Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DOCTRINES
Director of Religious Affairs vs. Bayot , 74 Phil. 579
Law is a profession and a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his profession who
stoops to and adopts the practice of merchantilism by advertising his services or
offering them to the public. The most worthy and effective advertisement possible,
even for a young lawyer is the establishment of a well-merited reputation for
professional capacity and fidelity to trust. This cannot be forced but must be the
outcome of character and conduct. (Canon 27, Code of Ethics.)
Cantiller vs. Potenciano (180 SCRA 246)
When a lawyer takes a client's cause, he thereby covenants that he will exert all
effort for its prosecution until its final conclusion. The failure to exercise due
diligence or the abandonment of a client's cause makes such lawyer unworthy of the
trust which the client had reposed on him.
Lawyers should be fair, honest, respectable, above suspicion and beyond reproach in
dealing with their clients. The profession is not synonymous with an ordinary business
proposition. It is a matter of public interest.
In the Matter of Petition for Authority to Continue the Use of the Firm name
Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano, Hernandez & Castillo (July 30, 1979)
A partnership for the practice of law is not a legal entity. It is a mere relationship or
association for a particular purpose. It is not a partnership formed for the purpose of
carrying on trade or business or of holding property.
Mauricio Ulep vs The Legal Clinic (223 SCRA 378)
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedures, knowledge, training and experience. To
engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristic
of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give advice or render any kind
of service that involves legal knowledge or skill.
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It includes
legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments and contract
by which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or may not be
pending in a court.
In the practice of his profession, a licensed attorney at law generally engages
in three principal types of professional activity: legal advice and instructions to
clients to inform them of their rights and obligations, preparation for clients of
documents requiring knowledge of legal principles not possessed by ordinary
layman, and appearance for clients before public tribunals which possess power
and authority to determine rights of life, liberty, and property according to
law, in order to assist in proper interpretation and enforcement of law.
Courts have inherent power to supervise and regulate the practice of law.
The practice of law is not a vested right but a privilege; a privilege, moreover,
clothed with public interest, because a lawyer owes duties not only to his
client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the
4
nation; and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State, the
administration of justice, as an officer of the court.
Because the practice of law is privilege clothed with public interest, it is far
and just that the exercise of that privilege be regulated to assure compliance
with the lawyer's public responsibilities.
These public responsibilities can best be discharged through collective action;
but there can be no collective action without an organized body; no organized
body can operate effectively without incurring expenses; therefore, it is fair
and just that all attorneys be required to contribute to the support of such
organized body; and, given existing Bar conditions, the most efficient means of
doing so is by integrating the Bar through a rule of court that requires all
lawyers to pay annual dues to the Integrated Bar.
Malpractice involves soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally
or through paid agents or brokers.
Practice of law is a profession, not a business.
11
Rule 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter which he had
intervened while in said service.
Matter is defined any discrete, isolatable act as well as identifiable
transaction or conduct involving a particular situation and specific party, and
not merely an act of drafting, enforcing or interpreting government or agency
procedures, regulations or laws, or briefing abstract principles of law. The act
of advising the Central Bank, on how to proceed with the said banks
liquidation and even filing the petition for its liquidation with the CFI of Manila
is not the matter contemplated by Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
On the other hand, intervention is defined as: 1: the act or fact of
intervening: INTERPOSITION; 2: interference that may affect the interests of
others.
Whether or not respondent shall be admitted to the Philippine Bar rests to a great
extent in the sound discretion of the Court. An applicant must satisfy the Court that
he is a person of good moral character, fit and proper to practice law.
Cambaliza v. Cristal-Tenorio, July 14, 2004
The lawyers duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in, the unauthorized
practice of law is founded on public interest and policy. Public policy requires that
the practice of law be limited to those individuals found duly qualified in education
and character. The permissive right conferred on the lawyer is an individual and
limited privilege subject to withdrawal if he fails to maintain proper standards of
moral and professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the
client, and the bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to
practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It devolves upon
a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons and ethics of the
profession enjoin him not to permit his professional services or his name to be used in
aid of, or to make possible the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal
or corporate. And, the law makes it a misbehavior on his part, subject to disciplinary
action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law.
Republic v. Kenrick Development Corp., 529 Phil. 876 (2006)
Only the signature of either the party himself or his counsel operates to validly
convert a pleading from one that is unsigned to one that is signed. Counsels
authority and duty to sign a pleading are personal to him. He may not delegate
it to just any person. Procedural requirements which have been labeled as
mere technicalities have their own valid raison d eitre. To summarily brush
them aside may result in arbitrariness and injustice. Procedural rules are
promulgated into law designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases and while
the court related the rules from time to time, it must not let it be the last
bastion for erring litigants.
The signature of counsel constitutes an assurance by him that he has read the
pleading; that, to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, there is a
good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. Under the
Rules of Court, it is counsel alone, by affixing his signature, who can certify to
these matters.
Cruz v. Mijares, G.R. No. 154464, September 11, 2008
Sec. 34 or Rule 138 recognizes the right of an individual to represent himself in any
case to which he is a party. The Rules state that a party may conduct his litigation
personally or with the aid of an attorney, and that his appearance must either be
personal or by a duly authorized member of the Bar. The individual litigant may
personally do everything in the course of proceedings from commencement to the
termination of the litigation. Considering that a party personally conducting his
litigation is restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as those qualified
14
to practice law, petitioner, not being a lawyer himself, runs the risk of falling into the
snares and hazards of his own ignorance. Therefore, Cruz as plaintiff, at his own
instance, can personally conduct the litigation. He would then be acting not as a
counsel or lawyer, but as a party exercising his right to represent himself.
Five J. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 11474, Aug. 22, 1994
Article 222 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 3 of Presidential Decree
No. 1691, states that non-lawyers may appear before the NLRC or any labor
arbiter only (1) if they represent themselves, or (2) if they represent their
organization or the members thereof.
Furthermore, the statutory rule that an attorney shall be entitled to have and
recover from his client a reasonable compensation for his services necessarily
imports the existence of an attorney-client relationship as a condition for the
recovery of attorney's fees, and such relationship cannot exist unless the
client's representative is a lawyer.
Director of Lands v. Adorable, No. 8197, Oct. 2, 1946
Attorney Manuel F. Zamora, for the claimants and appellees, acting under the highest
standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility as becomes a deserving member of
the bar, instead of taking advantage of claimant-appellant's ignorance of what really
happened in the Court of Appeals, informed this court that the case had been decided
in favor of said claimant and appellant by the Court of Appeals, filing to said effect
the copy of the decision promulgated on September 9, 1942, sent to him by said
court, to save the appellant the trouble of waiting for the reconstitution of this case
and this tribunal the trouble of deciding again a case already decided.
Florido v. Florido, AC No. 5624, Jan. 20, 2004
Candor and fairness are demanded of every lawyer. The burden cast on the
judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is
asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of
verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined. Even with due
recognition then that counsel is expected to display the utmost zeal in the
defense of a clients cause, it must never be at the expense of the truth.
A lawyers language should be forceful but dignified, emphatic but respectful as
befitting an advocate and in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession.
The lawyers arguments whether written or oral should be gracious to both
court and opposing counsel and should be of such words as may be properly
addressed by one gentlemen to another.
Erectors, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. L-71177, Oct. 28, 1988
For a lawyers duty to his client does not mean freedom to set up false or fraudulent
claims especially with respect to provisions of law or administrative rules and that
while lawyers are bound to exert utmost legal skill in prosecuting their clients cause
or defending it, their duty, first and foremost, is to the administration of justice. The
15
office of attorney does not permit, much less demand, to support a clients case,
violation of law or otherwise, fraud or chicanery. A lawyer must obey his own
conscience and not that of his client.
Gavida v. Sales, Jr. G.R. No. 124893, April 18, 1997
Every pleading before the COMELEC must be printed, mimeographed or typewritten in
legal size bond paper and filed in at least ten (10) legible copies. Pleadings must be
filed directly with the proper Clerk of Court of the COMELEC personally, or, by
registered mail. Filing a pleading by facsimile transmission is not sanctioned by the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, much less by the Rules of Court. A facsimile is not a
genuine and authentic pleading.
MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp. G.R. No. 170633, Oct. 17, 2007
Electronic document shall be regarded as the equivalent of an original document
under the Best Evidence Rule, as long as it is a printout or output readable by sight or
other means, showing to reflect the data accurately. Thus, to be admissible in
evidence as an electronic data message or to be considered as the functional
equivalent of an original document under the Best Evidence Rule, the writing must
foremost be an electronic data message or an electronic document.
Bagasing v. Espanol, G.R. No. 133090, Jan. 19, 2001
But a lawyer should not be carried away in espousing his clients cause
(Buenaseda v. Flavier, 226 SCRA 645, 656). He should not forget that he is an
officer of the court, bound to exert every effort and placed under duty, to
assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice pursuant to Canon
12, Canons of Professional Responsibility (Gomez v. Presiding Judge, RTC, Br.
15, Ozamis City, 249 SCRA 432, 439). He should not , therefore, misuse the
rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice per Rule 10.03. Canon 10 of the
Canons of Professional Responsibility, or unduly delay a case, impede the
execution of a judgment or misuse court processes, in accordance with Rule
12.04, Canon 12 of the same Canons (Ibid).
Lawyers should be reminded that their primary duty is to assist the courts in
the administration of justice. Any conduct which tends to delay, impede or
obstruct the administration of justice contravenes such lawyers duty.
Ang v. Castro, G.R. No. 66371, May 15, 1985
The use of disrespectful or contemptuous language against a particular judge in
pleadings presented in another court or proceeding is indirect, not direct, contempt
as it is not tantamount to a misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court or judge
as to interrupt the administration of justice. Stated differently, if the pleading
containing derogatory, offensive or malicious statements is submitted in the same
court or judge in which the proceedings are pending, it is direct contempt because it
is equivalent to a misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or
judge as to interrupt the administration of justice.
16
Rheem of the Phils. v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-22979, June 26, 1967
By now, a lawyer's duties to the Court have become common place. Really, there
could hardly be any valid excuse for lapses in the observance thereof. Section 20 (b),
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, in categorical terms, spells out one such duty: "To
observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers." As
explicit is the first canon of legal ethics which pronounces that "[i]t 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." That same canon, as a corollary, makes it peculiarly incumbent upon
lawyers to support the courts against "unjust criticism and clamor." And more. The
attorney's oath solemnly binds him to a conduct that should be "with all good fidelity .
. . to the courts." Worth remembering is that the duty of an attorney to the courts
"can only be maintained by rendering no service involving any disrespect to the
judicial office which he is bound to uphold."
Ceniza v. Sebastian, G.R. No. L-39914, July 2, 1984
Contempt power inay be availed of by a judge, who is the victim of insulting and
offensive epithets. A member of the bar as an officer of the court is not justified to
use vile and disrespectful language. If there be such a failing on his part, he cannot
complain if he is adjudged guilty of contempt, Where the words appear in a pleading
submitted to the Court, that is contempt in facie curiae and therefore may be dealt
with in a summary manner.
Caoibes v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 132177, July 19, 2001
The Ombudsman cannot determine for itself and by itself whether a criminal
complaint against a judge, or court employee, involves an administrative matter. The
Ombudsman is duty bound to have all cases against judges and court personnel filed
before it, referred to the Supreme Court for determination as to whether and
administrative aspect is involved therein. This rule should hold true regardless of
whether an administrative case based on the act subject of the complaint before the
Ombudsman is already pending with the Court. For, aside from the fact that the
Ombudsman would not know of this matter unless he is informed of it, he should give
due respect for and recognition of the administrative authority of the Court, because
in determining whether an administrative matter is involved, the Court passes upon
not only administrative liabilities but also other administrative concerns, as is clearly
conveyed in the case of Maceda vs. Vasquez.
Angeles v. Desierto, G.R. No. 133077, Sept. 8, 2006
Time and again, the Court has ruled that the Ombudsman has the full
discretion to determine whether a criminal complaint should be dismissed or
the necessary Information be filed in the appropriate court. His determination
and evaluation of the adequacy of evidence in this regard are unfettered. His is
an exercise of powers based upon a constitutional mandate and the courts
should not interfere in such exercise.
17
Indeed, we have consistently ruled that unless there are good and compelling
reasons, we cannot interfere in the Ombudsman's exercise of his investigating
and prosecutory powers. Without good and compelling reasons to indicate
otherwise, the Court cannot freely interfere in the Ombudsman's exercise of his
investigatory and prosecutory powers. He may dismiss the complaint forthwith
if he finds it to be insufficient in form or substance or if he otherwise finds no
ground to continue with the inquiry; or he may proceed with the investigation
if the complaint is, in his view, in due and proper form. However, while the
Ombudsman has the full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case
should be filed, the Court is not precluded from reviewing his action when
there is an abuse of discretion.
For his intestiture into the legal profession places upon his shoulders no
burden more basic, more exacting and more imperative than that of respectful
behavior toward the courts.
19
client against a former client when the subject matter of the present controversy is
related, directly or indirectly, to the subject matter of the previous litigation in which
he appeared for the former client.
23
must serve the client with competence and diligence and champion the latters cause
with wholehearted fidelity, care and devotion.
A lawyer may not, without being guilty of professional misconduct, act as counsel for
a person whose interest conflicts with that of his former client. The reason for the
prohibition is found in the relation of attorney and client which is one of trust and
confidence of the highest degree. Indeed, as we stated in Sibulo v. Cabrera, The
relation of attorney and client is based on trust, so that double dealing, which could
sometimes lead to treachery, should be avoided.
Gonzales v. Cabucana, AC No. 6836, Jan. 23, 2006
It is well-settled that lawyer is barred from representing conflicting interests except
by written consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Such
prohibition is founded on principles of public policy and good taste as the nature of
the lawyer-client relations is one of trust and confidence of the highest degree.
Lawyers are expected not only to keep inviolate the clients confidence but also to
avoid the appearance of treachery and double-dealing for only then can litigants be
encouraged to entrust their secrets to their lawyers, which is of paramount
importance in the administration of justice.
Frias v. Lozada, AC No. 6656, Dec. 13, 2005
A lawyer shall not borrow money from his client unless the clients interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case and by independent advice and he or she shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written consent of all concerned given after
a full disclosure of the facts.
Reyes v. Vitan, AC No. 5835, April 15, 2005
Indeed, when a lawyer takes a clients cause, he covenants that he will exercise due
diligence in protecting his rights. The failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and
attention expected of a good father of a family makes such lawyer unworthy of the
trust reposed in him by his client and makes him answerable not just to his client but
also to the legal profession, the courts and society
Perez v. De la Torre, AC No. 6160, March 30, 2006
Buted et al. v. Atty. Hernando, AC No. 1359, Oct. 17, 1991
It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests, except by express consent of all
concerned given after a full disclosure of the facts. Within the meaning of this canon,
a lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to
contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose.
24
The obligation to represent the client with undivided fidelity and not to divulge his
secrets or confidence forbids also the subsequent acceptance of retainers or
employment from others in matters adversely affecting any interest of the client with
respect to which confidence has been reposed.
Berbano v. Barcelona, AC No. 6084, Sept. 3, 2003
The Code exacts from lawyers not only a firm respect for law, legal processes and the
courts but also mandates the utmost degree of fidelity and good faith in dealing with
clients and the moneys entrusted to them pursuant to their fiduciary relationship.
Instead of promoting respect for law and the legal processes, respondent callously
demeaned the legal profession by taking money from a client under the pretext of
having connections with a Member of the Court.
25