All Cases and Doctrines

INTRODUCTION AND ADMISSION TO PRACTICE
CANON 1
CANON2
CANON 6
CANON 7
CANON 9
CANON 10
CANON 11
CANON 16
CANON 20
Ui vs. Iris Bonifacio 1.01

Zoreta vs. Simpliciano 1.01
Blanza vs. Arcangel 1.03
A-1 Financial Services, Inc. vs. Valerio 1.01
2003 Bar Examination Bar Matter No. 1222 1.01
In Re: David
De Leon vs. CA
Ting Dumali vs. CA 1
Ting Dumali vs. CA 1.01
People vs. Tuanda
People vs. Tuanda 1.01
Director of Religious Affairs vs. Bayot 2.03
Ledesma vs. Climaco 2.01
Villegas vs. Legaspi 6.02
Zoreta vs. Simpliciano
Ting Dumali vs. CA
In Re: Petition to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys, Medado
Pangan vs. Dionisio Ramos 10.01
Deles vs. Aragona 10.02
Ting Dumali vs. CA
Salcedo vs. Hernandez 11.03
Metrobank vs. CA 16.03
Enriquez vs. Gimenez 20.01
ADMISSION TO PRACTICE
CANON 1
RULE 1.01
RULE 3.03
RULE 6.02
CANON 7
RULE 7.01
RULE 7.02
RULE 9.01
RULE 10.01
RULE 10.03
RULE 18.04
RULE 20.01
Ramos vs Rada
Kuroda vs. Jalandoni
Omico Mining & Industrial Corp. vs. Vallejos
Dia-Anonuevo vs Bercasio
Collantes vs Renomeron
In Re: Edillion
Diao vs Martinez
In Re: Argosino
Beltran vs Eliao Abad
Diao vs Martinez
First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs. CA
Alcala vs De Vera
De Guzman vs Visayan Rapid Transit Co.
People vs Villanueva
Cayetano vs Monsod
Tejan vs Cusi, Jr.
Catimbuhan vs Cruz, Jr.
Hydro Resources Contractors Corp. vs Pagalilauan
Bacarro vs Pinataca
LAWYERS DUTIES TO SOCIETY

CANON 1
RULE 1.01
RULE 1.02
RULE 1.04
CANON 5
CANON 6
In Re: Gutierrez
Orence vs CA
De Ysasi vs NLRC
Pajares vs Abad Santos
De Roy vs CA
People vs Pineda
RULE 6.01
RULE 6.02
RULE 6.03
CANON 11
RULE 11.03
CANON 12
People vs Madera
People vs Sendaydiego
Far Eastern Shipping Co. vs CA
Jose vs Gonzalo Garcia
Misamin vs San Juan
PCCG vs Sandiganbayan and Mendoza
People vs Rosqueta
Montecillo vs Gica
Pajares vs Abad Santos
LAWYERS DUTIES TO THE COURT

CANON 10
RULE 10.01
RULE 10.02
CANON 11
RULE 11.02
RULE 11.03
RULE 11.04
RULE 11.05
CANON 12
RULE 12.02
RULE 13. 01
RULE 13.02
RULE 20.02
Chan Kian vs Angsin

COMELEC vs NOY
Occena vs Marquez
Chavez vs Viola
COMELEC vs NOY
Primitivo Santos vs Judge Arturo Cruz
9.De Gracia vs Warden of Makati
10. Buenasada vs Flavier
12. People vs Taneo
13. Urbina vs Marecan
City Sheriff of Ilagan City vs Fortunato
Castaneda vs Ago
Casals vs Cusi
Austria vs Masaquel
Martelino vs. Alejandro
Occena vs Marquez
NATURE AND CREATION OF ATTY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

CANON 14
RULE 14.02
RULE 14.04
CANON 15
RULE 15.02
CANON 16
RULE 16.01
RULE 19.03
RULE 20.01
13. Gonzales vs Chavez

12. People vs Daeng
11. Ledesma vs Climaco
11. Ledesma vs Climaco
14. Oparel vs. Abria
10. Orbit Transportation vs WCC
3. Daroy vs Legaspi
1. Regala vs Sandiganbayan
9. Government vs. Wagner
3. Daroy vs Legaspi
8. Surigao Mineral Reservation Board vs Cloribel
4. Hilado vs David
5. Stone vs Bank of Commerce
6. Guerrero vs Hernando
7. Uy vs. Gonzales
8. Rilloraza, et al vs. Eastern Telecomunications Phil. Inc.
LAWYERS DUTIES IN HANDLING CLIENTS CASES

CANON 7
CANON 10
CANON 11
CANON 12
1.Topacion Nueno vs Santos 1

Cuaresma vs Daquis
Heirs of Elias Lorilla vs CA
Avelino vs Palana
DIMAN VS ALUMBRES
1. AVELINO VS PALANA 1
2. SAULOG VS CUSTOMBUILT 1
1. DIMAN VS ALUMBRES 1
2. SAULOG VS CUSTOMBUILT 1
CANON 15
RULE 15.05
CANON 16
CANON 17
CANON 18
CANON 19
RULE 19.03
6. Gamalinda vs Alcanter
PEOPLE VS NADERA
4. Choa vs Chiongson
ANGELES VS UY, JR
1. Santiago vs. Fojas
2. Cantiller vs Potenciano
Saulog vs custombuilt 1
People vs casimiro 1
PEOPLE VS NADERA 1
3. Millare vs. Montero
5. Cosmos Foundry Shop Workers Union vs Lo Bu
LAWYERS FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION

CANON 1
CANON 6
CANON 7
CANON 16
CANON 18
CANON 20
1. Penticostes vs ibanez 2
1. Penticostes vs ibanez 2
2.Canlas vs ca 2
1. NAKPIL VS VALDES(1993)
2. Liwag vs neri
3. Diaz vs kapunan
4. Canlas vs ca
5. Celaje vs Atty Soriano (2007)
6. Penticostes vs ibanez
7. Daroy vs legaspi
8. Sotto vs samson
9. Laig vs ca
10. Go beltran vs fernandez
Liwag vs neri
Canlas vs ca
LAWYERS DUTIES TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

CANON 1
CANON 7
CANON 9
CANON 16
CANON 18
CANON 20
Rivera vs angeles
Rivera vs angeles
Ducat jr vs villalon
Narido vs linsangan
Pangan vs Ramos
Tan vs Sabandal
In re: Gutierrez
Laput vs remotigue
Tan tek beng vs david
Camacho vs pangulayan
Rivera vs angeles 3
Laput vs remotigue
Tan tek beng vs david
INTRODUCTION & ADMISSION TO OFFICE

1. Director of
Religious Affairs vs.
Bayot
2. Ledesma vs.
Climaco
3. Cui vs. Cui
CANON
Canon 2
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit
to be done any act designed primarily to
solicit legal business.
Canon 2
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except
for valid reasons, the cause of the
defenseless or the oppressed.
*Ito na pinaka malapit:
Rule 138
such admission requires passing the Bar
examination, taking lawyers oath and
receiving certificate from the Clerk of Court.
4. Villegas vs.
Legaspi
5. Enriquez vs.
Gimenez
Canon 6
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government
service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interests,
nor allow the latter to interfere with his
public duties.
Canon 20
Rule 20.01
The services of the petitioner having been
engaged by the municipal council and
mayor without authority of law, the Auditor
General was correct in disallowing in audit
the petitioner's claim for payment of
attorney's fees.
6. Salcedo vs.
Hernandez
Canon 11
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from
scandalous, offensive or menacing language
or behavior before the Courts.
DOCTRINE
Law is a profession and not a trade.
Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with

condition. The law is dedicated to the ideal of service and not
a mere trade.
A Bachelors degree alone, conferred by a law school upon
completion of a certain academic requirements, does not
entitle its holder to exercise the legal profession. The English
equivalent of abogado s lawyer or attorney-at-law. This term
has a fixed and general signification, and has reference to that
class of persons who are by license officers of the courts,
empowered to appear, prosecute and defend, and upon
whom peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are
devolved by law as consequence.
It should be borne in mind that Courts of First Instance have
dual "personality". Depending on the case before it, said
Courts can be either of appellate or original jurisdiction. The
question then to be resolved is whether or not Assemblymen
can appear as counsel before Courts of First Instance in cases
originally filed with them.
It is contended, however, that the Courts of First Instance in
these two cases took cognizance of the suits in the exercise of
their exclusive original and not appellate jurisdiction, hence,
Assemblymen Fernandez and Legaspi are still prohibited from
appearing before said Courts as counsel. There is merit to this
contention.
The Provincial Fiscal is the legal adviser of the mayor and
counsel of the various municipalities of a province and it is his
duty to represent the municipality in any court except when
he is disqualified by law, which in this case he is not. A fiscal
cannot refuse the performance of his functions on grounds
not provided for by law without violating his oath of office.
Instead of engaging the services of a special attorney, the
municipal council should have requested the Secretary of
Justice to appoint an acting provincial fiscal in place of the
provincial fiscal who had declined to handle and prosecute its
case in court.
It is right and plausible that an attorney, in defending the
cause and rights of his client, should do so with all the fervor
and energy of which he is capable, but it is not, and never will
be so for him to exercise said right by resorting to
intimidation or proceeding without the propriety and respect
which the dignity of the courts require. The reason for this is
that respect of the courts guarantees the stability of their
institution. Without such guaranty, said institution would be
resting on a very shaky foundation.
As a member of the bar and an officer of this court, Attorney
Vicente J. Francisco, as any attorney, is in duty bound to
uphold its dignity and authority and to defend its integrity,
not only because it has conferred upon him the high privilege,
7. Alawi vs. Alauya

Rule 138
such admission requires passing the Bar
examination, taking lawyers oath and
receiving certificate from the Clerk of Court.
8. Pangan vs.
Dionisio Ramos
Canon 10
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the
Court to be misled by any artifice.
9. PLA vs. Agrava
Admission To Office
10. Ui vs. Iris

Bonifacio
Canon 1
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful
conduct.
*But in this case Ui may be imprudent in
managing her affairs but it was not
tantamount to gross immoral conduct.
11. Deles vs.

Aragona
12. Blanza vs.

Arcangel
Canon 10
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly
misquote or misrepresent the contents of a
paper, the language or the argument of
opposing counsel, or the text of a decision
or authority, or knowingly cite as law a
provision already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact
that which has not been proved.
Canon1
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any
corrupt motive or interest, encourage any
suit or proceeding or delay any man's
not right (Malcolm, Legal Ethics, 158 and 160), of being what
he now is.
The term attorney is reserved for those who pass the
Philippine Bar. It cannot be used by those who only took
and passed the Sharia Bar
Public officials and employees must, at all times, respect
the rights of others and refrain from doing any acts
contrary to law, good morals, public policy, good
customs, and public order.
The duty of an attorney to the courts to employ, for the
purpose of maintaining the causes confided to him, such
means as are consistent with truth and honor cannot be
overempahisized. These injunctions circumscribe the general
duty of entire devotion of the attorney to the client. As stated
in a case, his I nigh vocation is to correctly inform the court
upon the law and the facts of the case, and to aid it in doing
justice and arriving at correct conclusions. He violates Ms
oath of office ,when he resorts to deception or permits his
client to do so."
The practice of law embraces any activity, in or out of
the Court, which requires the application of law, legal
principle, practice or procedure and calls for legal
knowledge, training or experience.
In the exercise of police power, the legislature may
regulate the practice of law by requiring further
examination in order to practice before any quasi-judicial
or administrative agency.
Immorality connotes conduct that shows indifference to the
moral norms of society and the opinion of good and
respectable members of the community. Moreover, for such
conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same must be
grossly immoral, that is, it must be so corrupt and false as to
constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree.
All the facts taken together leads to the inescapable
conclusion that respondent was imprudent in managing her
personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her
relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed, as it was with what
respondent believed was a valid marriage couldnt be
considered immoral.
There was no contempt.
Even when the statements are found to be false, if there is
probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge
is made in good faith, the mantle of privilege may still cover
the mistake of the individual. Xxx. The ultimate test is that of
bona fides.
Indeed, the actuations of Atty. Aragano were motivated by
the legitimate desire to serve the interests of his clients -Mrs. Soriano informed Atty. Aragano of the incident coupled
with Deles' admissions.
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.
cause.
*But the case was dismissed and the lawyer
was not reprimanded.
13. Zoreta vs.

Simpliciano
Canon 1
conduct.
Canon 7 - A lawyer shall at all times uphold
the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession and support the activities of the
integrated bar.
14. A-1 Financial

Services, Inc. vs.
Valerio
Canon 1
Rule 1.01A lawyer shall not engage in
conduct.
15. 2003 Bar

Examination Bar
Matter No. 1222
Canon 1
conduct.
16. In Re: Petition

to Sign in the Roll
of Attorneys,
Medado
17. In Re: David
18. PLA vs. Agrava
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or

abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal
system.
CANON 9 - A lawyer shall not, directly or
indirectly, assist in the unauthorized
practice of law.
Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the

constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law of and legal
processes.
Admission To Office
His conduct must, perforce, be par excellence, especially so

when, as in this case, he volunteers his professional services.
Respondent here has not lived up to that 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 indefinitely. And although We voted that he not be
reprimanded, in a legal sense, let this be a reminder to Atty.
Arcangel of what the high standards of his chosen profession
require of him.
The requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary
public must not be treated as a mere casual formality. The
Court has characterized a lawyers act of notarizing documents
without the requisite commission therefore as reprehensible,
constituting as it does not only malpractice but also x x x the
crime of falsification of public documents. For such
reprehensible conduct, the Court has sanctioned erring
lawyers by suspension from the practice of law, revocation of
the notarial commission and disqualification from acting as
such, and even disbarment.
They [lawyers] must at all times faithfully perform their
duties to society, to the bar, the courts and to their clients,
which include prompt payment of financial obligations. They
must conduct themselves in a manner that reflects the values
and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Of all classes and professions, the lawyer is most sacredly
bound to uphold the laws. He is their sworn servant; and for
him, of all men in the world, to repudiate and override the
laws, to trample them underfoot and to ignore the very bands
of society, argues recreancy to his position and office and sets
a pernicious example to the insubordinate and dangerous
elements of the body politic.
While a reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit

lawyers from assisting in the unauthorized practice of law, the
unauthorized practice of law by the lawyer himself is
subsumed under this provision, because at the heart of
Canon 9 is the lawyer's duty to prevent the unauthorized
practice of law. This duty likewise applies to law students and
Bar candidates. As aspiring members of the Bar, they are
bound to comport themselves in accordance with the ethical
standards of the legal profession.
Neither can he [the lawyer] allow his name to appear in such
pleading by itself or as part of firm name under the signature
of another qualified lawyer because the signature of an agent
amounts to signing of a non-qualified senator or
congressman, the office of an attorney being originally an
agency, and because he will, by such act, be appearing in
court or quasi-judicial or administrative body in violation of
the constitutional restriction.
He cannot do indirectly what the Constitution prohibits
directly.
The practice of law embraces any activity, in or out of
19. Cayetano vs.

Monsod
Introduction:
What constitutes practice of law?
20. De Leon vs. CA

processes.
21. Soriano vs.

Dizon
Ito na pinakamalapit:
22. Metrobank vs.

CA
23. Reyes vs. Gaa
Sec 27 of Rule 138 of Rules of Court,

conviction for a crime involving moral
turpitude is a ground for disbarment or
suspension. By such conviction, a lawyer is
deemed to have become unfit to uphold
the administration of justice and to be no
longer possessed of good moral character.
Canon 16
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds
and property of his client when due or upon
demand. However, he shall have a lien over
the funds and may apply so much thereof
as may be necessary to satisfy his lawful
fees and disbursements, giving notice
promptly thereafter to his client. He shall
also have a lien to the same extent on all
judgments and executions he has secured
for his client as provided for in the Rules of
Court.
Revised Rules of Court, Rule 138, Section 27
Violation of Lawyers Oath
24. Ting Dumali vs.

CA

the Court, which requires the application of law, legal

principle, practice or procedure and calls for legal
knowledge, training or experience.
In the exercise of police power, the legislature may
regulate the practice of law by requiring further
examination in order to practice before any quasi-judicial
or administrative agency.
Practice of law means any activity, in or out of Court which

requires the application of law, legal procedures, knowledge,
training and experience.
The mere fact that a position belongs to the Career Service
does not automatically confer security of tenure on its
occupant even if he does not possess the required
qualifications. Such right will have to depend on the nature of
his appointment, which in turn depends on his eligibility or
lack of it. A person who does not have the requisite
qualifications for the position cannot be appointed to it in the
first place or, only as an exception to the rule, may be
appointed to it merely in an acting capacity in the absence of
appropriate eligibles. The appointment extended to him
cannot be regarded as permanent even if it may be so
designated.
The purpose for a proceeding of disbarment is to protect the
administration of justice by requiring that those who exercise
this important function to be competent, honorable and
reliable lawyers in whom courts and clients may repose
confidence
*Disbarment; frustrated homicide
A charging lien, to be enforceable as security for the

payment of attorney's fees, requires as a condition sine qua
non a judgment for money and execution in pursuance of
such judgment secured in the main action by the attorney in
favor of his client.
A lawyer may enforce his right to fees by filing the necessary
petition as an incident in the main action in which his services
were rendered when something is due his client in the action
from which the fee is to be paid.
Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a government official is

of such a character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or
to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a
member of the bar on such ground.
The extortion committed by respondent constitutes
misconduct as a public official, which also constitutes a
violation of his oath as a lawyer. The lawyer's oath , imposes
upon every lawyer the duty to delay no man for money or
malice. The lawyer's oath is a source of his obligations and its
violation is a ground for his suspension, disbarment or other
disciplinary action.
All of these underscore the role of a lawyer as the vanguard
of our legal system.
promote respect for law and for legal

processes.
conduct.
When the respondent took the oath as a member of the legal

profession, he made a solemn promise to so stand by his
pledge. In this covenant, respondent miserably failed.
Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or

abet activities aimed at defiance of the law
or at lessening confidence in the legal
system.
Canon 7 - A lawyer shall at all times
uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the
integrated bar.
conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law, nor should he,
whether in public or private life, behave in a
scandalous manner to the discredit of the
legal profession.
Canon 10 - A lawyer owes candor, fairness
and good faith to the court.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any
falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the
court to be misled by any artifice.
25. People vs.

Tuanda

processes.
conduct.
Sections 27 and 28 of Rule 138 of the
Revised Rules of Court
Sec. 27. Attorneys renewed or suspended
by Supreme Court on what grounds. A
member of the bar may be removed or
suspended from his office as attorney by
the Supreme Court of any deceit,
malpractice, or other gross misconduct in
such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
reason of his conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude, or for any violation of the
oath which he is required to take before
admission to practice, or for a wilful
disobedience of any lawful order of a
Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude relates to

and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of
such offense. Herein, BP 22 violation is a serious criminal
offense which deleteriously affects public interest and public
order. The effects of the issuance of a worthless check
transcends the private interest of parties directly involved in
the transaction and touches the interest of the community at
large. Putting valueless commercial papers in circulation,
multiplied a thousand fold, can very well pollute the channels
of trade and commerce, injure the banking system and
eventually hurt the welfare of society and the public interest.
The crimes of which respondent was convicted also import
deceit and violation of her attorney's oath and the Code of
Professional Responsibility under both of which she was
bound to "obey the laws of the land."
superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully

appearing as an attorney for a party to a
case without authority so to do. The
practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or
through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice. (Italics supplied)
26. In Re: Elmo S.

Abad, B.M. N. 139
Sec. 28. Suspension of attorney by the

Court of Appeals or a Court of First
Instance. The Court of Appeals or a Court
of First Instance may suspend an attorney
from practice for any of the causes named
in the last preceding section, and after such
suspension such attorney shall not practice
his profession until further action of the
Supreme Court in the premises.
Rule 138, Secs. 17 and 19, Rules of Court
Section 17. Admission and oath of
successful applicants. An applicant who
has passed the required examination, or
has been otherwise found to be entitled to
admission to the bar, shall take and
subscribe before the Supreme Court the
corresponding oath of office.
27. Aguirre vs.

Rana
28. In Re: Atty.
Marcial Edillion
Section 19. Attorney's roll. The clerk of

the Supreme Court shall kept a roll of all
attorneys admitted to practice, which roll
shall be signed by the person admitted
when he receives his certificate.
Admission to Office:
What Constitutes the practice of law?
Par. 2 Section 24, Article Ill of the IBP
By-Laws (supra), whereas the authority of
the Court to issue the order applied for is
found in Section 10 of the Court Rule.
SEC. 10. Effect of non-payment of dues.
Subject to the provisions of Section 12 of
this Rule, default in the payment of annual
dues for six months shall warrant
suspension of membership in the
Integrated Bar, and default in such payment
for one year shall be a ground for the
removal of the name of the delinquent
member from the Roll of Attorneys.
The two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had

to be performed, namely: his lawyer's oath to be
administered by this Court and his signature in the Roll of
Attorneys. (Rule 138, Secs. 17 and 19, Rules of Court.).
The proven charge against respondent Abad constitutes
contempt of court (Rule 71, Sec. 3(e), Rules of Court.)
Respondent Abad should know that the circumstances which
he has narrated do not constitute his admission to the
Philippine Bar and the right to practise law thereafter.
It is upon signing the roll of Attorney that one becomes a

full-fledged lawyer, prior to which one has no authority to
practice law.
"The power to regulate the conduct and qualifications of its
officers does not depend upon constitutional or statutory
grounds. It is a power which is inherent in this court as a court
appropriate, indeed necessary, to the proper
administration of justice ... the argument that this is an
arbitrary power which the court is arrogating to itself or
accepting from the legislative likewise misconceives the
nature of the duty. It has limitations no less real because they
are inherent. It is an unpleasant task to sit in judgment upon a
brother member of the Bar, particularly where, as here, the
facts are disputed. It is a grave responsibility, to be assumed
only with a determination to uphold the Ideals and traditions
of an honorable profession and to protect the public from
overreaching and fraud. The very burden of the duty is itself a
guaranty that the power will not be misused or
prostituted. ..."
We [the Court] thus reach the conclusion that the provisions
of Rule of Court 139-A and of the By-Laws of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines complained of are neither
unconstitutional nor illegal.
ADMISSION TO PRACTICE
1. In Re: Lanuevo
CANON
Sec 2 Rule 138
such admission requires good moral
character
2. First Lepanto
Ceramics, Inc. vs.
CA
Canon 10
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules
of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
3. In Re: Cunanan
Admission To Practice:
Who may be admitted and may continue in
the practice of law?
4. Kuroda vs.
Jalandoni

Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
processes.
5. Omico Mining &

Industrial Corp. vs.
Vallejos

conduct.
DOCTRINE
Sec. 2 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court of 1964,
candidates for admission to the Bar must be of good moral
character.
Galang has pending criminal cases of Physical Injuries, he
committed perjury when he declared under oath that he had
no pending criminal case this resulted him to revoked his
license.
The substantive right to appeal from decisions or orders of
the BOI under EO 226 remains and continues to be respected.
Circular I-91 simply transferred the venue of the appeals from
the decisions of this agency to respondent CA and a different
period of appeal 15 days from notice (sa EO 226 30 days from
receipt of decision). It did not make an incursion into the right
to appeal
It is the primary and inherent prerogative of the Supreme
Court to render the ultimate decision on who may be
admitted and may continue in the practice of law according
to existing rules.
It cannot be denied that the rules and regulation of the
Hague and Geneva conventions form, part of and are wholly
based on the generally accepted principals of international
law. In facts these rules and principles were accepted by the
two belligerent nations the United State and Japan who were
signatories to the two Convention. Such rule and principles
therefore form part of the law of our nation even if the
Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions
embodying them for our Constitution has been deliberately
general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the
recognition of rule and principle of international law as
contained in treaties to which our government may have
been or shall be a signatory.
This inhibitory rule makes it obligatory upon the judicial
officers concerned to give their full time and attention to
their judicial duties, prevent them from extending special
favors to their own private interests and assure the public of
their impartiality in the performance of their functions. These
objectives are dictated by a sense of moral decency and the
desire to promote the public interest. Private respondent
should have known or ought to know that when he was
elevated to the bench of the CFI as a judge thereof, his right
to practice law as an attorney was suspended and continued
to be suspended as long as he occupied the judicial position.
Judge entered into a contract of personal and professional
services with private individuals to head defendants legal
department for a fixed yearly salary. The challenged
judgment seeks to enforce a contract which is patently void
because it is contrary to law and public policy. The contract of
professional services entered into between private
respondent and the petitioners, while the former was still a
judge of the Court of First Instance, constituted private
practice of law in contravention of Section 35 of Rule 138 of
the Revised Rules of Court. The aforecited rule was
promulgated by this Court pursuant to its constitutional
power to regulate the practice of law. It is based on sound

reasons of public policy, for there is no question that the
rights, duties, privileges and functions of the office of an
attorney-at-law are so inherently incompatible with the high
official functions, duties, powers, discretions and privileges of
a Judge of the CFI
1. People vs
Villanueva
2. Dia-Anonuevo vs
Bercasio Rule 3.03
3. De Guzman vs
Visayan Rapid
Transit Co. Rule
20.01
4. Cayetano vs
Monsod
5. In Re: Edillion Canon 7
-Strictly speaking, the word practice of law implies the customary or habitual
holding of oneself to the public as a lawyer and demanding compensation for his
legal services.
-Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or
customary actions, a succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it is
frequent habitual exercise.
-Practice of law to fail within the prohibition of statute has been interpreted as
customarily or habitually holding ones self out to the public, as a lawyer and
demanding payment for such services.
-Rule 3.03 Where a partner accepts public office, he shall withdraw from the firm
and his name shall be dropped from the firm name unless the law allows him to
practice.
-A judge is among the public officers who is not allowed to practice law.
-There will be a combination of factors that must be considered such as those
enumerated in Rule 20.01 of the code of Professional Responsibility. Other matters
like the financial ability of the client may also be considered.
-Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the
application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. To
engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of
the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of
service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge
or skill. (111 ALR 23)
-Canon 7 A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the integrated bar.
-He is therefore expected to be concerned even with matters like payment of his
membership dues and special assessments in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
-Relative to the issue of the power/or jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to strike
the name of a lawyer from its Roll of Attorneys, it is sufficient to state that the
matters of admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of lawyers and
their regulation and supervision have been and are undisputably recognized as
inherent judicial functions and responsibilities, and the authorities holding such
are legion.
6. Tejan vs Cusi, Jr.

-As an officer of the court, he is continually accountable to the court for the
manner in which he exercises the privilege.
-He holds office during good behavior and can only be deprived of it for
misconduct ascertained and declared by judgment of the Supreme Court after
opportunity to be heard has been afforded him.
7. Alcala vs De Vera Rule 18.04
-Rule 18.04 A lawyer shall keep the client informed of the status of his case and
shall respond within a reasonable time to the clients request for information.
-Held: In failing to inform his clients of the decision in the civil case handled by
him, the lawyer failed to exercise such skill, care and diligence as men of the legal
profession commonly possess and exercise in such matters and professional
employment. The relationship of lawyer-client being one of confidence, there is
ever present the need for the clients being adequately and fully informed and
should not be left in the dark as to the mode and manner in which his interests are
being defended. It is only thus that their faith in counsel may remain unimpaired.
8. Catimbuhan vs
Cruz, Jr.
9. Hydro Resources
Contractors Corp. vs
Pagalilauan
10. Ramos vs Rada

Canon 1
11. Beltran vs Eliao

Abad Rule9.01
12. Bacarro vs
Pinatacan
13. Diao vs Martinez

Rule 7.01, Rule
10.01
14. In Re: Argosino

Rule 7.02
15. Collantes vs
-Some persons not duly licensed to practice law are allowed limited representation
on behalf of others. In the municipal trial court, a party may conduct his litigation
with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose. The
attorney-client privilege does not extend to such agent or friend because not being
an attorney his appearance in court is in the character of an agent.
-A lawyer, like any other professional, may very well be an employee of a private
corporation or even of the government. It is not unusual for a big corporation to
hire a staff of lawyers as its in-house counsel, pay them regular salaries, rank them
in its table of organization, and otherwise treat them like its other officers and
employees. At the same time, it may also contract with a law firm to act as outside
counsel on a retainer basis. The two classes of lawyers often work closely together
but one group is made up of employees while the other is not. A similar
arrangement may exist as to doctors, nurses, dentists, public relations
practitioners, and other professionals.
-Canon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.
-Rule 9.01 A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person the performance
of any task which by law may only be performed by a member of the Bar in good
standing.
-Held: Atty. Ruben Jacobe is required to explain within ten (10) days from notice
why he should not be disciplined for collaborating and associating in the practice
of the law with the respondent who is not a member of the bar.
-One of the indispensable requisites for admission to the Philippine Bar is that the
applicant must be of good moral character. This requirement aims to maintain and
uphold the high moral standards and the dignity of the legal profession, and one of
the ways of achieving this end is to admit to the practice of this noble profession
only those persons who are known to be honest and to possess good moral
character. "As a man of law, (a lawyer) is necessary a leader of the community,
looked up to as a model citizen" He sets an example to his fellow citizens not only
for his respect for the law, but also for his clean living
-Rule 7.01 A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or
suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the
bar.
-Held: The name of Telesforo A. Diao was stricken of the Roll of Attorneys for false
pretense on his educational attainment. He misrepresented that he finished
Associate in Arts Degree when the truth is he had no such degree. The fact that
he hurdled the Bar Examination is immaterial. Passing such examination is not the
only qualification to become an attorney-at-law; taking the prescribed courses of
legal study in the regular manner is equally essential.
-Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in court; nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.
-Rule 7.02 A lawyer shall not support the application for admission to the bar of
any person known by him to be unqualified in respect to character, education, or
other relevant attribute.
-The practice of law is a privilege granted only to those who possess the strict,
intellectual, and moral qualifications required of lawyers who are instruments in
the effective and efficient administration of justice.
Renomeron Canon
6, Rule 6.02
-Canon 6 These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the

discharge of their official tasks.
-Rule 6.02 A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his
public duties.
-Generelly, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a
member of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government
official. However, if the misconduct of a govt official is of such a character as to
affect his qualifications as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be
disciplined as a member of the Bar upon such ground.
LAWYERS DUTIES TO SOCIETY

1. Montecillo vs
Gica Rule 1.02,
Rule 8.01, Rule 11.03
-Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the
law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
-Atty. Del Mar, by his contemptuous acts is in violation of his duties to the courts.
As an officer of the court, it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not
destroy unnecessarily the high esteem and regard towards the court so essential
to the proper administration of justice.
-Rule 8.01 A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is
abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
-A lawyer who uses intemperate, abusive, abrasive or threatening language
betrays disrespect to the court, disgraces the Bar and invites the exercise by the
court of its disciplinary power.
-Rule 11.03 A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menacing
language or behavior before the courts.
2. In Re: Gutierrez
Rule 1.01
-Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral and deceitful
conduct.
3. Orence vs CA
Rule 1.02
-Rule 1.02 A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the
law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
-Atty. Flaminianos acts of entering the property, aiding his wife, without the
consent of its occupants and in contravention of the existing writ of preliminary
injunction and making utterances showing disrespect for the law and this Court,
are unbecoming of a member of the Bar.
4. De Ysasi vs NLRC
Rule 1.04
-Rule 1.04 A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit a fair settlement.
-The lawyers for both camps failed to exert all reasonable efforts to smooth over
legal conflicts, preferably out of court and especially in consideration of the direct
and immediate consanguineous ties between their clients especially considering
that the parties involved are father and son.
5. Pajares vs Abad
Santos Rule 1.04,
Canon 12
-Rule 1.04 A lawyer shall encourage his clients to avoid, end or settle a
controversy if it will admit a fair settlement.
-Had appellant been but prudently advised by her counsel to confess judgment
and ask from her creditor the reasonable time she needed to discharge her lawful
indebtedness, the expenses of litigation that she has incurred would have been
more than sufficient to pay of her just debt to appelle.
6. People vs
Rosqueta Canon 1
-Canon 1 A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for law and legal processes.
-Atty. Estacio should be aware that in the pursuance of the duty owed this Court as
well as to the client, he cannot be too casual and unconcerned about the filing of
pleadings. It is not enough that he prepares them; he must see to it that they are
duly mail. Such inattention as shown in this case is inexcusable.
7. De Roy vs CA
Canon 5
-Canon 5 A lawyer shall keep abreast of legal developments, participate in

continuing legal education programs, support efforts to achieve high standards in
law schools as well as in the practical training of law students and assist in
disseminating information regarding the law and jurisprudence.
8. Far Eastern
Shipping Co. vs CA
Rule 6.01
-Rule 6.01 The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to
convict but to see that ustice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment
of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
9. Jose vs Gonzalo
Garcia - Rule 6.01
convict but to see that ustice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment
10. People vs Pineda

Rule 6.01
convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment
11. People vs
Madera Rule 6.01
12. People vs
Sendaydiego Rule
6.01
13. Misamin vs San

Juan Rule 6.02
-Rule 6.02 A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his
public duties.
14. PCCG vs
Sandiganbayan and
Mendoza Rule 6.03
-Rule 6.03 A lawyer shall not, after leaving government service, accept
engagement or employment in connection with any matter in which he had
intervened while in said service.
-The evils sought to be remedied by the Rule do not exist where the government
lawyer does an act which can be considered as innocuous such as x x x drafting,
enforcing or interpreting government agency procedures, regulations or laws, or
brief abstract principles of law.
LAWYERS DUTIES TO THE COURT

1. City Sheriff of
Ilagan City vs
Fortunato Canon
12
2. Occena vs
Marquez Rule
10.01, Rule 20.02
-Canon 12 A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice.
-Whenever a party to a pending action dies, and the claim is not thereby
extinguished, it shall be the duty of the counsel to inform the court within thirty
days after such death of the fact thereof, and to give the name and address of his
legal representative or representatives. Failure to comply with this duty shall be a
ground for disciplinary action.
-Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
-It is neither candid nor fair for a lawyer to knowingly make false allegations in a
judicial pleading or to misquote the contents of a document, the testimony of a
witness, the argument of opposing counsel or the contents of a decision.
-Rule 20.02 A lawyer shall not, in cases of referral, with the consent of the client, be
entitled to a division of fees in proportion to work performed and responsibility
assumed.
3. Chavez vs Viola
Rule 10.01
-Rule 10.01 A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in
Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
-A lawyer owes honesty and candor to the courts. It cannot be gainsaid that
candidness, especially towards the courts, is essential for the expeditious
administration of justice. Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and
honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them.
4. Chan Kian vs
Angsin Canon 10
-Canon 10 A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the court.
- had the counsels, as officers of the courts, but faithfully complied with their duty
to deal with the courts in truth and candor, and promptly manifested to the
appellate court the above developments, all by June, 1965, which have made the
principal issue at bar moot and academic, this case would then have been disposed
of and need not have been certified to this Court, and the time needed by it to
devote to the prompt disposition of meritorious cases need not have been thus
dissipated.
5. Casals vs Cusi
Rule 12.03
-Rule 12.02 A lawyer shall not, after obtaining extensions of time to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the same or offering
an explanation for his failure to do so.
-A lawyer who files a Motion for Extension of Time within which to file pleadings,
memoranda or briefs, must comply within the period granted, unless, for valid
reasons, he is granted another period, in which latter case, he should comply before
the lapse of the last period so granted.
6. COMELEC vs NOY
Canon 10, Rule
10.02
-Rule 10.02 A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of
paper, the language or the argument of opposing counsel, or the text of a decision
or authority, or knowingly cite as law a provision already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which has not been proved.
8. Surigao Mineral
Reservation Board vs
Cloribel
RULE 19.03
9.De Gracia vs
Warden of Makati
RULE 11.02
10. Buenasada vs
Flavier
RULE 11.03
11. Primitivo Santos

vs Judge Arturo Cruz
CANON 11
12. People vs Taneo
RULE 11.04
13. Urbina vs
RULE 11.05
A lawyer should use his best efforts to restrain and to prevent his clients from
doing those things which the lawyer himself ought not to do, particularly with
reference to their conduct towards courts, judicial officers, jurors, witnesses and
suitors. If a client persists in such wrongdoing the lawyer should terminate their
relation.
A lawyer should be punctual. Inexcusable absence from, or repeated tardiness in,
attending a pre-trial or hearing may not only subject the lawyer to disciplinary
action, but may also prejudice his client who, as a consequence thereof, may be
non-suited, declared in default or adjudged liable ex parte, as the case may be.
A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or menancing language or
behavior before the courts. The language of a lawyer, both oral and written, must
be respectful and restrained in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession and
with his behavioral attitude toward his brethren in the profession. The use of
abusive language by counsel against the opposing counsel constitutes at the same
time a disrespect to the dignity of the court of justice. The use of impassioned
language in pleadings, more often than not, creates more heat than light.
The duty to observe and maintain respect is not a one-way duty from a lawyer to a
judge. A judge should be courteous to lawyer to merit respect. He should be civil,
for it is unbecoming of a judge to utter intemperate language during the hearing of
a case.
A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge improper motives. He should not make
hasty accusation against the judge, before whom he pleads his case, without any
cogent and valid ground extant in the record. His arguments, written or oral,
should be gracious to both the court and opposing counsel.
A lawyer shall submit grievances to proper authorities. The performance of the
Marecan
14. Castaneda vs Ago
RULE 12.02
RULE 12.02
15. Austria vs
Masaquel
RULE 13. 01
16. Martelino vs.

Alejandro
RULE 13.02
duty demands that the lawyer refrain from filing, or be not a party to the bringing
of, unfounded charges against judges. A lawyer may prefer charges against a judge
only after proper circumspection and without the use of disrespectful language
and offensive personalities so as not to unduly burden the court in the discharge
of its functions.
A lawyer shall not file multiple actions. He should not misuse legal remedies and
prostitute the judicial process to thwart or delay the satisfaction of a final
judgment, to the extended prejudice of the petitioners.
It is the duty of a lawyer to resist the whims and caprices of his client and to
temper his clients propensity to litigate. While a client may withhold from his
counsel certain facts or give him false information to attain his unlawful ends, a
lawyer can easily see through the clients action either before or at the early stage
of the litigation. When the purpose becomes evident, the lawyer should not allow
himself to be a party to its realization.
A lawyer shall not extend hospitality to a judge. He should not see him in chamber
and talk to him about a case pending in his court; and a judge should not allow it
to happen, without committing a misconduct, except where the lawyers of both
parties are present or upon request of the judge for both lawyers to see him in
chamber.
A lawyer shall not publicly discuss pending cases. For newspaper publications by a
lawyer concerning a pending litigation may interfere with a fair trial in court and
otherwise prejudice the impartial administration of justice.
NATURE AND CREATION OF ATTY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

1. Regala vs
Sandiganbayan
CANON
RULE 15.02
2. In. Re. Sycip
3. Daroy vs Legaspi
CANON 15
RULE 16.01
DOCTRINE
General rule: a lawyer may not invoke the privilege and refuse to divulge the name
or identity of his client.
Exception:
1. client identity is privileged where a strong probability exists that revealing the
clients name would implicate that client in the very activity which he sought the
lawyers advice.
2. the content of any client communication to a lawyer lies within the privilege if it
is relevant to the subject matter of the legal problem on which the client seeks
legal assistance.
3. where the nature of the atty-client relationship has been previously disclosed
and it is the identity which is intended to be confidential, the identity of the client
has been held to be privileged
The instant case falls under exceptions: disclosure of clients name would lead to
establish said clients connection with the very fact in issue of the case.
Where a client thinks he might have previously committed something illegal and
consults atty about it -> falls within the exception. But where client seeks services
of an atty for illicit purposes, seeking advice about how to go around the law to
commit illegal activities -> not covered by privilege.Purpose of privilege: to avoid
fishing expedition by the prosecution. There are alternative sources of
information available to prosecutor w/c do not depend on utilizing defendants
counsel as source.Duration of privilege: exists not only during relationship but
extends even after termination.
The attorney-client relationship is strictly personal because it involves mutual trust
and confidence of the highest degree, irrespective of whether the client is a
private person or a government functionary. The personal character of the
relationship prohibits its delegation in favor of another attorney without the
client's consent.
The relation between an attorney and his client is highly fiduciary in its nature and
of a very delicate, exacting and confidential in character, requiring a high degree of
fidelity and good faith.
In view of that special relationship, 'lawyers are bound to promptly account for
money or property received by them on behalf of their clients and failure to do so
constitutes professional misconduct. The fact that a lawyer has a lien for fees on
4. Hilado vs David
RULE 20.01
5. Stone vs Bank of
Commerce
RULE 20.01
6. Guerrero vs
Hernando
RULE 20.01
7. Uy vs. Gonzales
RULE 20.01
8. Rilloraza, et al vs.
Eastern
Telecomunications
Phil. Inc.
RULE 20.01
9. Government vs.
Wagner
CANON 16
10. Orbit
Transportation vs
WCC
11. Ledesma vs
Climaco
CANON 15
12. People vs Daeng
RULE 14.02
RULE 14.02
RULE 14.04
money in his hands collected for his clients does not relieve him from the duty of
promptly accounting for the funds received.
To constitute an attorney-client relationship, it is not necessary that any retainer
should have been paid, promised, or charged for; neither is it material that the
attorney consulted did not afterward undertake the case about which the
consultation was had. If a person, in respect to his business affairs or troubles of
any kind, consults with his attorney in his professional capacity with the view to
obtaining professional advice or assistance, and the attorney voluntarily permits or
acquiesces in such consultation, then the professional employment must be
regarded as established.
The relation of attorney and client begins from the time an attorney is retained.
The authority of an attorney commences with his retainer. He cannot, while acting
generally as an attorney for an estate or a corporation, accept service of process
which commences the action, without any authority so to do from his
principal. When an attorney has been retained, he has certain implied powers to
act for his client, in a suit actually commenced, in the due and orderly conduct of
the case through the courts.
There must be a contract of employment, express or implied, between him and
the party he purports to represent or the latters authorized agent. If he corruptly
or willfully appears as an attorney for a party to a case without authority, he may
be disciplined.
An attorney-client relationship is said to exist when a lawyer voluntarily permits or
acquiesces with the consultation of a person, who in respect to a business or
trouble of any kind, consults a lawyer with a view of obtaining professional advice
or assistance. It is not essential that the client should have employed the attorney
on any previous occasion or that any retainer should have been paid, promised or
charged for, neither is it material that the attorney consulted did not aferward
undertake the case about
When a client employs the services of a law firm, he does not employ the services
of the lawyer who is assigned to personally handle the case. Rather, he employs
the entire law firm. In the event that the counsel appearing for the client resigns,
the firm is bound to provide a replacement.
Recovery of attorney's fees on the basis of quantum meruit is authorized when
(1) there is no express contract for payment of attorney's fees agreed upon
between the lawyer and the client;
(2) when although there is a formal contract for attorney's fees, the fees
stipulated are found unconscionable or unreasonable by the court; and
(3) when the contract for attorney's fee's is void due to purely formal defects of
execution;
(4) when the counsel, for justifiable cause, was not able to finish the case to its
conclusion;
(5) when lawyer and client disregard the contract for attorney's
fees,
An agent clothed by his principal with the power to deal with the latters property
or interest has the authority to engage the services of an attorney as counsel for
the principal to protect or preserve such property or interest.
If a lawyer were to take a bad civil suit against a defendant, it will either be to
exert his best efforts toward a compromise or, if unsuccessful, to advice his client
to confess judgement.
The relation of attorney and client may be created not only by the voluntary
agreement between them but also by the appointment of an attorney as counsel
de oficio for a poor or indigent litigant, and the attorney so appointed has as high
a duty to the indigent as to his paying client.
We would, nevertheless, caution all courts against the frequent appointment of
the same attorney as counsel de oficio, for two basic reasons: first, it is unfair to
the attorney concerned, considering the burden of his regular practice that he
should be saddled with too many de officio cases; and, second, the compensation
provided for by section 32 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court (a fixed fee of P500 in
13. Gonzales vs
Chavez
CANON 14
14. Oparel vs. Abria
RULE 14.04
capital offense) might be considered by some lawyers as a regular source of

income, something which the Rule does not envision. In every case, the accused
stands to suffer because the overburdened counsel would have too little time to
spare for his de officio cases, and also would be inordinately eager to finish such
cases in order to collect his fees within the earliest possible time.
The solicitor General is the principal law officer and legal defender of the
government. It is incumbent upon him to present to the court what he considers
would legally uphold the best interest of the government. He cannot simply refuse
to do his duty nor can he withdraw from a case on flimsy ground, otherwise,
mandamus will lie to compel him to perform his duties and responsibilities.
A lawyer shall observe the same standard for all clients. The purpose of legal
profession is to render public service and secure justice for those who seek its aid.
The gaining of a livelyhood is only a secondary consideration. Consequently,
neither the amount of attorneys fees nor the clients financial ability to pay such
fees should serve as the test to determine the extent of the lawyers devotion to
his clients cause.
LAWYERS DUTIES IN HANDLING CLIENTS CASES

1. Santiago vs. Fojas
CANON
CANON 17
2. Cantiller vs
Potenciano
CANON 17
3. Millare vs.
Montero
CANON 19
4. Choa vs Chiongson
RULE 15.05
DOCTRINE
No fear of judicial disfavor or public unpopularity should restrain him from the full
discharge of his duty. In the judicial forum the client is entitled to the benefit of
any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by law, and he may expect
his lawyer to assert every such remedy or ddefense.
His actuation is definitely inconsistent with his duty to protect with utmost
dedication the interest of his client and of the fidelity, trust and confidence which
he owes his client.
Public interest requires that an attorney exert his best efforts and ability in the
prosecution or defense of his client's cause. A lawyer who performs that duty with
diligence and candor not only protects the interests of his client; he also serves the
ends of justice, does honor to the bar and helps maintain the respect of the
community to the legal profession. This is so because the entrusted privilege to
practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to
the court, to the bar or to the public. That circumstance explains the public
concern for the maintenance of an untarnished standard of conduct by every
attorney towards his client.
A lawyer is required to represent his client "within the bounds of the law." The
Code enjoins a lawyer to employ only fair and honest means to attain the lawful
objectives of his client (Rule 19.01) and warns him not to allow his client to dictate
the procedure in handling the case (Rule 19.03). In short, a lawyer is not a gun for
hire.
Advocacy, within the bounds of the law, permits the attorney to use any arguable
construction of the law or rules which is favorable to his client. But the lawyer is
not allowed to knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under
existing law. He cannot prosecute patently frivolous and meritless appeals or
institute clearly groundless actions. Professional rules impose limits on a lawyer's
zeal and hedge it with necessary restrictions and qualifications.
As a Member of the Philippine Bar he is bound:
(1) by his oath, not to, wittingly or willingly, promote or sue any groundless, false,
or unlawful suit nor give aid nor consent to the same;
(2) by Section 20(c), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, to counsel or maintain such
action or proceedings only as appear to him to be just; and
(3) to uphold the Code of Professional Responsibility.
It was incumbent upon him to give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and
probable results of the complainants case with the end in view of promoting
respect for the law and legal processes. He should, therefore, be required to show
cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for his apparent
5. Cosmos Foundry
Shop Workers Union
vs Lo Bu
6. Gamalinda vs
Alcanter
Topacion Nueno vs
Santos
Cuaresma vs Daquis
RULE 19.03
CANON 17
CANON 18
He shall serve his client with competence and diligence,
CANON 15
and his duty of entire devotion to his client's cause not only requires, but entitles
him to employ every honorable means to secure for the client what is justly due
him or to present every defense provided by law to enable the latter's cause to
succeed.
An attorney's duty to safeguard the client's interests commences from his retainer
until the effective release from the case or the final disposition of the whole
subject matter of the litigation. During that period, he is expected to take such
reasonable steps and such ordinary care as his client's interests may require.
respondent had openly been running a club for gambling purposes
CANON 7
Canon 10
Heirs of Elias Lorilla

vs CA
Avelino vs Palana
DIMAN VS
ALUMBRES
3. AVELINO VS
PALANA 1
4. SAULOG VS
CUSTOMBUILT 1
failure to observe the foregoing duties and responsibilities.

The lawyers duty to the court, no less than the dignity of the legal profession,
requires that he should not act like an errand boy at the back and call of his client,
ready and eager to do his bidding.
A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and must be mindful of the trust
and confidence reposed in him.
CANON 11
An order to demolish the property where Cuaresma was staying was issued by a
trial judge pursuant to a civil case filed by Daquis. Cuaresmas lawyer, Atty.
Macario Directo, filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court where he
alleged that they had no knowledge of the said civil case hence the order of
demolition is unjust. The Supreme Court however later found out that Cuaresma
and his lawyer in fact knew of the existence of said civil case. The Supreme Court
then directed Directo to show cause why he should not be disciplined.
-Failure to inform the court of the death of his client
The failure of Atty. Concepcion to serve notice on the court and the adverse
parties regarding his clients death binds herein petitioners as much as the client
himself could be so bound. Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that a
client is bound by the conduct, negligence and mistakes of his counsel.
As regards respondent's failure to appear in court on the day set for the trial,
We are inclined to accept his claim that it was due to the fact that early in the
morning of that date he had "a severe stomach ache, followed by constant moving
of bowel and vomiting and that as a consequence he became very weak." But
while this might be, to a certain extent, a good excuse for his non-appearance in
court, it is obviously not sufficient to explain his failure to notify his clients in due
time of the date of the trial. Had he done so, his clients would probably have tried
to contact him in due time, and upon discovering that he was sick they would have
either gone to court to ask for the postponement of the trial, or they would have
looked for another lawyer to represent them in court.
he had sought an extension of 30 days "due to the other volume of legal works
similarly situated and school work of the undersigned as professor of law and dean
of the University of Manila," and had entertained "the honest belief" that it would
be granted. However, he learned belatedly that only a 15-day extension had been
conceded. He forthwith completed the comment and filed it, albeit five days late.
As regards respondent's failure to appear in court on the day set for the trial,
We are inclined to accept his claim that it was due to the fact that early in the
morning of that date he had "a severe stomach ache, followed by constant moving
of bowel and vomiting and that as a consequence he became very weak." But
while this might be, to a certain extent, a good excuse for his non-appearance in
court, it is obviously not sufficient to explain his failure to notify his clients in due
time of the date of the trial. Had he done so, his clients would probably have tried
to contact him in due time, and upon discovering that he was sick they would have
either gone to court to ask for the postponement of the trial, or they would have
looked for another lawyer to represent them in court.
Concededly, at the start of the pre-trial on November 5, Custombuilt's attorney
was present. But he unceremoniously left the courtroom. Counsel averred in his
petition for relief that he had to leave posthaste because "he was summoned
home all too suddenly" as "(h)is pregnant wife had been having labor pains" which
"were cause for alarm" because "his wife was due for confinement x x x and she
finally delivered on November 10, 1964."
3. DIMAN VS
ALUMBRES 1
CANON 12
4. SAULOG VS
CUSTOMBUILT 1
1. PEOPLE VS
NADERA 1
11. ANGELES VS UY,

JR 1
CANON 15
CANON 16
In his petition for relief, Custombuilt's lawyer also made the statement that his
wife did not give birth until five days later, that is, on November 10. It is
unreasonable to assume that during the whole period of time - from November 5
to November 10 - his mind was in blank, such that it was impossible for him to
have taken steps to tell the court personally or otherwise that his absence during
the pre-trial was excusable. Again, he did not. He received copy of the decision
on November 10. He did not file the petition for relief until November 14.
he had sought an extension of 30 days "due to the other volume of legal works
similarly situated and school work of the undersigned as professor of law and dean
of the University of Manila," and had entertained "the honest belief" that it would
be granted. However, he learned belatedly that only a 15-day extension had been
conceded. He forthwith completed the comment and filed it, albeit five days late.
All of these facts point to one conclusion: lack of interest on the part of appellant
to defend itself against the complaint. Rather, the pattern of conduct discloses a
desire to delay disposal of the present case. Failure to prosecute is a ground for
dismissal of the appeal and revival of the judgment of the city court under Section
9, Rule 40 of the Rules of Court.
Not only did defense counsel fail to object to the documentary evidence
presented by the prosecution, according to the trial court's decision, he even
expressed his conformity to the admission of the same. Neither did he present any
evidence on behalf of accused-appellant.[37] Worse, nowhere in the records is it
shown that accused-appellant was informed, either by his counsel or by the court,
of his right to present evidence, if he so desires.
Atty. Brotonel, as counsel de oficio, had the duty to defend his client and protect
his rights, no matter how guilty or evil he perceives accused-appellant to be. The
performance of this duty was all the more imperative because the life of
accused-appellant hangs in the balance. His duty was no less because he was
counsel de oficio.
The relationship between a lawyer and a client is highly fiduciary; it requires a high
degree of fidelity and good faith. It is designed "to remove all such temptation and
to prevent everything of that kind from being done for the protection of the
client."[5]
Thus, Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "a lawyer
shall hold in trust all moneys and properties of his client that may come into his
possession." Furthermore, Rule 16.01 of the Code also states that "a lawyer shall
account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client." The
Canons of Professional Ethics is even more explicit:
"The lawyer should refrain from any action whereby for his personal benefit or
gain he abuses or takes advantage of the confidence reposed in him by his client.
Sup rema
"Money of the client collected for the client or other trust property coming into
the possession of the lawyer should be reported and accounted for promptly and
should not under any circumstances be commingled with his own or be used by
him."[6]
In the present case, it is clear that respondent failed to promptly report and
account for the P16,500 he had received from Norma Trajano on behalf of his
client, Primitiva Del Rosario. Although the amount had been entrusted to
respondent on December 14, 1998, his client revealed during the February 10,
1999 hearing that she had not yet received it. Worse, she did not even know
where it was.
Saulog vs
custombuilt 1
CANON 18
Counsel left the court before the pretrial started.
People vs casimiro 1
- Counsel did not file brief on time, and neglected his clients case.
PEOPLE VS NADERA
1
- Counsel failed to object to the documentary evidence against his clients.
LAWYERS FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION

Penticostes vs ibanez
This Court has repeatedly admonished lawyers that a high sense of morality,
honesty and fair dealing is expected and required of a member of the bar. Rule
1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that "[a] lawyer shall not
engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."
CANON 1
CANON 6
Canlas vs ca
NAKPIL VS
VALDES(1993)
CANON 7
Liwag vs neri
Diaz vs kapunan
Canlas vs ca
It is glaringly clear that respondent's non-remittance for over one year of the
funds coming from Encarnacion Pascual constitutes conduct in gross violation of
the above canon. The belated payment of the same to the SSS does not excuse his
misconduct.
Respondent's claim that he may not be held liable because he committed such
acts, not in his capacity as a private lawyer, but as a prosecutor is unavailing.
Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:
"These canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of
their official tasks."
As stated by the IBP Committee that drafted the Code, "a lawyer does not shed his
professional obligations upon assuming public office. In fact, his public office
should make him more sensitive to his professional obligations because a lawyer's
disreputable conduct is more likely to be magnified in the public's eye.[3] Want of
moral integrity is to be more severely condemned in a lawyer who holds a
responsible public office.
CANON 16
BREACH OF TRUST
Jose "Pinggoy" Nakpil prior to his death had requested Valdes to purchase Pulong
Maulap and thereafter register the sale and hold the title thereto in trust for him
(Pinggoy Nakpil), which respondent Valdes did. But after her husband's death,
Valdes concealed and suppressed all information regarding the trust agreement;
instead, he transferred Pulong Maulap in the name of respondent Caval Realty
Corporation, which is 99.7% owned by him, in exchange for 1,500 shares of stock.
the respondent has committed a breach of professional ethics when, contrary to
the fact, he made the complainant believe that the Pineda spouses had already
been sued in court and did not return the amount of P30.00 intended for the filing
fee.
The money received from the judgment creditor by the lawyer of the judgment
debtor as consideration for the lawyers desisting from participating in execution
sale of the debtors property is owned by and must be turned over to the client.
By Atty. Canlas own account, due to lack of paying capacity of respondent
Herrera, no financing entity was willing to extend him any loan with which to pay
the redemption price of his mortgaged properties and petitioners P100,000.00
attorneys fees awarded in the Compromise Judgment,[34] a development that
should have tempered his demand for his fees. For obvious reasons, he placed his
interest over and above those of his client, in opposition to his oath to conduct
[him]self as a lawyer . . . with all good fidelity. . .to [his] clients.[35] The Court
finds the occasion fit to stress that lawyering is not a money-making venture and
lawyers are not merchants, a fundamental standard that has, as a matter of
judicial notice, eluded not a few law advocates. The petitioners efforts partaking
of a shakedown of his own client are not becoming of a lawyer and certainly, do
not speak well of his fealty to his oath to delay no man for money
respondent asked for money to be put up as an injunction bond, which
complainant found out later, however, to be unnecessary as the application for the
writ was denied by the trial court. Respondent also asked for money on several
occasions allegedly to spend for or to be given to the judge handling their case,
Judge Milagros Quijano, of the Regional Trial Court, Iriga City, Branch 36. When
complainant approached Judge Quijano and asked whether what respondent was
saying was true, Judge Quijano outrightly denied the allegations and advised her
to file an administrative case against respondent
Celaje vs Atty
Soriano (2007)
respondent Atty. Santiago C. Soriano is found GUILTY of violating Canon 16 of the

Code of Professional Responsibility and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for a period of two (2) years from notice, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
While Pascual may not strictly be considered a client of respondent, the rules
relating to a lawyer's handling of funds of a client is applicable.
The failure of respondent to immediately remit the amount to the SSS gives rise to
the presumption that he has misappropriated it for his own use. This is a gross
violation of general morality as well as professional ethics; it impairs public
confidence in the legal profession and deserves punishment.[
Petitioner charged Attorney Ramon Chaves Legaspi of Cagayan de Oro City with
malpractice for having misappropriated the sum of four thousand pesos which he
had collected for them.
We find respondent Legaspi guilty of deceit, malpractice and professional
misconduct for having misappropriated the funds of his clients. His manufactured
defenses, his lack of candor and his repeated failure to appear at the investigation
conducted by the City Fiscal of Iligan and at the hearings scheduled by this Court,
thus causing this proceeding to drag on for a long time, demonstrate his
unworthiness to remain as a member of the noble profession of law.
She alleges that, as her attorney, Sotto had taken advantage of her financial
difficulties and mental weakness and of the confidence she had reposed in him.
Daroy vs legaspi
Sotto vs samson
Laig vs ca
Go beltran vs
fernandez
Liwag vs neri
CANON 18
Canlas vs ca
CANON 20
complaint, charging respondent with having purchased a property of his client

involved in a pending litigation in which he appeared as counsel, and prayed that
appropriate disciplinary action be taken against him.
the respondent has committed a breach of professional ethics when, contrary to
the fact, he made the complainant believe that the Pineda spouses had already
been sued in court and did not return the amount of P30.00 intended for the filing
fee.
It is true that lawyers are entitled to make a living, in spite of the fact that the
practice of law is not a commercial enterprise; but that does not furnish an excuse
for plain lust for material wealth, more so at the expense of another. Law
advocacy, we reiterate, is not capital that yields profits. The returns it births are
simple rewards for a job done or service rendered. It is a calling that, unlike
mercantile pursuits which enjoy a greater deal of freedom from government
interference, is impressed with a public interest, for which it is subject to State
regulation.[
We do not find the petitioner's claim of attorney's fees in the sum of P100,000.00
reasonable. We do not believe that it satisfies the standards set forth by the Rules.
LAWYERS DUTIES TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

Rivera vs angeles
CANON 1
Respondents act of deceit and malpractice indubitably demonstrated his failure to

live up to his sworn duties as a lawyer. The Supreme Court repeatedly stressed the
importance of integrity and good moral character as part of a lawyers equipment
in the practice of his profession.[4] For it cannot be denied that the respect of
litigants for the profession is inexorably diminished whenever a member of the Bar
betrays their trust and confidence.[5]
The Court is not oblivious of the right of a lawyer to be paid for the legal services
he has extended to his client but such right should not be exercised whimsically by
appropriating to himself the money intended for his clients. There should never be
an instance where the victor in litigation loses everything he won to the fees of his
own lawyer.
Rivera vs angeles

own lawyer.
Ducat jr vs villalon
The ethics of the legal profession rightly enjoin lawyers to act with the highest
standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility in the course of his practice of law.
A lawyer may be disciplined or suspended for any misconduct, whether in his
professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral
character, in honesty, in probity and good demeanor, thus rendering unworthy to
continue as an officer of the court.[9] Canon 7 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility mandates that a lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and
dignity of the legal profession. The trust and confidence necessarily reposed by
clients require in the lawyer a high standard and appreciation of his duty to them.
To this end, nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which
might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity,
honesty, and integrity of the profession.[10]
It has been established that the subject parcel of land, with an area of five (5)
hectares located in Barrio Pinugay, Antipolo, Rizal, is owned by and registered in
the name of complainant herein, Jose Ducat, Jr. Respondent Villalon insists
nonetheless that the property was orally given to him by complainants father,
Jose Ducat, Sr., allegedly with the complete knowledge of the fact that the subject
property belonged to his son, Jose Ducat, Jr. It is basic law, however, that
conveyance or transfer of any titled real property must be in writing, signed by the
registered owner or at least by his attorney-in-fact by virtue of a proper special
power of attorney and duly notarized. Respondent Villalon, as a lawyer, is
presumed to know, or ought to know, this process. Worse, when the transfer was
first reduced in writing in October, 1991 per Deed of Sale of Parcel of Land,[11]
purportedly in favor of Atty. Arsenio C. Villalon and/or Andres Canares, Jr.,
respondent Villalon knew that it was Jose Ducat, Sr. who signed the said document
of sale without any Special Power of Attorney from the registered owner thereof,
Jose Ducat, Jr.; and that Jose Ducat, Sr. also signed it for his wife, Maria Cabrido,
under the word Conforme. As regards the subsequent Deed of Absolute Sale of
Real Property dated December 5, 1991, covering the same property, this time
purportedly in favor of Andres Canares, Jr. only, respondent Villalon admitted that
there was in fact no payment of P450,000.00 and that the said amount was placed
in that document only to make it appear that the conveyance was for a
consideration.
All these taken together, coupled with complainant Jose Ducat, Jr.s strong and
credible denial that he allegedly sold the subject property to respondent Villalon
and/or Andres Canares, Jr. and that he allegedly appeared before respondent
notary public Ducusin, convince us that respondent Villalons acts herein
complained of which constitute gross misconduct were duly proven.
CANON 7
Narido vs linsangan
Laput vs remotigue
Tan tek beng vs

david
Camacho vs
pangulayan
CANON 9
Public confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by the irresponsible and
improper conduct of a member of the Bar. Thus, every lawyer should act and
comport himself in such a manner that would promote public confidence in the
integrity of the legal profession. Members of the Bar are expected to always live
up to the standards of the legal profession as embodied in the Code of
Professional Responsibility inasmuch as the relationship between an attorney and
his client is highly fiduciary in nature and demands utmost fidelity and good faith.[
The spectacle presented by two members of the bar engaged in bickering and
recrimination is far from edifying, although it is understandable, if not justifiable,
that at time zeal in the defense of one's client may be carried to the point of
undue skepticism and doubt as to the motives of opposing counsel. Some such
reflection is induced by these two administrative cases wherein respondents Jaime
S. Linsangan and Rufino B. Risma, who represented adverse parties in a workmen's
compensation case, did mutually hurl accusation at each other.
respondent Atty. Remotigue guilty of unprofessional conduct inasmuch as he
entered his appearance, dated February 5, 1955, only on February 7, same year,
after Mrs. Barrera had dispensed with petitioner's professional services on January
11, 1955, and after petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn his appearanceon
February 5, 1955.
The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against lawyer
Timoteo A. David (admitted to the bar in 1945) for not giving Tan Tek Beng, a
nonlawyer (alleged missionary of the Seventh Day Adventists), one-half of the
attorney's fees received by David from the clients supplied by Tan Tek Beng.
The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any
lay agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between client and lawyer. A
lawyer's responsibilities and qualifications are individual. He should avoid all
relations which direct the performance of his duties by or in the interest of such
intermediary.
Although aware that the students were represented by counsel, respondent
attorney proceeded, nonetheless, to negotiate with them and their parents
without at the very least communicating the matter to their lawyer, herein
complainant, who was counsel of record in Civil Case No. Q-97-30549. This failure
of respondent, whether by design or because of oversight, is an inexcusable
violation of the canons of professional ethics and in utter disregard of a duty
owing to a colleague. Respondent fell short of the demands required of him as a
lawyer and as a member of the Bar.
Respondent lawyers stand indicted for a violation of the Code of Professional
Ethics, specifically Canon 9 thereof, viz:
"A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy
with a party represented by counsel, much less should he undertake to negotiate
or compromise the matter with him, but should only deal with his counsel. It is
incumbent upon the lawyer most particularly to avoid everything that may tend to
mislead a party not represented by counsel and he should not undertake to advise
him as to law."
Atty. Manuel N. Camacho filed a complaint against the lawyers comprising the
Pangulayan and Associates Law Offices, namely, Attorneys Luis Meinrado C.
Pangulayan, Regina D. Balmores, Catherine V. Laurel, and Herbert Joaquin P.
Bustos. Complainant, the hired counsel of some expelled students from the AMA
Computer College ("AMACC"), in an action for the Issuance of a Writ of
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and for Damages, docketed Civil Case No.
Q-97-30549 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, of Quezon City, charged that
respondents, then counsel for the defendants, procured and effected on separate
occasions, without his knowledge, compromise agreements ("Re-Admission
Agreements") with four of his clients in the aforementioned civil case which, in
effect, required them to waive all kinds of claims they might have had against
AMACC, the principal defendant, and to terminate all civil, criminal and
administrative proceedings filed against it. Complainant averred that such an act
Rivera vs angeles 3
CANON 16
Laput vs remotigue
CANON 18
Tan tek beng vs

david
CANON 20
of respondents was unbecoming of any member of the legal profession warranting

either disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.
own lawyer.
respondent Atty. Remotigue guilty of unprofessional conduct inasmuch as he
entered his appearance, dated February 5, 1955, only on February 7, same year,
after Mrs. Barrera had dispensed with petitioner's professional services on January
11, 1955, and after petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn his appearanceon
February 5, 1955.
The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against lawyer
Timoteo A. David (admitted to the bar in 1945) for not giving Tan Tek Beng, a
nonlawyer (alleged missionary of the Seventh Day Adventists), one-half of the
attorney's fees received by David from the clients supplied by Tan Tek Beng.
The professional services of a lawyer should not be controlled or exploited by any
lay agency, personal or corporate, which intervenes between client and lawyer. A
lawyer's responsibilities and qualifications are individual. He should avoid all
relations which direct the performance of his duties by or in the interest of such
intermediary.

All Cases and Doctrines

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

All Cases and Doctrines

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

INTRODUCTION AND ADMISSION TO PRACTICE

Ui vs. Iris Bonifacio 1.01

LAWYERS DUTIES TO SOCIETY

LAWYERS DUTIES TO THE COURT

Chan Kian vs Angsin

NATURE AND CREATION OF ATTY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

13. Gonzales vs Chavez

LAWYERS DUTIES IN HANDLING CLIENTS CASES

1.Topacion Nueno vs Santos 1

LAWYERS FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION

LAWYERS DUTIES TO THE LEGAL PROFESSION

INTRODUCTION & ADMISSION TO OFFICE

3. Cui vs. Cui

Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with

7. Alawi vs. Alauya

*Ito na pinaka malapit:

9. PLA vs. Agrava

10. Ui vs. Iris

11. Deles vs.

12. Blanza vs.

13. Zoreta vs.

14. A-1 Financial

15. 2003 Bar

16. In Re: Petition

17. In Re: David

18. PLA vs. Agrava

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or

Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the

His conduct must, perforce, be par excellence, especially so

While a reading of Canon 9 appears to merely prohibit

19. Cayetano vs.

20. De Leon vs. CA

Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the

21. Soriano vs.

22. Metrobank vs.

23. Reyes vs. Gaa

Sec 27 of Rule 138 of Rules of Court,

24. Ting Dumali vs.

Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the

the Court, which requires the application of law, legal

Practice of law means any activity, in or out of Court which

A charging lien, to be enforceable as security for the

Where the misconduct of a lawyer as a government official is

promote respect for law and for legal

When the respondent took the oath as a member of the legal

Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or

25. People vs.

Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the

Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude relates to

superior court, or for corruptly or wilfully

26. In Re: Elmo S.

Sec. 28. Suspension of attorney by the

27. Aguirre vs.

Section 19. Attorney's roll. The clerk of

The two essential requisites for becoming a lawyer still had

It is upon signing the roll of Attorney that one becomes a

Canon 1 - A lawyer shall uphold the

5. Omico Mining &

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in

power to regulate the practice of law. It is based on sound

5. In Re: Edillion Canon 7

6. Tejan vs Cusi, Jr.

10. Ramos vs Rada