Você está na página 1de 13
196 ROBINSON V. VILLAFUERTE 223+ 434 “Lacalle Epal” * Dering trial, a mere law clerk of the plaintiff’s counsel, L, intervened and addressed questions to witnesses as well as presented documents. + The plaintiffs won, and defendant appealed the decision * The SC stated that the questions and documents should be stricken out for being evoked by a non-party and a non-lawyer, therefore not authorized by law. + However, the answers to the clerk’s questions were not stricken out, and the documents also remained because they were not objected to + The SC concluded that the intervention of L in no way prejudiced the rights and interests of the defendant, even though he lost, for the decision was based on evidence. ‘Allowing an unauthorized person to intervene in trial None C10- R10.03, CASE #434 ROBINSON v. VILLAFUERTE “Clerks have No Authority” +R filed a suit against M for collection of sum of money amounting to P3,852.50 payable in 4 monthly installments. The payment of the loan is secured with a special real mortgage set out in two notarial documents. + MIs questioning why JL, who Is a law clerk permitted to direct examine some of the witnesses when in fact, A, who is designated as R’s substitute counsel was present in court. * Court holds that there are no legal provisions authorizing a private person to Intervene at the hearing of a suit, even though he be a clerk for the attorneys of one of the litigants, if he does not Possess the qualifications of a practicing attorney, and is not one of the parties interested in the litigation. PENALTY None. 3,6 B,D C-1,7,15 AMALGAMATED LABORERS’ ASSOCIATION V. CIR 228-19 “Share Your Blessings -- NOT” * A and 47 others, together with their union, ALA, filed a complaint against their former employer * As the case was pending, one of the lawyers filed a claim for the fees because of an alleged oral contract which stated that he, together with another lawyer and the union president, were to divide the attorney's fees among themselves * The SC then nullified the oral contract which gave the union president a share in the attorney’s fees. Canon 4 of the then Legal thics that no division of legal fees is proper, except with another lawyer based upon a division of service and / or responsibility. + The case was remanded to determine the two lawyers’ sharing of the fees. CASE# 19 AMALGATED WORKERS v. CIR "What about me?!”; "LQ - Lawyers’ Quarrel” + 48 members of the A union filed a labor case for unfair labor practices against B company. + Only £0 of the 48 appeared and testified. 2 of the 10 were regular employees. CIR ordered BS company to reinstate the 10 workers and pey them their back wages. + Atty. F filed a “Notice of Attorney’s Lien leging that he is the lawyer of the laborers and that he is entitled to 25% contingent fee as agreed upon. He later filed an amended notice and claims for 30%, + Atty. C contends that Atty. F is already discharged as one of the lawyers of the laborers. + A contingent fee contract specifying the percentage of recovery an attorney is to receive in a sult should be reasonable under all the circumstances of the case, including the risk and uncertainty of the compensation, but should always be subject to the supervision of a court, as to its reasonableness, * Where the pleadings were filed by an association of 2 lawyers who later break-up during the pendency of the case, their Fees must be shared in amounts to be determined by the trial court. PENALTY [None 5,20,R-20.02,20.02 us IN RE: DAVID gg 207 “Yo No Soy Abogado, Soy Agente, Soy Agente” © A lawyer was originally suspended for 5 years. © However it was found out later that he has. signed a pleading in a particular case, which is a violation of his suspension © The lawyer however claims that he signed as an agent and not as a lawyer and as such did not violate his suspension. © The SC however found that he also collected fees, was representing at a higher court, and did other act that amounted to an unauthorized practice of law. CASE# 207 IN RE: DAVID “Atty. Schizo” + Atty, D continued to practice law despite suspension for 5 years, + His practice was proven by the pleadings him. + He also claimed legal fees for his services. * However, he claimed that he was only acting as an attorney-in-fact and not an attorney-at-law. * The SC held that Atty. D was liable for contempt because he was willfully being disobedient. * In a case in inferior courts, there is no need for a lawyer because even a lay person may handle it, but at the moment the case reaches the Court of First Instance, the parties must then be represented by the members of the ber. * Atty. D is disbarred. led by PENALTY Disbarment ] C8, R8.02, C10, R10.03 DELFON V. Torres 430-116 “Appear Lang Nang Appear” © Atty. T appeared as a lawyer in several cases after being suspended by Judge D for refucal to appear in court. © His only defense is that he was not given sufficient opportunity to defend himself. Atty. T had waived his right to be present and to contest the order of Judge D. © Court orders are to be respected not because of the judges who issue them should be respected, but because of the respect and consideration that should be extended to the judicial branch of the Government. CASE# 116 DE LEON v. TORRES “Atty, di ito law school, di madadala sa med cert.” * Atty. T was suspended from the practice of law by judge D * Despite such order, T appeared as lawyer for several cases, + T alleges that the order is voi without due process of law, * Guilty of Contempt + No denial of due process + Despite orders to appear, T did not, and merely submitted medical certificates + Constituted a waiver of his Constitutional rights + Judge D even attempted to arrest T, but the latter fled to Manila , since it was made PENALTY ‘Suspension C1, Ri.02, CD, C10, R10.01, Cli, R11.04 THs, UN(TED STATES V. NEY, ETAL 232-499 “You Cannot Practice Law, Spaniard” + Bias not allowed by the SC to practice law. # Still, he partnered with N, and even signed official pleadings submitted to the court for which only a lawyer could validly sign. + The SC determined that the act of signing document is an attempt to engage in the practice of law. ‘© This act is disobedience to a lawful order of the court. o AstoN, the SC said that his act amounts to misbehavior of an officer of the court in the performance of his official duties. CASE # 499 US V. NEY & BOSQUE “Bosque, Feeling Boss” + Court decided B was not entitled to admission to practice in law because he elected to remain a Spanish subject. + Lawyer N agreed to carry on business with 8, sending out a circular signed by both, stating the establishment of an office, with B devoting himself to consultation and office work relating to Spanish law. * Court refused to consider petitions so signed with their names and a case for contempt was filed against them. + Code of Civil Procedure describes contempt as (a) disobedlence/resistance to a lawful writ, order, judgment of a court, and (b) misbehavior of an officer of court in the performance of his official duties/transactions. + B's Irregular signature to papers constitutes as an attempt to engage in practice, amounting to disobedience of an order made in a proceeding to which he was a party, the 1st type of contempt +N participated and Is personally responsible for B's misrepresentation as a general practitioner, showing a persistent and rash disregard of the rulings of the court, tantamount to the 2nd type of contempt. PENALTY None 6 24 PEOPLE V. Dr LUNA, ET AL 233°- 379 “Makulatlit na Bar Flunkers” + Defendants flunked the bar, and were thus not allowed to take the lawyer’s oath. * However, they still took the oath and manifested their intention to engage in the practice of law. « The mere act of taking the oath was not punishable in itself, but further acts, (like receiving cases for litigants) are those that are so punishable. + Inasmuch as taking of the oath is a prerequisite to the practice of law and may be taken only by those authorized by the SC to engage in the practice of law, the defendants are found guilty of contempt. Contempt None Bo N/A co _ CASE #379 PEOPLE v. DE LUNA “Lawyers Pa Rin Kamit” + D, etal, took their oaths as lawyers before a notary public and formally advised the Court that they will practice in all courts of the country despite knowing they have not passed the bar exam, were not authorized to take their oath, and were duly informed that certain provisions of the 1953 Bar Flunkers Act are unconstitutional + The oath as lawyer is a prerequisite to the practice of law and may only be taken before the SC by those authorized by the latter to engage in such practice, + The SC resolution denying the petition of D, et al implied, necessarily, 2 denial of the right to take said oath, as well as prohibition of the taking thereof. * By taking oaths before the notary public, they expressed their intent and did, In fact, challenge and defy the authority of the SC to pass upon the issue whether or not they should be admitted to the bar. They also embarrassed, hindered and obstructed the administration of justice and impaired the respect due to the courts. PENALTY. None. C-9,R-9.07,C-10 790 Gupattav, Cacuioa DaE- 176 “Nol a Lawyer, Cannot Sign an Answer * Gwas involved in an accident, wherein private respondent F sustained injuries. A complaint was filed against Gand V. + During the pretrial, Gand V failed to appear. * G files a petition for relief against judgment, alleging that V, who prepared his initial answer, was not a member of the bar, thus he was denied due process on proceedings of the case the initial * Although V was indeed not a member of the bar, no denial of due process took place as bona fide members of the bar subsequently represented G, «The law firm of V ordered to explain within 10 days why V was permitted to sign the answer in the civil case, when he is not a member of the bar. | None None - | I 3 aS R9OL CASE # 176 GUBALLA V, CAGUIOA “Vida, gusto maging bida” led a complaint for damages against G, a public ity operator, for injuries sustained in an accident, * G's Answer was signed by I. of the law firm, E, M and Associates. * Petitioner and counsel failed to appear at pretrial which led to a default judgrnent. * The MR and appeal were handled by other members of the same law firm but they didn't get @ favorable Judgment. * Petitioner then filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment alleging the discovery that his first counsel is not a member of the Bar so he was not adequately protected. * The petition for Relief is 2 mere dilatory maneuver, There was no denial of petitioner's day in court because he was duly represented by bona fide members of the Bar in seeking @ reversal in subsequent stages of the proceedings, * Moreover, petitioner himself was at fault because the cefault order was predicated on his own failure to attend without justifiable reason. PENALTY None ] 2» In RE: INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES 235° 187 “To Integrate or Not to Integrate? To Integrate” * The Commission on Bar Integration earnestly recommended the integration of the Philippine Bar as soon as possible. + The SC said it has the power to integrate the bar pursuant to the Constitution, * SC also said that integration would be constitutional, because the practice of law is not aright but a privilege, * It does not violate the freedam to associate and as to the fees to be paid by all lawyers, the SC said that it is reasonable. * Further, an extensive survey shows that 98% of the lawyer population is for the integration of the bar. CASE # 187 IN RE: INTEGRATION OF THE BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES "Pay in order to play” * House Bill for the Integration of the Phil, Bar was passed, signed by Pres. Marcos, providing for the Sc adoption of rules to effect integration and appropriation of funds for the purpose. + The power to integrate the Phil Bar is an inherent part of the Court's constitutional authority over the Bar The law does not confer a new power but merely declares that the Integration will raise the standards of the profession. + The integration does not violate the lawyer's constitutional freedom to associate; he already became a member by passing the bar exam. Even If it does compel a lawyer to be a member, it is a valid exercise of police power, + The membership fee is an exaction for regulation. Since the Court has the inherent power to regulate the Bar, it may impose a membership fee as an incident to regulation. The public interest promoted by the integration far outweighs the inconsequential inconvenience of required payment. PENALTY None. 253 INRE: 21 “Alty. : ATTY. MARCIAL EDILLON 4 Kuripot, Napapakantot” Atty. E refused to pay his membership dues to the IBP. Some of his arguments include: Violation of Constitutional rights of Liberty and property; Jurisdiction of the Court to strike out a name in the Roll of Attorneys; Violation of freedom to associate, The SC ruled that membership in the Integrated Bar is mandatory for lawyers to be able to practice law in the country. The Law profession is very important in society today since it concerns the administration of justice, Thus, in the exercise of its police powers, the State needs to regulate it and all members of the Integrated Bar need to contribute for this regulation. Dues Delinquency CASE #214 IN RE EDILLON “No pay, no play” E does not want to pay for I8P membership dues, IBP recommended to the SC to remove E from the Roll of Attorneys The SC said that that the practice of law being clothed with public Interest, the holder of th privilege must submit to a degree of control for the common good. It is not against the right to associate. Also, there Is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the requirement of payment of membership fees, E's right to practice law should be and is a matter subject to regulation and inquiry. The practice of jaw is not a property right but a mere privilege. E is disbarred. PENALTY Disbarment 2,6 A,B C1 995 IN RE: ABESAMIS 286 - 190 “Paralytic Attomey Disbarred” + Atty. A was convicted of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a document by a public officer * A complaint for disbarment was filed. * Atty. A says he should not be disbarred because the left half of his body is paralyzed © One of the grounds for which a member if the bar may be removed from his office as suet is his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. + Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals. + Atty. A’s condition merits sympathy bat will not prevent his disbarment. Disbarment CASE #190 IN THE MATTER OF EDUARDO A. ABESAMIS. ‘counsel paralisado/estafador” + SolGen filed complaint praying that respondent A be disbarred and he be ordered to surrender the certificate issued to him evidencing his admission to the bar +A was convicted of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document + A disbarred and ordered to surrender the certificate evidencing his admission to the bar * Court ordered that his name be deleted from the r of attorneys + One of the grounds for disbarment is conviction of 2 crime involving moral turpitude * Convictions for swindling (estafa) involve moral turpitude + A's plea for exoneration due to his acute paralysis cannot exempt him from disdarment PENALTY Disbarment 305° IRESURRECCION V. SAYCON D3 33at 41s “Pocketing Client’s Money’ + Atty. S was convicted of estafa for pocketing 2,500. © Intended as payment by R to Atty. S’ client in an amicable setilement. © Money never reached the client. + Complaint for disbarment filed against Atty. 3. + Law is a noble profession, and the privilege to practice it is bestowed only upon individuals who are competent intellectually, academically and morally + Estafa isa crime involving moral turpitude. It is undoubtedly against justice, honesty and good morals 5 _ Disbarment ae R7.03, R16.01,R 16.02 _ - CASE #425 RESURRECION VS, SAYSON “counsel all about the benjamins” + R charged Atty. S with acts constituting malpractice, deceit and gross misconduct in his office and violations of duties and oath as a lawyer * Complaint arose from a homicide through reckless Imprudence case, in which R was the defendant and S was the counsel of the offended party B. + S converted and appropriated for his own personal benefit a sum of money which was delivered by R to S as compensation or settlement money +S was convicted of estafa * Sis disbarred + Estafe a crime involving moral turpitude, conviction of which is a ground for disbarment PENALTY. Disbarment 2,3, AG _ C-1/R-1.04, R-1,03, C-16,R-16.01 305° IN Ri: ViNzON 286 - 250 “Check Please” * Atty. V and his wife has been convicted of estafa. © Took advantage of war veteran widow © Misappropriated P7,000, a portion of a US Depositary Check + Atty. V faces disbarment, + Anattorney may be suspended or disbarred by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. + Moral turpitude includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty or good morals © Undoubtedly, estafa is such a crime. 5 DisbarmentSS™~S R703, R 16.01, R 16.02 CASE #250 IN RE VINZON “counsel mangugulang” * Case of disbarment against V pursuant to his conviction of the crime of estafa * F.B. was applying for benefits as the widow of veteran M.B. + F.B. was assisted by V and was asked to thumbmark several papers in connection with the application * Vand his spouse were found guilty of the crime of estafa for failing to deliver and for misappropriating a sum of money w/c represented a portion of the total amount of a US Depositary check belonging to FB. * Vis disbarred * Estafa is a crime involving moral turpitude, conviction of which is a ground for disbarment. PENALTY Disbarment 305 MebiNa v. Bautista (286-- 316 “Cinight in the Middle” 4 Atty. B was convicted of estafa. He pretended to arrange a settlement. o Received sums totaling P500 from M and P8,000 from his client © Prepared simulated deeds of repurchase His client ended up losing land she already won © Msoughtto have Atty. B disbarred. © A lawyer should be unscrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to him in his professional capacity. © Ahigh degree of fidelity and good faith on his part is expected Disbarment CASE #316 MEDINA VS. BAUTISTA “counsel compromised the compromise” M charged Atty. B with commission of certain acts constituting malpractice and conduct unbecoming of the member of the bar C filed a complaint for reconveyance of a parcel of land against M with B as C’s lawyer Msought a compromise of the case B prepared fictitious deeds of sale pretending to arrange an amicable settlement, asking C to sign a document wherein it was made to appear that she received money when she did not receive any B received money on different occasions from M B received money from his client C with the understanding that the amount was to be deposited in court to repurchase the property but instead he misappropriated it M was convicted of estafa B is disbarred, name stricken off from the roll of attorneys A lawyer should be scrupulously careful in handling money entrusted to him in his professional capacity Crime of estafa involves moral turpitude which is a ground for disbarment Disbarment PENALTY R-1.03, C-16,R- BBS

Você também pode gostar