CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT HIS CLIENT

WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW.

Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest means
to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall not present,
participate in presenting or threaten to present unfounded
criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage in any case
or proceeding.
Fairness and Honesty
Rule 138, Sec. 20(d). Duties of attorneys.It is the duty
of an attorney: (d) To employ, for the purpose of maintaining
the causes confided to him, such means only as are
consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead
the judge or any judicial officer by an artifice or false
statement of fact or law.
In supporting his clients cause, a lawyer should not state
his personal belief as to the soundness or justice of his case.
A lawyers personal belief has no real bearing on the case. If
expression of belief were permitted, it would give improper
advantage to the older and better known lawyer whose
opinion would carry more weight. Also, if such were
permitted, omission to make such assertion might be taken
as an admission of the lack or belief in the soundness of his
clients cause.
Atty. George C. Briones vs. Atty. Jacinto D. Jimenez, A.C.
No. 6691, April 27, 2007
Respondent is found guilty of and REPRIMANDED for violation of
Rule 19.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The
complainant in this disbarment case is Briones, the Special
Administrator of the Henson Estate. The respondent is Atty.
Jimenez, the counsel for Heirs of Henson. Before respondent
assisted the Heirs in filing the criminal complaint against
complainant, he sent demand letters to the latter to comply
with the RTC Order to deliver the residue of the estate to the
Heirs of Henson. Considering that complainant did not reply to
the demand letters, respondent opted to file said criminal
complaint in behalf of his clients for refusal to obey the lawful
order of the court.

The Order referred to is the third part of the assailed Order

which directs complainant to deliver the residue to the Heirs in
proportion to their shares. As aptly pointed out by complainant,
respondent should have first filed the proper motion with the
RTC for execution of the third part of said Order instead of
immediately resorting to the filing of criminal complaint against
him. A mere perusal of the rest of the Order dated April 3, 2002
readily discloses that the approval of the report of complainant
as Special Administrator was suspended prior to the audit of the
administration of complainant. Consequently, the RTC would still
have to determine and define the residue referred to in the
subject Order. The filing of the criminal complaint was evidently
premature.
Respondent claims that he acted in good faith and in fact, did
not violate Rule 19.01 because he assisted the Heirs in filing the
criminal complaint against herein complainant after the latter
ignored the demand letters sent to him; and that a lawyer owes
his client the exercise of utmost prudence and capability. The
Court is not convinced. Fair play demands that respondent
should have filed the proper motion with the RTC to attain his
goal of having the residue of the estate delivered to his clients
and not subject complainant to a premature criminal
prosecution.

Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information that his

client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a
fraud upon a person or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the
client to rectify the same, and failing which he shall terminate
the relationship with such client in accordance with the Rules of
Court.
Rectification of Clients Fraud
Canon 19.02 requires the lawyer to terminate his
relationship with the client in the event the latter fails or
refuses to rectify the fraud.
On the other hand, Canon 41 of the Canons of Professional
Ethics permits the lawyer to inform the person injured by

the fraudulent acts of his client or the injured partys

counsel. Canon 41 may collide with the lawyers duty to
keep the clients confidence inviolate which may be the
reason for the revision.
Canon 41. Discovery of imposition and deception.
When a lawyer discovers that some fraud or deception
has been practiced, which was unjustly imposed upon the
court or party, he should endeavor to rectify it; at first by
advising his client, and should endeavor to rectify it; and
if his client refuses to forego the advantage thus unjustly
gained, he should promptly inform the injured person or
his counsel, so that they may take appropriate steps.
Rule: A lawyer may not volunteer the information
concerning the clients commission of fraud to anybody, as
it will violate his obligation to maintain his clients secrets
undisclosed.
Valeriana U. Dalisay vs. Atty. Melanio Mauricio, A.C. No.
5655, January 23, 2006
The case is a motion for reconsideration of a Decision finding
Atty. Melanio "Batas" Mauricio, Jr., respondent, guilty of
malpractice and gross misconduct and imposing upon him the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law for a period of six
(6) months. Valeriana U. Dalisay, complainant, engaged
respondents services as counsel a civil case. Notwithstanding
his receipt of documents and attorneys fees in the total amount
of P56,000.00, respondent never rendered legal services for
complainant. As a result, she terminated the attorney-client
relationship and demanded the return of her money and
documents, but respondent refused.
Upon learning of our Decision, respondent went to the MTC to
verify the status of the civil case. There, he learned that the tax
declarations and title submitted by complainant are not official
records of the Municipal Assessor and the Registry of Deed.
Thereupon, respondent filed a complaint against complainant,
charging
her
with
falsification
(tampered
evidence).
Complainant contends that respondent violated the principle of
confidentiality between a lawyer and his client when he filed
falsification charges against her.
As a lawyer, respondent is expected to know this Rule. Instead
of inaction, he should have confronted complainant and ask her

to rectify her fraudulent representation. If complainant refuses,

then he should terminate his relationship with her.
There is also no truth to his claim that he did not render legal
service to complainant because she falsified the documentary
evidence in Civil Case No.00-044. Pleadings show that he
learned of the alleged falsification long after complainant had
terminated their attorney-client relationship. It was a result of
his active search for a justification of his negligence in Civil
Case No. 00-044. As a matter of fact, he admitted that he
verified the authenticity of complainants title only after the
"news of his suspension spread in the legal community."
To our mind, there is absurdity in invoking subsequent
knowledge of a fact as justification for an act or omission that
is fait accompli.

Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to dictate the
procedure on handling the case.
Control of Proceedings
Rule 138, sec. 23. Authority of attorneys to bind clients.
Attorneys have authority to bind their clients in any case by
any agreement in relation thereto made in writing, and in
taking appeals, and in all matters of ordinary judicial
procedure. But they cannot, without special authority,
compromise their client's litigation, or receive anything in
discharge of a client's claim but the full amount in cash.
A lawyer should seek instruction from his client on any
substantial matter concerning the litigation, which requires
decision on the part of the client (i.e. whether to
compromise the case, or to appeal an unfavorable
judgment). In procedural matters, the client must yield to
the lawyer.
In matters of law, it is the client who should yield to the
lawyer and not the other way around. Lawyers duty to
the court is foremost. The dignity of the legal profession
may be compromised.
Mistakes or Negligence of Lawyer Binding Upon Client
(1998, 200, 2002 BAR EXAMS)

General Rule: Client is bound by attorneys conduct,

negligence and mistake in handling case or in management of
litigation and in procedural technique, and he cannot be heard
to complain that result might have been different had his lawyer
proceeded differently.

Complainant alleged that respondent failed to appear before

the trial court in the hearing for the issuance of the Writ of
Possession and did not protect her interests in the Compromise
Agreement which she subsequently entered into to end LRC
Case No. B-2610.

Exceptions:
1) Where adherence thereto results in outright deprivation of
clients liberty or property or where interest of justice so
requires.
2) Where error by counsel is purely technical which does not
affect substantially clients cause.
3) Ignorance, incompetence or inexperience of lawyer is so
great and error so serious that client, who has good cause
is prejudiced and denied a day in court.
4) Gross negligence of lawyer.
5) Lack of acquaintance with technical part of procedure.

Respondent denied the accusations against him. He averred

that the P70,000.00 he received from complainant was payment
for legal services for the recovery of the deposit with Planters
Development Bank and did not include LRC Case No. B-2610
pending before the Regional Trial Court of Bian, Laguna.

Luzviminda Lijauco vs. Atty. Rogelio Terrado, A.C. No.

6317, August 31, 2006
On February 13, 2004, an administrative complaint was filed by
complainant Luzviminda C. Lijauco against respondent Atty.
Rogelio P. Terrado for gross misconduct, malpractice and
conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court when he
neglected a legal matter entrusted to him despite receipt of
payment representing attorneys fees.
According to the complainant, she engaged the services of
respondent sometime in January 2001 for P70,000.00 to assist
in recovering her deposit with Planters Development Bank,
Buendia, Makati branch in the amount of P180,000.00 and the
release of her foreclosed house and lot located in Calamba,
Laguna. The property identified as Lot No. 408-C-2 and
registered as TCT No. T-402119 in the name of said bank is the
subject of a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession
then pending before the Regional Trial Court of Binan, Laguna,
Branch 24 docketed as LRC Case No. B-2610.

By openly admitting he divided the Php70,000.00 to other

individuals as commission/referral fees respondent violated Rule
9.02, Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that a lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a
fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law.
Worst, by luring complainant to participate in a compromise
agreement with a false and misleading assurance that
complainant can still recover after Three (3) years her
foreclosed property respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which says a lawyer shall
not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

Rural Bank of Calape Inc. (RBCI) vs. Atty. Benedict

Florido, A.C. No. 5731, June 18, 2010
FACTS:
This is a complaint for disbarment filed by the members of the
Board of Directors of the Rural Bank of Calape, Inc. (RBCI) Bohol
against Atty. James Benedict Florido, herein respondent. RBCI
alleged that respondent violated his oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility. According to RBCI, respondent and
his clients, Dr. Domeciano Nazareno, Dr. Remedios Relampagos,
Dr. Manuel Relampagos, and Felix Rengel, through force and
intimidation, with the use of armed men, forcibly took over the
management and the premises of RBCI. They also forcibly
evicted Cirilo A. Garay, the bank manager, destroyed the banks
vault, and installed their own staff to run the bank. However, In
his comment, respondent denied RBCIs allegation and
explained that he acted in accordance with the authority

granted upon him by the Nazareno-Relampagos group, the

lawfully and validly elected Board of Directors of RBCI.
Respondent said he was merely effecting a lawful and valid
change of management. Respondent alleged that a termination
notice was sent to Garay but he refused to comply and to
ensure a smooth transition of managerial operations,
respondent and the Nazareno-Relampagos group went to the
bank to ask Garay to step down. However, Garay reacted
violently and grappled with the security guards long firearm.
Respondent then directed the security guards to prevent entry
into the bank premises of individuals who had no transaction
with the bank and also, through the orders of the NazarenoRelampagos group, also changed the locks of the banks vault.
ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. James Floridos act is a ground for violation

of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
HELD:
Canon 19 of the Code provides that a lawyer shall represent his
client with zeal within the bounds of the law. Lawyers are
indispensable instruments of justice and peace. Upon taking
their professional oath, they become guardians of truth and the
rule of law. Verily, a lawyers duty is not to his client but to the
administration of justice. Thus, their duty to protect their
clients interests is secondary to their obligation to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice. While they are
obliged to present every available legal remedy or defense,
their fidelity to their clients must always be made within the
parameters of law and ethics, never at the expense of truth, the
law, and the fair administration of justice and that, any means,