing the same.
@. De 8u7man vs. 4isayan Raid Transit +o.
—
An attorney is entitled to have and receive 6ust and reasona'lecomensation for services erformed at the secial instance and re/uest of his client. As long as he was honestly and in good faith trying to serve and reresent the interest of the client$ he should have reasona'le comensation for his services.
. +ayetano vs. Honsod
—
To engage in the ractice of law is to erform those acts which arecharacteristics of the rofession. 8enerally$ to ractice law is to give notice or render any ind of service$ which device or service re/uires the use in any degree of legal nowledge or sill.
1C.
>n re dillon
—
rgani7ed 'y or under the direction of the !tate via its valid e?ercise ofolice ower$ an >ntegrated Bar is an o:cial national 'ody of which all lawyers are re/uired to 'e mem'ers. They are$ therefore$ su'6ect to all the rules rescri'ed for the governance of the Bar$ including the re/uirement of ayment of a reasona'le annual fee for the eective discharge of the uroses of the Bar$ and adherence to a +ode of rofessional thics or rofessional Resonsi'ility$ the 'reach of which constitutes su:cient reason for investigation 'y the Bar and$ uon roer cause aearing$ a recommendation for disciline or dis'arment of the oending mem'er.
11.
Te6an vs. +usi$ Kr.
—
The law accords to the +ourt of Aeals and the +ourt of Girst >nstance theower to investigate and susend mem'ers of the 'ar. The court may act uon its own motion and thus 'e the initiator of the roceedings$ 'ecause o'viously$ the court may investigate into the conduct of its own o:cers.
1".
Alcala vs. 4era
—
Gailure of a lawyer to inform his clients of the decision rendered in a casehandled 'y him maes him lia'le for negligence. =owever$ when there is no -nding of deceit$ malice or deli'erate intent to cause damage to his clients$ and no material or ecuniary damage resulted to his clients$ dis'arment is not warranted although lawyer is negligent.
10.
+antim'uhan vs. +ru7
—
!ection 03$ Rule 10@ of the Rules of +ourt rovides that in the municialcourt$ a arty may conduct his litigation in erson with the aid of an agent aointed 'y him for the urose. The ermission of the -scal is not necessary for one to enter his aearance as rivate rosecutor al'eit under the suervision and control of the trial -scal.
13.
=ydro Resources +ontractors +or. vs. aglilauan
—
A lawyer$ lie any other rofessional$ may very well 'e an emloyee of thegovernment or a rivate cororation$ while at the same time$ also contract with a law -rm to act as outside counsel on a retainer 'asis. The two classes of lawyers often wor together$ 'ut one grou is made u of emloyees while the other is not.
1#.
Ramos vs. Rada
—
The duties of a court messenger are generally ministerial which do notre/uire that his entire day of twenty four ("3) hours 'e at the disosal of the government. Thus$ lac of rior ermission from his suerior is a mere technical violation and he should 'e meted no more than the minimum imosa'le enalty$ which is rerimand.
1<.
Beltran vs. A'ad
—
A 'ar candidate does not ac/uire the right to ractice law simly 'yassing the 'ar e?aminations2 the ractice of law is a rivilege that can 'e withheld even from one who has assed the 'ar e?aminations. Two essential re/uisites for 'ecoming a lawyer still had to 'e erformed$ namely his lawyer5s oath to 'e administered 'y the +ourt and his signature in the Roll of Attorneys.
1%.
Bacarro vs. inatacan
—
ne of the indisensa'le re/uisites for admission to the hiliine Bar isthat the alicant must 'e of good moral character. This re/uirement aims to maintain and uhold the high moral standards and the dignity of the legal rofession$ and one of the ways of achieving this end is to admit to the ractice of this no'le rofession only those ersons who are nown to 'e honest and to ossess good moral character.
1@.
Diao vs. Hartine7
—
Admission to the Bar o'tained under false retenses must 'e revoed.—
Before the study of law$ an alicant for admission must have comletedthe rescri'ed courses of legal study in the regular manner.
1.
>n re Argosino
—
The ractice of law is a rivilege granted only to those who ossess thestrict intellectual and moral /uali-cations re/uired of lawyers who are instruments in the eective and e:cient administration of 6ustice.
—
very lawyer should at all times weigh his actions according to the swornromises he made when he too the lawyer5s oath.
"C.
+ollantes vs. Renomeron
—
The +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility alies to lawyers in governmentservice in the discharge of their o:cial tass.
"1.
+amos vs. +amos
— Rule %.C0 of the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility rovides that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reects on his -tness to ractice law$ nor shall he$ whether in u'lic or rivate life$ 'ehave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal rofession.
III.
LAWYER’S DUTIES TO SOCIETY
1. Hontecillo vs. 8ica
—
As an o:cer of the court$ it is a lawyer5s sworn and moral duty to hel'uild and not destroy unnecessarily the high esteem and regard towards the court so essential to the roer administration of 6ustice.
". >n re 8utierre7
—
The rule that ardon oerates to wie out the conviction and is a 'ar toany roceeding for dis'arment of the attorney after the ardon has 'een granted alies only where the ardon is a'solute$ 'ut not where the ardon granted is conditional and merely remitted the une?ecuted ortion of the enalty. >n such a case$ the attorney must 'e 6udged uon the fact of his conviction for the crime he has committed.
0. ronce vs. +ourt of Aeals
—
9nder the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility$ a lawyer is rohi'ited fromcounselling or a'etting &activities aimed at de-ance of the law or at lessening con-dence in the legal system. ntering a roerty without the consent of its occuants and in contravention of the e?isting writ of reliminary in6unction and maing utterances showing disresect for the law and the +ourt$ are un'ecoming of a mem'er of the 'ar.
3. De Msasi vs. Iational *a'or Relations +ommission
—
The useful function of a lawyer is not only to conduct litigation 'ut to avoidit whenever ossi'le 'y advising settlement or withholding suit. =e should 'e a mediator for concord and a conciliator for comromise$ rather than a virtuoso of technicality in the conduct of litigation.
#. a6ares vs. A'ad !antos
—
The cooeration of litigants and their attorneys is needed so that needlessclogging of the court docets with unmeritorious cases may 'e avoided. There must 'e faithful adherence to Rule %$ section # of the Rules of +ourt
which rovides that &the signature of an attorney constitutes a certi-cate 'y him that he has read the leading and that to the 'est of his nowledge$ information and 'elief$ there is good ground to suort it2 and that it is not interosed for delay and e?ressly admonishes that &for a wilful violation of this rule an attorney may 'e su'6ected to discilinary action.
<. eole vs. Ros/ueta
—
,here counsel de arte is una'le to secure from his clients or from theirnear relatives the amount necessary to ursue the aeal$ it does not necessarily conclude his connection with the case. =e should 'e aware that in the ursuance of the duty owed the +ourt as well as to a client$ he cannot 'e too casual and unconcerned a'out the -ling of leadings.
%. De Roy vs. +ourt of Aeals
—
There is no law re/uiring the u'lication of !ureme +ourt decisions in the:cial 8a7ette 'efore they can 'e 'inding and as a condition to their 'ecoming eective. >t is the 'ounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active law ractice to ee a'reast of decisions of the !ureme +ourt articularly where issues have 'een clari-ed$ consistently reiterated and u'lished in the advance reorts of !ureme +ourt decisions and in such u'lications as the !+RA and law 6ournals.
@. Gar astern !hiing +o. vs. +ourt of Aeals
—
*ie the court itself$ a lawyer is an instrument to advance its ends FFF theseedy$ e:cient$ imartial$ correct and ine?ensive ad6udication of cases and the romt satisfaction of -nal 6udgments. A lawyer should not only hel attain these o'6ectives 'ut should liewise avoid any unethical or imroer ractices that imede$ o'struct or revent their reali7ation$ charged as he is with the rimary tas of assisting in the seedy and e:cient administration of 6ustice.
. Kose vs. +ourt of Aeals
—
There are situations where rigid alication of the rules of rocedure must'ow to the overriding goal of courts of 6ustice FFF to render 6ustice where 6ustice is due to secure to every individual all ossi'le legal means to rove his innocence of a crime of which he is charged. A rosecuting o:cer$ as a reresentative of a sovereignty whose o'ligation and interest in a criminal rosecution is not that it shall win a case 'ut that 6ustice shall 'e done$ has the solemn resonsi'ility to assure the u'lic that while guilt shall not escae$ innocence shall not suer.
1C.
eole vs. ineda
—
A rosecuting attorney$ 'y the nature of his o:ce$ is under no comulsionto -le a articular criminal information where he is not convinced that he has evidence to ro u the averments thereof$ or that the evidence at hand oints to a dierent conclusion.
—
>n a clash of views 'etween the 6udge who did not investigate and the-scal who did$ or 'etween the -scal and the oended arty or the defendant those of the -scal5s should normally revail.
11.
eole vs. Hadera
—
A rosecutor5s no'le tas is to rosecute only the guilty and to rotect theinnocent.
1".
Tan vs. 8allardo
—
!ince the !olicitor 8eneral alone is authori7ed to reresent the !tate orthe eole of the hiliines$ the interest of the rivate rosecutors is su'ordinate to that of the !tate and they cannot 'e allowed to tae a stand inconsistent with that of the !olicitor 8eneral$ for that would 'e tantamount to giving the latter the direction and control of the criminal roceedings$ contrary to the rovisions of law and the settled rules on the matter.
10.
eole vs. !endaydiego
—
!ection 10$ Rule 11" of the Rules of +ourt$ in allowing a +ourt of Girst>nstance to conduct a reliminary investigation$ does not dis/ualify it from trying the case it had found ro'a'le cause and after the -scal$ as directed 'y the +ourt$ had -led the corresonding information. The rule assumes that the 6udge$ who conducted the reliminary investigation$ could imartially try the case on the merits.
13.
Hisamin vs. !an Kuan
—
The serious conse/uences of dis'arment or susension should follow onlywhere there is a clear reonderance of evidence against the resondent. The resumtion is that the attorney is innocent of the charges referred and has erformed his duty as an o:cer of the court in accordance with his oath.
1#.
residential +ommission on 8ood 8overnance vs. !andigan'ayan
and Hendo7a
—
A lawyer should not accet emloyment as an advocate in any matteruon the merits of which he has acted in a 6udicial caacity.
—
A lawyer$ having once held u'lic o:ce or having 'een in the u'licemloy should not$ after his retirement$ accet emloyment in connection with any matter he has investigated or assed uon while in such o:ce or emloy.
IV.
LAWYER’S
DUTIES
TO
THE
LEGAL
PROFESSION
1.
Rivera vs. Angeles
—
The !ureme +ourt reeatedly stressed the imortance of integrity andgood moral character as art of a lawyer5s e/uiment in the ractice of his rofession.
—
The +ourt is not o'livious of the right of a lawyer to 'e aid for the legalservices he has e?tended to his client 'ut such right should not 'e e?ercised whimsically 'y aroriating to himself the money intended for his clients such that there should never 'e an instance where the victor in litigation loses everything he won to the fees of his own lawyer.
.
Ducat$ Kr. vs. 4illalon$ Kr.
—
+anon % of the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility mandates that &alawyer shall at all times uhold the integrity and dignity of the legal rofession. Thus$ every lawyer should act and comort himself in such a manner that would romote u'lic con-dence in the integrity of the legal rofession.
3.
Tan vs. !a'andal
—
A erson not yet admitted to the 'ar cannot call himself &attorney.!.
>n re ara7o
—
The term &interest of the !tate involves not only the interests of studentsand graduates of the law schools and colleges$ and of the entire legal rofession of the country as well as the good name and reutation of the mem'ers of the +ommittee of Bar ?aminers$ including the emloyees of the !ureme +ourt having charge of and connections with said e?aminations$ 'ut also the highest Tri'unal of the land itself which reresents one of the three coordinate and indeendent 'ranches or deartments of the hiliine 8overnment.
".
angan vs. Ramos
—
A lawyer should aid in guarding the Bar against the admission to therofession of candidates un-t or un/uali-ed 'ecause de-cient in either moral character or education.
—
The standards of legal rofession are not satis-ed 'y conduct whichmerely ena'les one to escae the enalties of the criminal law.
<. >n re 8utierre7
—
The rule that ardon oerates to wie out the conviction and is a 'ar toany roceeding for dis'arment of the attorney after the ardon has 'een granted alies only where the ardon is a'solute$ 'ut not where the ardon granted is conditional and merely remitted the une?ecuted ortion of the enalty. >n such a case$ the attorney must 'e 6udged uon the fact of his conviction for the crime he has committed.
%. Iarido vs. *insangan
—
The sectacle resented 'y two mem'ers of the 'ar engaged in 'iceringand recrimination is far from edifying$ although it is understanda'le$ if not 6usti-a'le$ that at times 7eal in the defense of one5s client may 'e carried to the oint of undue sceticism and dou't as to the motives of oosing counsel. !uch action detracts from the dignity of the legal rofession and will not receive any symathy from the +ourt.
@. *aut vs. Remotigue
—
,here a lawyer was dismissed 'y his client 'ecause the latter no longertrusted him$ the aearance of the second lawyer is not unrofessional$ unethical or imroer.
. +amacho vs. angulayan
—
A lawyer should not in any way communicate uon the su'6ect ofcontroversy with a arty reresented 'y counsel$ much less should he undertae to negotiate or comromise the matter with him$ 'ut should only deal with his counsel. >t is incum'ent uon the lawyer most articularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a arty not reresented 'y counsel and he should not undertae to advise him as to law.
1C.
Ro'inson vs. 4illafuerte
—
A nonFlawyer cannot /uestion witnesses in court notwithstanding theresence of or suervision 'y a mem'er of the 'ar.
11.
Tan Te Beng vs. David
—
Halractice is the ractice of soliciting cases at law for the urose ofgain$ either ersonally or through aid agents or 'roers and ordinarily refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty committed 'y a lawyer.
—
Io division of fees for legal services is roer$ e?cet with another lawyer$'ased uon a division of service or resonsi'ility.
1".
Director of Religious Aairs vs. Bayot
— The advertisement of (law services) is a agrant violation of the ethics of the law rofession. !ection "#$ Rule 1"% rovides$ among other things$ that &the ractice of soliciting cases at law for the urose of gain$ either ersonally or thru aid agents or 'roers$ constitute malractice.
10.
9le vs. *egal +linic$ >nc.
— A lawyer cannot$ without violating the ethics of his rofession$ advertise his talents or sills as in a manner similar to a merchant advertising his goods. The roscrition against advertising of legal services or solicitation of legal 'usiness rests on the fundamental ostulate that the ractice of law is a rofession.
13.
>n re !yci
—
A artnershi for the ractice of law is not a legal entity 'ut a mererelationshi or association for a articular urose2 it is not a artnershi formed for the urose of carrying on trade or 'usiness or of holding roerty. Thus$ the use of a nom de lume$ assumed or trade name in law ractice is imroer.
V.
LAWYER’S DUTIES TO THE COURTS
1. +ity !heri of >ligan +ity vs. Gortunado
—
!ection 1<$ Rule 0 of the Rules of +ourt rovides that whenever a arty toa ending action dies$ and the claim is not there'y e?tinguished$ it shall 'e the duty of his counsel to inform the court within thirty (0C) days after such death of the fact thereof$ and to give the name and address of his legal reresentative or reresentatives. Gailure of the counsel to comly with this duty shall 'e a ground for discilinary action.
". ccena vs. Har/ue7
—
The conduct of a lawyer 'efore the court and with other lawyers should 'echaracteri7ed 'y candor and fairness. >t is neither candid nor fair for a lawyer to nowingly mae false allegations in a 6udicial leading or to mis/uote the contents of a document$ the testimony of a witness$ the argument of oosing counsel or the contents of a decision.
0. +have7 vs. 4iola
—
+ourts are entitled to e?ect only comlete candor and honesty from thelawyers aearing and leading 'efore them while lawyers$ on the other hand$ have the fundamental duty to satisfy that e?ectation. >t is essential that lawyers 'ear in mind at all times that their -rst duty is not to their clients 'ut rather to the courts$ that they are a'ove all o:cers of court sworn to assist the courts in rendering 6ustice to all and sundry$ and only secondarily are they advocates of the e?clusive interests of their clients.
3. +han Jian vs. Angsin
—
A lawyer owes truth and candor to the courts.#. +asals vs. +usi
—
A lawyer has the solemn duty as counsel to emloy in the conduct of acase such means only as are consistent with truth and honor$ and never see to mislead the courts.
—
The +ourt has$ in several instances$ susended lawyers from the racticeof law for failure to -le aellant5s 'riefs in criminal cases desite reeated e?tensions of time o'tained 'y them$ with the reminder that the trust imosed on counsel in accordance with the canons of legal ethics 'ut with the soundest traditions of the rofession would re/uire -delity on their art.
<. +ommission on lections vs. Ioynay
—
Rule 1C.C" of +anon 1C of the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ilitymandates that a lawyer shall not nowingly mis/uote or misreresent the te?t of a decision or authority.
%. Hontecillo vs. 8ica
—
As an o:cer of the court$ it is a lawyer5s sworn and moral duty to hel'uild and not destroy unnecessarily the high esteem and regard towards the court essential to the roer administration of 6ustice.
@. !urigao Hineral Reservation Board vs. +lori'el
—
A lawyer has the duty to uhold the dignity and authority of the courts towhich he owes -delity$ not to romote distrust in the administration of 6ustice.
—
!ince lawyers are administrators of 6ustice$ oathF'ound servants ofsociety$ their -rst duty is not to their clients$ 'ut to the administration of 6ustice2 to this$ their clients5 success is wholly su'ordinate$ and their
conduct ought to and must 'e scruulously o'servant of law and ethics.
. De 8racia vs. ,arden of Haati
—
There is a lase in 6udicial roriety where a lawyer did not even tae thetrou'le of aearing in court on the very day his own etition was reset for hearing$ 'y reason of ine?erience and aucity of ractice 'efore the courts.
1C.
Buenaseda vs. Glavier
—
A lawyer should not 'e carried away in esousing his client5s cause. Theuse of a'usive language 'y counsel against the oosing counsel constitutes disresect to the dignity of the court of 6ustice.
11.
!antos vs. +ru7
—
9ttering intemerate language during the trial of the case is conductun'ecoming of a 6udge and warrants disciline from the !ureme +ourt.
1".
eole vs. Taneo
—
A lawyer has the duty to o'serve and maintain the resect due the courtsof 6ustice and 6udicial o:cers. Arguments$ written or oral$ should 'e gracious to 'oth the court and oosing counsel and 'e of such words as may 'e roerly addressed 'y one gentleman to another.
10.
9r'ina vs. Haceren
—
Kudges will not 'e held administratively lia'le for mere errors of 6udgmentin their rulings or decisions a'sent a showing of malice or gross ignorance on their art.
13.
+astaNeda vs. Ago
—
>t is the duty of a counsel to advise his client$ ordinarily a layman to theintricacies and vagaries of the law$ on the merit or lac thereof of his case.
—
A counsel5s assertiveness in esousing with candor and honesty hisclient5s cause must is encouraged and commended2 what the +ourt countenances is a lawyer5s insistence desite the atent futility of his client5s osition.
1#.
Austria vs. Hasa/uel
—
,hile it may 'e conceded that in re/uesting the dis/uali-cation of a 6udge'y reason of his relation with a arty or counsel there is some imlication of the ro'a'ility of his 'eing artial to one side$ the re/uest cannot constitute contemt of court if done honestly and in a resectful manner.
—
The ower to unish for contemt$ 'eing drastic and e?traordinary in itsnature$ should not 'e resorted to unless necessary in the interest of 6ustice2 that is$ it should 'e e?ercised on the reservative and not on the
vindictive rincile.
1<.
Hartelino vs. Ale6andro
—
+ivil courts$ as a rule$ e?ercise no suervision or correcting ower over theroceedings of courtsFmartial$ and that mere errors in their roceedings are not oen to consideration.
VI.
NATURE AND CREATION OF ATTORNEY#CLIENT
RELATIONSHIP
1. Regala vs. !andigan'ayan
—
A client5s identity should not 'e shrouded in mystery 'ecause (1) the courthas a right to now that the client whose rivileged information is sought to 'e rotected is esh and 'lood2 (") the rivilege 'egins to e?ist only after the attorneyFclient relationshi has 'een esta'lished2 (0) the rivilege generally ertains to the su'6ect matter of the relationshi2 and (3) due rocess considerations re/uire that the oosing arty should$ as
a general rule$ now his adversary. =owever$ information relating to the identity of a client may fall within the am'it of the rivilege when the client5s name itself has an indeendent signi-cance$ such that disclosure would then reveal client con-dences.
". >n re !yci
—
A artnershi for the ractice of law is not a legal entity 'ut a mererelationshi or association for a articular urose2 it is not a artnershi formed for the urose of carrying on trade or 'usiness or of holding roerty. Thus$ the use of a nom de lume$ assumed or trade name in law ractice is imroer.
0. Daroy vs. *egasi
—
A lawyer$ under his oath$ ledges himself not to delay any man for moneyor malice and is 'ound to conduct himself with all good -delity to his clients. =e is o'ligated to reort romtly the money of his clients that has come into his ossession and should not commingle it with his rivate roerty or use it for his ersonal uroses without his client5s consent.
3. =ilado vs. David
—
>n order to constitute rofessional emloyment$ it is not essential that theclient should have emloyed the attorney rofessionally on any revious occasion$ nor that any retainer aid$ romised$ charged$ nor that the attorney did not undertae the case after the consultation. An attorney is emloyed in his rofessional caacity when he is giving advice thereon$ 6ust as if he were writing a leading or litigating in oen court.
#. !tone vs. Ban of +ommerce
—
An attorney$ in his caacity merely as such$ has no ower to mae anyagreement for his client 'efore a suit has 'een commenced$ or 'efore he has 'een retained to commence one. Before the commencement of a suit$ or the giving of authority to commence one$ there is nothing uon which the authority of an attorney to act for his client can 'e 'ased.
<. 8uerrero vs. =ernando
—
An attorney is mandated to o'ey the laws and do no falsehood.%. 9y vs. 8on7ales
—
There is no attorneyFclient relationshi if the rearation and roosed-ling of a leading was only incidental to their ersonal transaction.
@. Rillora7a$ et. al. vs. astern Telecommunications hil.$ >nc.
—
,hether there is an agreement or not$ the courts shall -? a reasona'lecomensation which lawyers may receive for their rofessional services. The amount must 'e determined on a /uantum meruit (as much as he
deserved) 'asis.
. The 8overnment of the hiliine >slands vs. ,agner
—
9nder a universal ower of attorney$ counsel has the right to reresent hisclient$ to deal with the latter5s roerty as if such client is ersonally resent.
1C.
r'it
Transortation
+o.
vs.
,ormen5s
+omensation
+ommission
—
The signature of an attorney constitutes a certi-cate 'y him that he hasread the leading and that to the 'est of his nowledge$ information and 'elief$ there is good ground to suort it$ and that it is not interosed for delay.
11.
*edesma vs. +limaco
— ,ithdrawal as counsel de o-cio 'y an attorney on the ground of his aointment as lection Registrar 'y the +ommission on lections is not allowed. A high degree of -delity to duty is re/uired of one designated as counsel de o-cio 'ecause law is a rofession dedicated to the ideal of service and not a mere trade.
1".
eole vs. Daeng
—
All courts are cautioned against the fre/uent aointment of the sameattorney as counsel de o-cio$ for two 'asic reasons (1) it is unfair to the attorney concerned$ considering the 'urden of his regular ractice$ that he should 'e saddled with too many de o-cio cases2 and (") the comensation rovided for 'y section 0"$ Rule 10@ of the Rules of +ourt might 'e considered 'y the lawyers as regular source of income$ something which the rule does not envision.
10.
8on7ales vs. +have7
—
ven when confronted with a situation where on government o:ce taesan adverse osition against another government agency$ the !olicitor 8eneral should not refrain from erforming his duty as the lawyer of the government. >t is incum'ent uon him to resent to the court what he considers would legally uhold the 'est interest of the government although it may run counter to a client5s osition.
13.
arel vs. A'aria
—
9tmost care must 'e taen to minimi7e occasions for anymisunderstanding 'etween lawyers and their clients. The relationshi 'eing one of con-dence$ there is ever resent the need for the latter 'eing ade/uately and fully informed of the mode and manner in which their interest is defended.
VII.
LAWYER’S DUTIES IN HANDLING A CLIENT’S
CASE
1. !antiago vs. Go6as
—
A lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him$ and hisnegligence in connection therewith shall render him lia'le.
". +antiller vs. otenciano
—
,hen a lawyer taes a client5s cause$ he there'y covenants that he wille?ert all eort for its rosecution until its -nal conclusion. The failure to e?ercise due diligence or the a'andonment of a client5s cause maes such lawyer unworthy of the trust which the client had reosed on him.
0. Hillare vs. Hontero
—
A lawyer shall not -le multile actions arising from the same cause. >t isunethical for a lawyer to a'use or wrongfully use the 6udicial rocess$ lie the -ling dilatory motions$ reetitious litigation and frivolous aeals for the sole urose of frustrating and delaying the e?ecution of a 6udgment.
3. +hoa vs. +hiongson
—
A mem'er of the 'ar is 'ound (1) 'y his oath$ not to$ wittingly or willingly$romote or sue any groundless$ false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same2 (") 'y section "C(c)$ Rule 10@ of the Rules of +ourt$ to counsel or maintain such action or roceedings only as aear to him to 'e 6ust2 and (0) to uhold the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility. >t is incum'ent uon him to give a candid and honest oinion on the merits and ro'a'le results of his client5s case.
#. +osmos Goundry !ho ,orers 9nion vs. *o Bu
—
A lawyer should not act lie an errand 'oy at the 'ec and call of hisclient$ ready and eager to do his every 'idding.
<. 8amalinda vs. Alcantara
—
A lawyer shall serve his client with cometence and diligence$ and his dutyof entire devotion to his client5s cause not only re/uires$ 'ut entitles him to emloy every honora'le means to secure for the client what is 6ustly due him or to resent every defense rovided 'y law to ena'le the latter5s cause to succeed.
—
An attorney5s duty to safeguard the client5s interests commences from hisretainer until his eective release from the case or the -nal disosition of the whole su'6ect matter of the litigation.
%. K.. Kuan L !ons$ >nc. vs. *ianga >ndustries$ >nc.
—
The signature of an attorney constitutes a certi-cate 'y him that he hasread the leading and that to the 'est of his nowledge$ information and
'elief$ there is good ground to suort it$ and that it is not interosed for delay.
@. A7or vs. Beltran
—
A counsel5s assertiveness in esousing with candor and honesty hisclient5s cause must is encouraged and commended2 what the +ourt countenances is a lawyer5s insistence desite the atent futility of his client5s osition.
. 4isitacion vs. Hanit
— An attorney seeing to withdraw must mae an alication to the court$ for the relation does not terminate formally until there is a withdrawal of record2 at least so far as the oosite arty is concerned$ the relation otherwise continues until the end of the litigation.
1C.
De Roy vs. +ourt of Aeals
—
There is no law re/uiring the u'lication of !ureme +ourt decisions in the:cial 8a7ette 'efore they can 'e 'inding and as a condition to their 'ecoming eective. >t is the 'ounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active law ractice to ee a'reast of decisions of the !ureme +ourt articularly where issues have 'een clari-ed$ consistently reiterated and u'lished in the advance reorts of !ureme +ourt decisions and in such u'lications as the !+RA and law 6ournals.
11.
+uaresma vs. Da/uis
— A lawyer should 'e more careful in the rearation of his leadings so that the least dou't as to his intellectual honesty cannot 'e entertained. very mem'er of the 'ar should reali7e that candor in the dealings with this +ourt is of the very essence of honoura'le mem'ershi in the rofession.
1".
4da. De Eu'iri vs. Eu'iri
—
The +anons of *egal thics commands that &a lawyer should not in anyway communicate uon the su'6ect of the controversy with a arty reresented 'y counsel$ much less should he undertae to negotiate or comromise the matter with him$ 'ut should deal only with his counsel. >t is incum'ent uon the lawyer most articularly to avoid everything that may tend to mislead a arty not reresented 'y counsel and he should not undertae to advise him as to the law.
10.
Deluao vs. +asteel
—
An order given in oen court is resumed received 'y the arties on thevery date and time of romulgation$ and amounts to a legal noti-cation for all legal uroses. The ostonement of hearings does not deend uon the agreement of the arties$ 'ut uon the court5s discretion.
13.
=eirs of lias *orilla vs. +ourt of Aeals
—
The failure of counsel to serve notice on the court and the adverse artiesregarding his client5s death 'inds his clients. Kurisrudence teems with ronouncements that a client is 'ound 'y the conduct$ negligence$ and mistaes of his counsel.
1#.
Avelino vs. alaNa
—
*awyers guilty of negligence in the erformance of his duties as a mem'erof the 'ar may 'e susended from the ractice of law.
1<.
Diman vs. Alum'res
—
Among far too many lawyers (and not a few 6udges)$ there is$ if not aregretta'le unfamiliarity and even outright ignorance a'out the nature$ uroses and oeration of the modes of discovery$ at least a strong yet unreasoned and unreasona'le disinclination to resort to them FFF which is a great ity for the intelligent and ade/uate use of the deosition FFF discovery rocedure$ could$ as the e?erience of other 6urisdictions convincingly demonstrates$ eectively shorten the eriod of litigation and seed u ad6udication.
1%.
!aulog vs. +ustom'uilt Hanufacturing +or.
—
?cet for 6usti-a'le circumstances$ failure of counsel to aear at thereFtrial is a ground for dismissal.
1@.
eole vs. +asimiro
—
A counsel of record$ should he 'e relaced 'y his client$ should inform the+ourt of the develoments set forth in his e?lanation and that he 'e allowed to withdraw as counsel.
1.
eole vs. Iadera$ Kr.
—
A lawyer5s duty$ esecially that of a defense counsel$ must not 'e taenlightly. >t must 'e erformed with all the 7eal and vigor at his command to rotect and safeguard the accused5s fundamental rights.
"C.
Toacio Iueno vs. !antos
—
,hen a lawyer consents to the doing of a falsehood and deceives thecourt 'y having an accused lead guilty to an oense which he had not committed$ he is in clear violation of the lawyer5s oath that he will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court.
VIII.
LAWYER’S FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS
1. Angeles vs. 9y$ Kr.
—
+anon 1< of the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility rovides that &alawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and roerties of his client that may come into his ossession. Gurthermore$ Rule 1<.C1 of the +ode also states that &a lawyer shall account for all money or roerty collected or received for or from the client.
". Iail vs. 4alde7
—
The test to determine whether there is a conict of interest in thereresentation of clients is ro'a'ility$ not certainty of conict.
—
Hem'ers of the 'ar are e?ected to always live u to the standardsem'odied in the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility as the relationshi 'etween an attorney and his client is highly -duciary in nature and demands utmost -delity and good faith.
0. *iwag vs. Ieri
—
+ounsel commits 'reach of rofessional ethics when$ contrary to the fact$he made his client 'elieve that he already sued the adverse arty and did not return the amount intended for the -ling fee.
3. Dia7 vs. Jaunan
—
An e?ecution sale to the attorney of the defendant is not unlawful if madein good faith$ with the consent of the client$ and without any urose of defrauding the latter5s creditors.
#. +anlas vs. +ourt of Aeals
—
>t is true that lawyers are entitled to mae a living$ in site of the fact thatthe ractice of law is not a commercial enterrise2 'ut that does not furnish an e?cuse for lain lust for material wealth$ more so at the e?ense of another. The returns it 'irths are simle rewards for a 6o' done or service rendered.
<. +aulong vs. AliNo
—
+anon 1< of the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility rovides that &alawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and roerties of his client that may come into his ossession. Gurthermore$ Rule 1<.C1 of the +ode also states that &a lawyer shall account for all money or roerty collected or received for or from the client.
%. +ela6e vs. !oriano
—
+anon 1< of the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility rovides that &alawyer shall hold in trust all moneys and roerties of his client that may come into his ossession. Gurthermore$ Rule 1<.C1 of the +ode also states
that &a lawyer shall account for all money or roerty collected or received for or from the client.
@. enticostes vs. >'aNe7
—
IonFremittance 'y a u'lic rosecutor for over one year of fundsentrusted to him constitutes conduct in gross violation of Rule 1.C1 of the +ode of rofessional Resonsi'ility which rovides that &a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful$ dishonest$ immoral$ or deceitful conduct. *awyers are 'ound to romtly account for money or roerty received 'y them on 'ehalf of their clients and failure to do so constitutes rofessional misconduct.
. Daroy vs. legasi
—
A lawyer$ under his oath$ ledges himself not to delay any man for moneyor malice and is 'ound to conduct himself with all good -delity to his clients. =e is o'ligated to reort romtly the money of his clients that has come into his ossession and should not commingle it with his rivate roerty or use it for his ersonal uroses without his client5s consent.
1C.
!otto vs. !amson
—
Article 13# of the ld +ivil +ode rovides that lawyers and solicitorscannot tae 'y urchase$ even at a u'lic or 6udicial auction$ either in erson or through mediation of another$ any roerty rights involved in any litigation in which they may tae art 'y virtue of their rofession and o:ce. The urose of this rovision is to curtail any undue inuence of the lawyer uon his client on account of their con-dential association.
11.
4da. De *aig vs. +ourt of Aeals
—
A lawyer may 'e held civilly lia'le for failure to o'serve honesty and goodfaith in the erformance of their duties as u'lic o:cer and as a mem'er of the 'ar (Article 1 of the Iew +ivil +ode)$ or for wilfully or negligently causing damage to another (Article "C of the Iew +ivil +ode)$ or for wilfully causing loss or in6ury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals$ good customs andOor u'lic olicy (Article "1 of the Iew +ivil +ode).
1".
8o Beltran vs. Gernande7
—
Article 13# of the ld +ivil +ode rovides that lawyers and solicitorscannot tae 'y urchase$ even at a u'lic or 6udicial auction$ either in erson or through mediation of another$ any roerty rights involved in any litigation in which they may tae art 'y virtue of their rofession and o:ce. The urose of this rovision is to curtail any undue inuence of the lawyer uon his client on account of their con-dential association.
