Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
NEEDY.
This rule underscores the duty of a lawyer to accept employment insofar as the needy and the
poor are concerned, refusal to accept being made the exception. There are two reasons for
the rule:
1. The poor and the needy are the persons who, when in trouble, need most the services
of a lawyer but hesitate to secure such services because they cannot afford to pay
counsel’s fees or fear they will be refused for their inability to compensate the lawyer.
2. One of the objectives of the IBP is to make legal services fully available for those who
need them and the fulfillment of this objective requires that a lawyer should not lightly
decline employment from the poor and the needy.
1
Navarro v Meneses III, CBD A.C. No. 313, 30 January 1998.
was a very busy man. Atty. Fojas admitted his “mistake” in failing to file an answer for the
expulsion case, but he alleges that it was cured by his filing of a motion for reconsideration.
However, such motion for reconsideration was denied. Atty. Fojas defended his negligence
with the reason that the case was a losing cause after all. Atty. Fojas also asserts that he was
about to appeal the said decision to this Court, but his services as counsel for the complainants
and for the union were illegally and unilaterally terminated by complainant. Complainants then
filed for a disbarment case.
ISSUE: Whether the respondent committed culpable negligence, as would warrant disciplinary
action, in failing to file for the complainants an answer
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court upheld Canon 14 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and
must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. This means that his client
is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of
the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. In his motion
for reconsideration of the default order, the respondent explained his non-filing of the required
answer by impliedly invoking forgetfulness occasioned by a large volume and pressure of legal
work, while in his Comment in this case he attributes it to honest mistake and excusable
neglect due to his overzealousness to question the denial order of the trial court. Whether it
be the first or the second ground, the fact remains that the respondent did not comply with his
duty to file an answer.
Pressure and large volume of legal work provide no excuse for the respondent’s inability to
exercise due diligence in the performance of his duty to file an answer. Moreover, Atty. Fojas’s
negligence is not excused by his claim that Civil Case No. 3526-V-91 was in fact a “losing
cause”. The Supreme Court held that he should have seasonably informed the complainants
thereof pursuant to Rule 15.05, Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Q: What is a lawyer’s duty if he finds that he cannot honestly put up a valid or meritorious
defense but his client insists that he litigate? Explain. (2002,
2001)
A: It depends, if it is a criminal case, he may not decline to represent the accused solely
on his opinion regarding the guilt of said person (Code of Professional Responsibility,
Rule 14.01). The Supreme Court has held that a counsel de officio has the duty to defend
his client no matter how guilty he perceives him to be (People v. Nadera, Jr., 324 SCRA
490). But if the case is a civil case, he should decline to accept the same. In a civil action,
the rules and ethics of the profession enjoin a lawyer from taking a bad case. The
Attorney’s signature in every pleading constitutes a certification that there is good cause
to support it and that it is not interposed for delay. It is the Attorney’s duty to counsel or
maintain such actions or proceedings only as appear to him to be just and such defenses
only as he believes to be honestly debatable under the law.
Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for serious and
sufficient cause, an appointment as counsel de officio or as amicus
curiae, or a request from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any
of its chapters for rendition of free legal aid.
1. Definition of relevant terms:
a. COUNSEL DE OFICIO – a counsel, appointed by the court from among such
members of the bar in good standing who, by reason of their experience and
ability, may adequately defend the accused.
b. AMICUS CURIAE – Literally, friend of the court. A person with strong interest
in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may
petition the court for permission to file a brief or be invited by the court,
ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent
with its own views.
2. The duty to appoint a counsel de oficio rests upon the presiding judge. If an accused
appears without counsel, it is the duty of the judge to inform him that under the
Constitution, it is his right to have an attorney represent him. The accused must be
asked before arraignment whether he desires the aid of an attorney. If he desires but
is unable to employ one, the court must assign a counsel de oficio to defend him.
However, if accused wants to defend himself without counsel, the judge may allow him
to go to trial without counsel but he cannot later claim he was not accorded due process
for lack of counsel. A counsel de oficio is appointed only for a defendant in a criminal
case.
3. An appointment as amicus curiae could either be by application to the judge or the
judge on his own initiative may invite a prominent lawyer to appear as amicus curiae
in special cases.2 The impartiality of the lawyer must be considered by the judge before
making the appointment or invitation.
2
Rule 138, Section 36 of the Rules of Court
HELD: No. The welfare of the accused could be prejudiced as stressed by Chief Justice Moran
in People v. Holgado in these words: “Even the most intelligent or educated man may have
no skill in the science of law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and; without counsel, he
may be convicted not because he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish his
innocence. And this can happen more easily to persons who are ignorant or uneducated. It is
for this reason that the right to be assisted by counsel is deemed so important that it has
become a constitutional right and it is so implemented that under rules of procedure it is not
enough for the Court to apprise an accused of his right to have an attorney, it is not enough
to ask him whether he desires the aid of an attorney, but it is essential that the court should
assign one de oficio for him if he so desires and he is poor or grant him a reasonable time to
procure an attorney of his own.”
It has to be borne in mind that membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions.
It could be that for some lawyers, especially the neophytes in the profession, being appointed
counsel de oficio is an irksome chore. However, the admonition is ever timely for those
enrolled in the ranks of legal practitioners that there are times, and this is one of them, when
duty to court and to client takes precedence over the promptings of self-interest.
BLANZA & PASION v. ATTY. ARCANGEL (A.C. No. 492, September 5, 1967)
FACTS: Atty. Agustin Arcangel, respondent, volunteered to help Olegaria Blanza and Maria
Passion, complainants, in their respective pension claims in connection with the deaths of their
husbands, both P.C. soldiers, and for this purpose, they handed over to him the pertinent
documents and also affixed their signatures on blank papers. But subsequently, they noticed
that since then, respondent had lost interest in the progress of their claims and refused to
surrender the papers when asked by the complainants six years later. Complainants, now,
ask the Court to take disciplinary action against respondent for professional non-feasance.
Respondent, on the other hand, admitted having received the documents from complainants
but explained that it was for photo-stating purposes only. He alleged that his failure to return
it was due to the complainants’ refusal to hand him the money to pay for the photo-stating
costs. Respondent contends that he was not obliged to follow up complainants’ pension since
there was no agreement for his compensation as their counsel.
ISSUE: Whether respondent is bound to observe the same standard of conduct governing his
relations with his paying clients when he voluntarily offered his services according to Rule
14.04 of Canon 14 of CPR.
HELD: If a lawyer volunteers his services to a client, and therefore not entitled to attorney’s
fees, nevertheless, he is bound to attend to a client’s case with all due diligence and zeal. By
volunteering his services, he has established a client-lawyer relationship. A lawyer has a more
dynamic and positive role in the community than merely complying with the minimal
technicalities of the statute. As a man of law, he is necessarily a leader of the community,
looked up to as a model citizen. His conduct must, perforce, be par excellence, especially so
when, as in this case, he volunteers his professional services. Despite the dismissal of the
charges against the respondent because complainants themselves are partly to blame for the
delay in filing their respective claims for their failure to cooperate and pay for the Photostat
services, the respondent has failed to live up to the ideal standard. It was unnecessary to have
complainants wait, and hope, for six long years on their pension claims. Upon their refusal to
co-operate, respondent should have forthwith terminated their professional relationship
instead of keeping them hanging in definitely. Accordingly, the case against respondent is
dismissed.